The most controversial result of the study is its challenge to the
virtually univeral belief that a calorie is a calorie is a
calorie.....and so on. I recall having read a book about thirty years
ago entitled "Calories Don't Count" wherein the author claimed to have
conducted small-scale studies in which subjects on controlled-calorie
diets lost weight when their diets where primarily comprised of fat
and virtually carb free. The assumption that all calories are treated
the same by the human body seems to be contradicted by research on the
effects of insulin. It is known that fat does not cause a significant
increase in serum glucose, and without a corresponding increase in
insulin. Carbs increase serum glucose, resulting in increased insulin
to facilitate glucose's entry into muscle and fat cells which could
result in stored body fat. Obviously, this is a serious
oversimplification of a complex phenomenon, but isn't the notion that
a calorie is a calorie, etc. an equal oversimplification?

Ron


Jake wrote in message ...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:36:46 -0500, rosie read and post wrote:

the HARVARD study points out that low carb weight loss is apparently
NOT due to lowered calorie intake.

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie

happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
................................m.l. runbeck

"Trent Duke" wrote in message
...
I was hoping someone was gonna post this article and say such study
backs
the Atkins Diet. In some aspects it does, but in some ways it doesn't.

First, the study found that each diet WORKED. This is no real big
suprise
considering everyone had their calories reduced and controlled.






Second, doesn't any one else find it funny or rather disingenuous that
a
"low carb diet" is only 5% of total calories and that a "low fat diet"
is a
whopping 30%?

Almost every low fat study done consists of 30% of calories. To be
frank,
30% just isn't low enough IMO. Low is around 10%.

Third, the study didn't give the fiber amount each group was taking.
Fiber
can have a profound impact on weight loss here in each group.

Fourth, how do we know that the calorie reduction wasn't greater in
one
group over the other since people were randomly chosen? This too can
have a
profound impact on the overall study results.

Fifth, were these people not allowed to exercise? Was this controlled
too,
cause the study does not say?

Just my thinking behind the study

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join
now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health


From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:
alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet,sci.med.nutrition
Date: 14 Oct 2003 09:07:44 -0700
Subject: Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

http://www.suntimes.com/output/healt...s-fside14.html


Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet

October 14, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more
than
folks on standard low-fat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps nothing is more controversial in the diet world than the
low-carb diet long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint
that
maybe Atkins was right.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of
Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as
much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard low-fat diet.

Researchers are still arguing over why, and if, the Atkins diet
works.
''A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged,'' said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. ''As scientists, we
need
to be open-minded.''

***********************************


http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more
than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many
experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at
least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard
American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels,
as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not
get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint
that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of
Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as
much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000
calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need
to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one
has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with
diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of
lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's
design,
conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein
and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds, while people who got the same calories
on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was
that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food
lost
20 pounds.

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it
answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots
of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity
organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

------

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.

------

On the Net:

http://www.naaso.or


I think what he means is the calorie reduction of the individual dieter.
According to the study, the Atkins dieters consumed more calories per day
than the low fat dieters, but the question is how many calories each dieter
was taking in *before* the study began.

Jake