Only calories matter?

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower
than what I ate before!).

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower
than what I ate before!).

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).



Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).



Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).



Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

ospam (Susan ) wrote in
:

Starvation mode, IIRC the Medline research correctly, kicks in at
about 800 calories per day.

Susan, do you have a cite for that? I'm curious about whether it changes
for differing BMI.

Chakolate

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

ospam (Susan ) wrote in
:

Starvation mode, IIRC the Medline research correctly, kicks in at
about 800 calories per day.

Susan, do you have a cite for that? I'm curious about whether it changes
for differing BMI.

Chakolate

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:20:15 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
wrote:

You think you're starving with 1500 calories?


Somewhere in Bizzaro Sudan this conversation is going on.

Kofi: Rafi, you look great while everyone else is withered and
dying. How do you do it?

Rafi: The trick is I eat too little. Then I go into starvation mode
and stop losing weight.

Kofi: So you think I eat too much?

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:20:15 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
wrote:

You think you're starving with 1500 calories?


Somewhere in Bizzaro Sudan this conversation is going on.

Kofi: Rafi, you look great while everyone else is withered and
dying. How do you do it?

Rafi: The trick is I eat too little. Then I go into starvation mode
and stop losing weight.

Kofi: So you think I eat too much?

On 13 Aug 2004 03:29:28 GMT, Chakolate wrote:

I think
I ran into a problem with starvation mode at about 1500 calories.

Not a chance.