ExRx.net

This is as main-stream as you can get in medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine. This is the abstract of an article about maintenance of weight loss using various proportions of macronutrients.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1007137

I see no mention of body fat levels or measurements of glycogen repletion.

The weight difference is most likely attributed to glycogen/water gains compared to the other groups who's glycogen wouldn't have been replenished.

I think there's a lot left out here and to claim low carb is better for fat loss/maintenance based off this is just silly.

Also, high protein is typically easier to adhere to no matter the fat or carb content - because it's more satiating and digests slower.

At least, that's how I read all that - unless I missed something.

You're over thinking this. It's not a physiological study. This was just a comparison of groups who had lost weight. THose who limited carbs maintained the loss better than those who limited protein or fat. That's all it says.

It looks pretty solid to me.

Water and glycogen weight difference is minimal. It amounts to about 3 pounds for me, when switching between maintenance and higher carb.

There was already more than enough evidence for low carb long before this.

Actually fat tends to be the most satisfying and slow to digest. Protein varies quite a bit from one type to another.

Considering the liver stores about a pound of glycogen/water when repleted, I find it hard to believe you only gain 3lbs of glycogen/water weight after coming off low carb.

but the point is that the weight difference can easily be explained by glycogen/water repletion. 1.67kg = 3.674lbs - that's even within your believed range for glycogen repletion.


Secondly, protein is the most satiating of macronutrients in the stuff I've read:

"Weigle et al's results clearly showed that protein is more satiating than is fat"

http://www.ajcn.org/content/82/1/1.full

and as for me over-analyzing this - I think that's the point. This doesn't really have any relevant, useful information other than it seems like it's another attempt to support that 'low carb' is 'da best'.

When popular meadia runs stories like this: http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/mind ... 03.article articles like the one Doc posted is a ray of sunshine. Note that all it said was increasing protein and decreasing glycemic load is good in maintaining weight loss. I don't know why you think there's a low-carb conspiracy. Low-carb is a valuable tool for those of us that can't tolerate carbs the way you can. It's just a tool. You don't through out your screwdrivers every time you need a hammer.

I never said low-carb wasn't good, just saying this study doesn't state anything worthwhile :\

And this forum is PRO low-carb, so yes there's always a bias towards it on here.

Hell, I'm even pro-low carb for dieting - it's the point that we can't let our bias make everything we read 'prove' us right.

I also think people fail to realize that building significant amounts of muscle + doing high intensity activities requires carbs for optimal performance.

Well you should find it hard to believe, because that's not even what I said. I said 3 pounds between *MAINTENANCE* and higher carb. There is another 3 pounds between low carb and maintenance. Maintenance is sort of low carb, like 100 a day or so. But actual cutting type low carb is like anywhere from 20 to 50.

But still, that not that much of a difference considering the extreme difference in the diets. Your argument is really only valid in regards to bulking. However as we don't disagree on bulking there's little point in talking about it.

Try some whey and then try some casein, and just try and tell me those proteins are even remotely alike.

Try eating an equal amount of calories in lean chicken and fatty beef and just see which one is more filling.



That's because it works. There is actual evidence supporting it unlike other hypothesis that are based on junk science.




No, we don't. I have always said you need carbs for bulking.

I think it's you that fails to realize what constitutes a good diet, has everything to do with your goals at the time.

I've always known that goals are the way you decide your diet.

I also don't disagree that fatty beef is more filling than chicken, but it's because it's a higher calorie content + a combination of protein and fat.

If you wanted to do an actual comparison of the satiety of the two you'd have to do something like eat a serving of olive oil and a serving of chicken and see which one fills you up more (similar calories).

Although, I'm sure we'd agree that fibrous veggies + fattier meat is probably the most filling of any meal of equal calories.

This might just be another situation where I'm misunderstanding what's being said, I tend to kind of skim through a lot of things as I've been fairly busy lately - so my apologies if I misinterpreted the point.

Gee whiz. I set up a special thread for you two to argue on--why do you insist on doing it elsewhere? Now nobody wants to comment on the article, because this thread is just an argument between the two of you.

No, if you go back and look, you'll see I said "an equal amount of calories".



If you add olive oil then you give them both the same fat content. You have to add more chicken to get the calories equal. I'm telling you though fat is more filling. It's A LOT easier to cut calories on a very low carb high fat diet. You get better results too because you don't have your hormones working against you.


I agree with the last bit. Cook up a fatty corn beef in the crock pot with cabbage. Then serve the cabbage with a whole lot of butter smashed up in it. You can get filled up pretty quick on that.

There was a news item on a Dutch news website about this article. That's about as mainstream as it's going to get. It's really broken English, but here's the translated item. It basically sums up the results of the article and it gives a thumbs up to high protein and low GI diets.

Also, the headline in the translated item says: 'Current food regulations are better', while in Dutch it said: 'Current food regulations could be better'. Silly Google.