Posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 8:48:44
In reply to Low-Carb vs. Low-Diet » Larry Hoover, posted by Susan J on September 10, 2003, at 12:26:29
> Larry,
>
> >>On diets which are exactly matched for calories, low-carb dieters lose twice the weight that low-fat dieters do. That has recently been proven, but no one can explain it yet. Moreover, low-carb dieters don't complain about hunger.
>
> >>I have absolutely no scientific proof of what I'm going to say, only my own struggles with food for 20 years.Anecdote is still science, if the data is collected with honesty....
> I "think" the reason low-carb dieters lose more is that carbs spike blood sugar and I swear when it drops you become much hungrier.
Glycemic index issues have been raised many times with respect to carbs. However, fats signal satiety, the feeling of having had enough, far more effectively than do carbs.
> And when you have massive hunger, it's really hard not to cheat and eat a little bit more...Did that study account for folks who cheated on their diets, even a little bit?
From what I can gather, from the evidence available to date, is that on equal calories, there is greater weight loss from carb-restricted diets. In other words, there's something else going on that isn't calorie-driven. The belief that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie may be false.
> When I make sure I have a good proportion of healthy fat in my diet, it is so much easier to stick to a diet plan....
Yes, because your body may use fat intake to "measure" food intake. Restrict fat, and you "don't have enough food, yet", all the time.
Gary Taubes discusses the issue quite effectively, here:
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml
> Purely anecdotal of course. But it really *is* interesting how often the definition of a *healthy* diet changes...
As a scientist, I can say that the public message, the one that the political side of science projects, is changing all the time. But that's not because of the science. That's pure politics. We grow so much grain, that we have to do something with it. Grain was never a significant part of the human food chain up until the last couple of thousand years. In the last 50, grain production has increased exponentially. We didn't evolve in an environment that included grains. Why should it be a surprise that they're not what's best for us to eat?
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:257208
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20030903/msgs/259592.html