LC Research

"Hollywood" writes:

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.

That may be true 'at some point,' as you say, but it becomes more
important in the late near-goal stages of weight loss, which these
people may never reach in the limited time of this test. The general
attitude on calories that I get from Atkins and Eades is: *if* you're
following the plan correctly, and *if* you've already eliminated foods
that seem to stall some people like artificial sweeteners, and *if*
you're eating until you're full, and you're still stuck, *then* you
should start restricting your calories by a small amount and see if it
helps. Calorie restriction is never the first step.

I think if you wrote the Eadeses and told them you had to restrict
your calories by 50% of maintenance to get the plan to work, they'd
tell you you simply couldn't have been doing it correctly, or had some
serious medical problems with your metabolism that should be looked
at.

This study seems designed to produce exactly the kind of post-diet
recidivism that the experts like to claim is unavoidable.

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.

I'm not familiar with that one, but I don't see the point. Sure,
starvation at a 50% level will force me to lose weight, however
unhealthy the process may be; but if I were going to do that, why
bother with low-carb too?



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

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