The scientific community is drinking their own cool aid for so many years, it will be very hard for them to come out right and say, "we were wrong"... If such studies continue and the grass root movement towards lo-carb diets continue, I can see the scientific community taking a position that "lo-carb diets are bad for you, but probably better then being obese"..
This is still a far cry from admitting that this WOE is healthier then the low fat regiments we were sold over the past 30 years... It may take another 30 year to flip the food pyramid on its head...

Say, Arie, could you maybe put a hard return in between your Before/After pic and your Atkins Scale, so that the scale is under the pic? As it is, it makes the thread kind of hard to read on an 800x600 laptop screen.

Just because many of us are wider than we want to be doesn't mean our threads have to be! :)

By coincidence, I saw Barbara Rolls on ABC News last night. She was identified as a nutritional researcher, or soemthing along those lines. IT turns out she was advocating a dietary theory having to do with "caloric density." Basically, I think she was saying that people won't get fat if they exclude foods that pack a lot of calories into a small packages in favor of bulky foods that are lower in calories. Not sure if I have that entirely correct; hard to get much detail from a 60 second news report.

Barbara Rolls, caloric density
 

Which basically means if you eat a lot of food that is either 99% water, or 99% indigestible wood fibers you'll lose weight.

So the ideal food is something like cotton, or sawdust.

Phooey.

Personally, I don't think pure 'bulk' is enough to stave off hunger. Hunger is your body's way of reacting to low fuel levels.

Pack your intestines with mulch all day long if you want. You'll still be hungry.

What gets me is that they state that the LC dieters lost "just as much". They taught me back in elementry school that 23 and 20 pounds are more than 17 pounds.

This was just a tiny pilot study - not large enough for the differences in weight loss to be treated as statistically significant. We'll have to wait for the larger study that is now likely to follow.

A new study supporting LC WOE!
 

A friend sent me this story this morning about a new study out of Harvard supporting LC eating and weight-loss.

Of course, we knew this already! :yay:

Say, does anyone know if they controlled for the water loss resulting from depletion of stored carbohydrates? I've looked at most of the article references again and I don't see any mention of controlling for fluid loss.