"Matti Narkia" wrote

I think that the idea was that higher protein adn fat consumption and
lower carb consumption of LC diet suppresses appetite so that LC group
kind of automatically and voluntarily reduces its calories. It seems to
have also worked that way.

Matti I am going to defer to you on this one, more or less. From reading
your posts over the years, it's clear you know a lot more about this stuff
than do I.

However, from a non-biological scientist POV, it makes absolutely no logical
sense to me to set up a study in which calories are controlled in only 2 of
3 groups. Yes, as it turned out the group that was not controlled for
calories ended up eating the same amount as the other groups. But what if it
hadn't? Why take that chance? I don't get it.

Table 2. Changes in Dietary Intake, Energy Expenditure, and Urinary
Ketones during 2 Years of Intervention
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229/T2

you'll see that calorie reductions in LC and LF groups were almost
identical. In the Mediterranean group the reductions were a little
smaller, but still not statistically significantly different from
LC and LF groups.

Again, since I assume that appetite reduction was not one of the parameters
being studied here, why not just control all groups?

I have to disagree with you. Although not completely without flaws,
this is, however, a large, long term (2 years), well-designed and
well-published (NEJM) study, which compared well-designed and
well-known diets. Additionally, if it wasn't well-designed, it
probably wouldn't have been published in NEJM, the number one
medical journal in the world.

Well, if you say so. I have, however, noted quite a bit of carping on
various blogs of people who really are (unlike me) experts at this stuff.
I'm not going to argue that the results are not interesting or valid,
however.


Here's an interesting excerpt from

Low-fat Diets May Not Be Best For Weight Loss, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716171134.htm :

I think appeals from authority are a bit weak. And yet, I did just that
(above). I know some of the criticism has revolved around the fact that none
of the 3 diets tested were done in a way that satisfied all proponents of
such diets. LC had too many carbs. LF wasn't low enough. Etc. Overall it
seems to have been a reasonable effort, but had caloric intake differed
substantially from group to group, that would have been a different story,
wouldn't it have? Why take that chance?

HG