View Single Post
  #9  
Old July 18th, 2008, 07:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss,lipid changes at two years

"Hannah Gruen" wrote:

Dr. Eades has made some intresting preliminary comments on this study.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-diet-trumps-l...


Thanks for the pointers to Eades and McDougall.

Apparently there are a lot of questions, and the low-carb diet is certainly
not standard LC, because LC participants were asked to raise carb intake to
120 g/day after the initial "induction" period.


The level of 120 grams per day is above my maintenance limit. If I
eat that much carb my appetite starts going up and my weight starts
drfting up. It makes me wonder why they'd put folks on 2 months at
20, then put them at a level that will be over their maintenance limit
for some. It doesn't make sense. Why not have them actually try,
you know, either the real Atkins plan or the real Eades plan?

Meanwhile, the very-low-fat vegan starch-based diet proponent Dr. McDougall
has come out strongly against the study's conclusions:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/advertising_confuses_public.htm

His primary complaints seem to be that (1) the "low-fat" diet was not really
low-fat, with 30% of calories from fat (his plan runs around 7-10% fat), and


If they aren't doing a real low carb plan why should anyone expect
they do a real low fat plan. Sigh.

(2) the Atkins Foundation funded the study.


This is both valid and invalid at the same time. It's valid because
the Atkins Foundation can't be expected to fund a project that
looks in advance like low carb is going to lose - Which makes it
even more bizzare that they picked a level hign enough to exceed
the mainteance limit of some. It's invalid because studies get
duplicated when they are in doubt.

So nobody is happy with this one. I will go with my anectdotal, personal
findings. On McDougall's program I lost quite a bit of weight. But I looked
horrible, with really wrinkled skin, a very aged appearance. I had a lot of
arthritic pain. And worst, I was hungry much of the time, no matter how much
fat-free brown rice and beans I ate. I craved sugar. My hair became thin. My
waistline underwent relative expansion, so I think my pre-existing insulin
resistance worsened.


I tried low fat for 20 years, gained 50 pounds, was constantly
hungry. I am well aware that low fat works for some percentage
of the population, I'm just not in that percentage.

LC allowed/allows me much easier weight loss,


I think this is the single largest advantage low carb has - For
so many people it turns off the cravings, turns down the
appetite. It no longer triggers hunger to gradually reduce
portion sizes.

although slower, and my skin
tone and body shape improved very noticeably. Like taking off 5-10 years!


The gray in my hair saw about 5 years worth of set back
in its advance.

The waist/hip ration improved quickly.


I wish I'd seen that bit.

I actually found (and still find)
myself eating more vegetables on LC than McDougall.


Yeah. Eating veggies is the low carb way. Strange how that
worked out. Strange enough that people who have never tried
low carb don't think it's a feature of the system.