Ignoramus13397 wrote:

I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.

The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting
work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh.

"Find it impossible" is irrelevant. "Contray to intuition" is
irrelevant. Measured observed facts are exactly that, measured,
observed, facts. Are you saying the studies lie in stated
facts? Or are you actually saying your intuition leads you
down the worng road? Check, wrong road.

All this shows is what non-low-carbers wildly dream that
low-carbers eat is a wild dream. And for that matter it shows
that low-fatters eat more than many think.

Low carbing causes appetite suppression in most people. It's the
greatest advantage low carb has going for it. It explains most
of the rest of the numbers. Lower appetite, less drive to eat
more food. Fat tends to reduce appetite and carbs tend to
increase appetite, so low carbers tend to eat less.

It's interesting that by month six, there was little different
between low fat and low carb. Some will have reached goal and
once at goal it no longer matters how you got there you will
stay the same weight. I wonder how much difference that made.
I do know that the metabolic advantage of ketosis gets less and
less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened
on low fat.