[ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories

[Ben Zaiboc]

"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> explained:

> > Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote,
> > BillK <pharos at gmail.com> Quoted:
> >
> > > A 2003 systematic review in the
> > > Journal of the American Medical Association showed that weight loss on
> > > low-carb diets was principally associated with decreased caloric
> > > intake and increased diet duration, but not with reduced carbohydrate
> > > content.
> >
> > Um, What?
> >
> > Low-x is not associated with reduced x?
> >
> > What??

> I think what is being referenced here is that studies showed that the
> weight loss on various diets was 100% calculable based on reduced
> calories.  It didn't matter if the reduced calorie diet was low-carb,
> high-carb, low-fat, or high-fat.  Total calories in and out accounted
> for all of the weight loss.  There was no difference between different
> caloric sources.  Therefore, the conclusion is that low-carb diets only
> work due to reduced caloric intake and increased diet duration, and not
> due to the reduced percentage of carbohydrate in the diet.

Well, it could have been better phrased.

Anyway, "Total calories in and out accounted for all of the weight loss", as opposed to what?  magic?  What possible other mechanism can account for weight loss?  I'd have thought that we could take the first law of thermodynamics for granted here.  The statement seems to be simply confirming it.  IOW, apart from saying that biology conforms to physics, it says nothing.

Unless the claim really is that some diets can break the laws of physics.

If not, then we all agree that calories in - calories out (in all forms) = weight difference.

So the thing that's being disagreed on, is whether there is a *practical* difference between a low-carb diet and a low-fat diet, rather than a difference between calories derived from fat and ones from carbohydrate.  Am I correct?

If so, then we can ignore (as in 'Take for granted' rather than 'Dismiss') the basic physics of dieting, and concentrate on the *effect on behaviour* of the diets.  The main effect that makes a difference seems to be the degree of satiety produced by different foods (I think there are other differences too, but let's keep it simple).

As far as I can see, theoretical, anecdotal and personal observations seem to point to fat being better at producing satiety than carbohydrates.  This would mean that a low-carb diet would be easier to stick to, and more agreeable generally, than a low-fat one.

Everyone is different, though, and satiety is a highly subjective thing.  So my advice would be to try a few different diets, try to avoid bias as best you can, and go with what works for you.

Does that sound reasonable?

Ben Zaiboc