I recognize that this can be a hot topic in LC circles, but I'm really not trying to start a flame war. I'm just presenting my current thinking on the matter.



I've read that, and a few other things. Since 1999, I've read almost every bit of low-carb information I could get my hands on. While there is much scientific proof that a disordered insulin system wreaks havoc on the body, there is--as far as I am aware--not a single piece of weight-loss research proving that insulin resistance causes people to gain weight even when they are taking in fewer calories than their maintenance level. (There is evidence that IR causes fat loss to go more slowly than it does for non-IR individuals, though.) There is also no scientific basis AFAIK for the assertion that dietary fat is ever "flushed" from the body at any point in the metabolic process, barring some kind of severe endocrine disorder.

The following is from Atkins' own site, regarding a 1960 study which was one of the bases of the original DADR:

"Controlling carbohydrate consumption restricts caloric intake. At lower levels of carbohydrate consumption, appetite and cravings are reduced. On the low-carbohydrate diet, subjects in this study ate until they were full. Ultimately, they still took in fewer calories, which resulted in weight loss. As Yudkin pointed out, "as much as you like" means as much as a person wants to take, and not vast and unlimited amounts."

and again, from the Atkins site, in a 2003 review of the literature on keto diets:

"Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content."

Or IOW, the researchers believed that LC'ing made it easier to eat less calories, and to do it for longer.



A ketosis-based metabolism only "wastes" about 100 calories per day maximum, compared to normal metabolism. That would account for a little less than one extra pound of weight loss per month. However, here is a tantalizing piece of info from the Cleveland Clinic Journal, also available on the Atkins site:

"They [LC diets] may also result in partitioning of
nutrients away from fat storage and toward
accumulation of lean tissue. The few studies
that have assessed body composition on a
very-low-carbohydrate diet suggest a preferential
loss of fat mass and preservation of lean
body mass."

Now this could potentially account for some of the difference. If an LC diet is protein-sparing (and the state of starvation-induced ketosis has been shown to be protein-sparing, so it stands to reason that LC-induced ketosis would be also), then you would end up burning more calories on LC. Each pound of muscle preserved on LC, but lost on LF, could potentially burn 50 calories per day or thereabouts...thus leading to the situation where the maintenance calorie level is higher than it would be on a LF diet at the same weight...and therefore it is possible that you could eat more on LC, while still losing. But no matter what people are eating, it seems that the calorie level still has to be under maintenance for them to lose.

In experiments where food is controlled (i.e., the food is provided by the experimenters), calorie levels have been shown to be the primary factor in weight loss...diet composition is secondary. The genius of LC diets, IMO, is that they make it relatively EASY for insulin-resistant people to adhere to a weight-loss regimen. I know that for myself, I could NEVER have stuck to a low-fat diet this long. The longest I ever managed was about 3 weeks.

I would love to see research pitting low-fat and low-carb diets against each other in controlled situations with insulin-resistant populations. If the LF group gained weight, and the LC group lost on the same amount of calories, I would be the first one to sing loud hosannas. But so far no such thing has happened.

Emily