When did the topic become specifically about Atkins?? The thread began with your assertion that one can lose more weight on a low-carb diet (you did not specify which one - see post 172)than on a high-carb diet even if the low-carb diet is higher in calories. You then posted two studies as "proof", but only one of the test diets is specifically identified as the "Atkins Diet"; the other is only called a "low-carbohydrate diet". In a subsequent post (#227), you presented two additional studies, but neither of the test diets is specified as the Atkins Diet; the Schneider's Children's Hospital diet is referred to as either a "controlled carbohydrate program" or a "high-protein, high-fat carbohydrate-restricted diet", and the other diet is most certainly not the Atkins Diet, but a 35% fat, "Mediterranean-style diet".
As to which low-carb diet I was referring to: very-low-carb diets in general. I don't get too caught up in the minutiae, as don't most scientifically-literate people.
MsArdee, apparently, "minutiae" such as WHAT constitutes a low carb diet may not be important to you, but you and I both know that it is important to real scientists who are sincerely seeking the truth. Obviously, that is a KEY issue if one is going to study low carb diets, lest they end up with egg on thier faces as you have here.
Low carb does not mean whatever subjective measurement you decide to slap on it. The fact is that Atkins has never claimed that one can lose weight on 37 grams of carbs, nor does he recommend a 1000 a day calorie diet [which does nothing but bring metabolism to a screeching halt after the initial weight loss and is probably mostly muscle loss anyway]. The strictest phase of his diet is 1900-2000 calories a day. You posted that study *TO ME* knowing that I was talking about Atkins. The problem is that your study is nothing CLOSE to Atkins and is not relevent to the discussion.