Free Republic

A daily intake of 37.5 grams of carbohydrate IS a low-carb diet. That is a FACT. One can't be subjective when stating a fact.

The fact is that Atkins has never claimed that one can lose weight on 37 grams of carbs.

Actually, he does and he doesn't at the same time. How is that possible? Read this:

(Note: All comments pertain to the 1999 edition of "Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution").

- Atkins characterizes a study by Alfred Pennington as "exciting" because it demonstrated "success in dieters who restricted carbohydrate" (p. 67). Yet, he dismisses a study by Sidney Werner that did not demonstrate a low-carbohydrate metabolic advantage because the diet contained 52 grams of carbohydrate - "far too much for demonstrating ketosis and lipolysis" (p. 70). Problem is, the Pennington diet also contained 52 grams of carbohydrate. In fact, the two diets were identical. Pennington's study was rather vague: there was no control group and the amount of weight lost by the subjects was unspecified. Werner took Pennington's diet, added an isocaloric, high-carbohydrate control diet, confined his subjects to a metabolic ward for 35 - 49 days, and demonstrated that there was no difference in the rate of weight loss between the two diets.

You posted that study *TO ME* knowing that I was talking about Atkins.

Sorry, I didn't know mind-reading was a prerequisite for posting to this forum.

The problem is that your study is nothing CLOSE to Atkins and is not relevent to the discussion.

And the study you posted concerning the 35% fat, Mediterranean-style diet is??

...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].

Let's take what you said here and apply it to that Schneider's Children's Hospital study you seem so fond of. The low-carb subjects in this study reportedly consumed an average of 1830 calories per day. The low-fat group consumed an average of only 1100 calories per day. Isn't it possible that the low-fat subjects lost less weight than the low-carb subjects because their metabolism was brought to a "screeching halt" by their low calorie intake, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with diet macronutrient composition?

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.

Yeah, basically.

You can see for yourself that 37 grams a day does not work. You provided the study yourself!

How doesn't it work?? The subjects in the 15% carbohydrate group lost 8.9 kg. (19.5 lbs.).

Were does it say that they were doing a study on the Atkins Diet??

Do you honestly believe that a mere 17.5 grams of additional carbohydrates (the amount found in a 6 oz. glass of grapefruit juice) can cause such metabolic havoc as to completely halt fat burning?? Do you have any scientific proof to support this assertion (I'm asking because you seem big on studies)?

And you questioned my intelligence...

Good detective work, OreganWoman, 150 carbs would not be considered a "low carb" diet by any stretch of the imagination. That is pretty high carb and much higher than any phase of most low carb diets. The studies that I posted were truly low carb diets with a much lower % of calories from carbs.

Actually, the 15% carb diet contains only 37.5 grams of carbohydrates, not 150 grams. You're confusing calories from carbohydrates with grams of carbohydrates.

The math: 1000 calories x 15% = 150 calories from carbs. 150 divided by 4 (1 gram of carb has 4 calories) = 37.5 grams of carbohydrates.

That's pretty low-carb if you ask me.

Well, you guessed wrong because, unlike you, I've read all relevant studies regarding this topic. Apparently, you spend all your time at pro low-carb sites, and it shows.

Here's another study you've probably never read: Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets that were equally low in energy but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in response to the higher-carbohydrate diet. The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.

This study has more power than the others because the subjects were confined to a hospital, and could only eat what was given to them. The trouble with studies that employ free-living subjects is that the researchers can never be certain that the diets were followed as prescribed.

This is simply not true and there are several recent studies that refute this. There is a very different metabolic pathway between fats, protein and carbs. That is why one can eat 2200 calories a day on a low carb diet and lose but can't lose on a 1400 calorie low fat diet. The most recent study on this question was done at the University of Pennsylvania and can be found at Medscape: [I do have others!]

My guess is you don't have this one: Effect of weight loss plans on body composition and diet duration.

Are low carbohydrate high protein (LCHP) diets more effective in promoting loss of weight and body fat and can individuals stay on an Atkins-like diet more easily than on a conventional weight loss diet? A pre-test/post-test randomized group design composed of three cohorts was utilized to test 1) a LCHP ketogenic diet; 2) the Zone diet; and 3) a conventional hypocaloric diabetic exchange diet that supplied < 10%, 40%, and 50% of calories from carbohydrate, respectively. Body composition was measured before and after the intervention treatment period with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Mean weight loss was 5.1 kg for those who completed the 12-week program. There were no significant differences in total weight, fat, or lean body mass loss when compared by diet group. Attrition was substantial for all plans at 43%, 60%, and 36% for LCHP, Zone and conventional diets, respectively.