"George W. Cherry" wrote in message news:iWUPb.102671$5V2.381758@attbi_s53...

snip


Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little
bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans.

TC

Huh??? Maybe you missed this quote

"The reason they lost more weight was because they consumed fewer
calories, despite the fact they had free access to all the food they
wanted."


The reason that they *claim* and *assume* *apparently* caused the
weight loss was the *apparent* restriction of calories. They've
assumed this for generations and in spite of the ease of eating a
low-calorie diet and the availability of a huge variety of low-calorie
foods the population, including low-calorie dieters, are still getting
fat. Of course, with the exception of low-carb dieters.

in the above. The thesis advanced above is that Atkins'
dieters eat fewer calories because the large amount of
protein they ingest suppresses their appetite. So it's not
the fat. "It's the protein, stupid!" : o ) In case you didn't
know, protein and carbohydrates both have 4 calories
per gram, but fat has 9 calories per gram. Protein causes
a stable and more enduring rise in glucose than carbs,
and so protein reduces your hunger more reliably, con-
sistently, and longer than carbs.

George ("It's the protein, stupid!")

Last I heard was that fat was what caused satiation. And carbs that
caused high levels of insulin, which causes hunger. The only thing
complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to
the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never
be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans.

TC