http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

Well, I think THIS is a report on the study I was thinking of.

Edit to add: I apologize for the mix up. I cannot find the abstract of the Harvard study, unfortunately, but admittedly I'm not looking too hard. Too busy today!

To sum up that study:

The high carb group lost 17 lbs average.
The low carb group lost 23 lbs average

The study is not taking FAT loss into account, only actual WEIGHT loss, hence the water loss is not taken into account in the study, neither is loss of lean mass.

But that would mean that they would have had to consume the same amount of calories to explain that difference, which they didn't. If it were just water weight, they would have come out weighing the same.

Tiredangel, the problem with that one was they didn't control activity levels from what I could see. In order for people to take it as a difference in how far a calorie goes, it would have to be identical.

Well, don't leave out the higher calorie group that lost 20lbs average -- more calories on low carb losing more weight. And yes, I agree that further studies need to be done. But the results definitely mirror the results of my own diet.

Thank you.

Anecdotally -- I DID get fat eating oatmeal, fruits and wholegrains because eating those high-carb "healthy" foods made me always hungry, so I then would either eat MORE of those foods, or also eat chips, fries, cookies, cake....probably upwards of 4000+ calories per day.

Anecdotally, I measure and track EVERYTHING I eat, I have done this on a somewhat regular basis over the past 4 years, and water-weight aside, if I have a caloric deficit of around 3500 calories I lose around 1lb of weight on the scale -- it is pretty predictable within a standard range of error for miscalculations of things like BMR, calories burned during exercise, the scale I weigh on, my inaccuracy when measuring out or eyeballing food, etc.

I think when a lot of us remember getting fat off of high-carb/low-fat diets, we severely underestimated the calories we were consuming.

The burden of proof, IMO, is on those who say that they can eat consistently excessive calories over a period of time (excess of what they burn off over that same period of time) and LOSE weight. I have not seen any of the low-carb doctors whom I have read nor any scientific research make this claim, even those who discuss metabolic advantages to eating low-carb/high-fat don't make this claim from what I have read, because it goes against the, I thought, generally accepted law of thermodynamics.

Just as a quick thought, eating low-carb and higer fat/protein diets you retain more of your lean muscle mass. Having more lean muscle mass means you burn more calories at rest. This could account for the difference, the only way to be sure would be that tests would have had to be done to get the participant's REAL BMR's over the entire weight loss period and know how much they were burning at rest, as well as lean muscle mass measurements I suppose.

Ok, this is getting silly. Calories really do NOT affect people the same way -- we used to call it high vs average vs low metabolism. My naturally thin husband would sometimes consume, deliberately, upwards of 6000 calories a day to try and put weight on. If it were a matter of calories in/calories out (and if there were justice in this universe) he'd have been incredibly obese with his input. I see it with my kids as well -- one is underweight and eats an appalling amount of food, one is overweight and is very active (school sports and martial arts) and very careful about what she eats, one is average weight and build and eats like crap, and the last is very muscular (does not weight train as she's 8) and eats mainly meat with no starches.

You know, I wish it WERE that easy, that it were just calories in/calories out. I would never have had a weight problem.

Anyway, the studies you're asking for at this point would have to be done on identical twins with basically identical lives to get the most concrete of answers. Are either of the studies perfect? No, they're small, and they are not thorough. But what they do have in common is very unexpected results. You better believe if they confirmed the low-fat dogma that is out there, they'd be taken as gospel rather than just left to fade away and not to be repeated by anyone other than the Atkins Foundation.

A low metabolism means you burn less calories (your BMR would be lower) so it is calories in/calories out.

Eating excessive calories and still losing weight, here is one case study.

Aside from the metabolic advantage concept, John Berardi has an interesting article on energy balance, suggesting the 2d thermodynamic law is insufficient to explain observations in food and exercise. It is because the income and the outgo affect each other, in part. (no arrow of causality)

http://www.johnberardi.com/articles...on/new_view.htm

from case study #1 in his article:

I am not asking for it. It's what is being provided as proof that a calorie is a calorie in studies such as Matador provided, closed ward isocaloric studies.

Seejay, I think the issue here is that this is an uncontrolled case study of 2 people observed and reported by the people who have a plan or regime to market. It doesn't, unfortunately, hold up to real scrutiny.

We always complain and bash (validly so) the studies which "prove" negative things about low-carb (biased, no controls, anecdotal reporting, "we aren't mice", etc), but why are we not holding up the studies that support our beliefs to the same same standards?

One of the reasons that it is hard to prove scientifically is because the human body is not a closed system, but, are we really debating the laws of thermodynamics here?

Case studies are data too.

The laws of thermodynamics always get mentioned and you yourself said "generally accepted" - did you mean with human bodies too?

I personally think there are many faith-based concepts rolled up into the metabolic advantage tar baby. One is, that calories lists for food and exercise are helpful to all. Another is, that acknowledging an advantage will enable greed and sloth. Another is, that not acknowledging advantage is buying into flawed conventional wisdom. And on and on.

I think that is what we have to do if we are to be taken seriously. And we should pick our battles. Metabolic advantage, whether it exists or not, is something we should be concerned about after so many other things about low carb have been shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because of some of the bias against low carb is so entrenched, we probably have to do this to a higher standard than anyone would have to do to prove something against low carb/dietary fat/ketogenic diets/etc.,

Plus, knowing that the point you're arguing from is scientifically sound is reassuring to those of us who actually were so entrenched in the anti-fat dogma not all that long ago.

Well, using my husband again to clarify what I meant . . . Granted, he has a very high BMR. HOWEVER, it mattered not whether he ate 2500 calories or 6000 calories. What I mean is, if a person can take in 6k calories and not gain weight, he should lose weight on 2.5k calories, but he didn't. However, if a person can maintain on 2.5k calories, he should gain weight on 6k calories, but again, he didn't. Ticked me off, too >

It matters in my case more what I eat than the amount of calories I eat as well as I stated before. If people choose to think my experience is impossible, hey, so be it. Or if they think I'm too stupid to track the food I eat and I MUST be eating less than I think, hey, whatever. I know what works for me so I'm sticking with it And I hope if the disbelievers ever develop metabolic problems, they try low carb despite the fact that they know better and hopefully will watch the impossible happen to them as well

I hope I haven't offended you, it isn't my point and I actually consider myself pretty much an Atkins success story so my intention isn't to sway anyone off of a low-carb diet. I would never eat any other way other than low-carb/high-fat/moderate-protein because it works for me. I am just trying to establish that there is a difference between anecdotal evidence and controlled scientific studies.

Anecdotally, I might be inclined to say that yes, I too can eat higher calories on a low-carb diet and lose more weight than on a low-fat diet with less calories, however, I don't have what I consider real empirical data on it so it doesn't meet the standards I would hold up other diet plans studies to.