On Mar 1, 8:54 am, "Hollywood" wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:26 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:

Jbuch writes:
But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the blame
will go to the low-carb part.

Which seems likely. Cutting calories by 50% certainly has nothing to
do with low-carb eating, and starving the test subjects the whole time
is just going to encourage recidivism and weight gain when they go
into their maintenance (whatever that means to them) period.

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

While I agree that calories are somewhat secondary given the metabolic
advantage, the insulin metabolism, and the hunger quashing effects of
LC diets, even Atkins wrote that at some point, calories matter
(Atkins for Life). The Drs. Eades concur.

By 50% seems like a Kimkins kind of thing. Lot of LC diets out there,
and not everything is Atkins-South Beach-Protein Power(LifePlan). I
wouldn't do Kimkins if it were the only thing that actually worked,
but that's me, I guess.


The whole thing sounds rather dubious to me. Also curious about why
this is 10 weeks of overnight stays. What's up with that? They say
the subjects can go to work or school, so they are obviously not
trying to keep them from eating unaccounted for food. Are they
afraid they will sleep walk and raid the fridge? LOL