Here's what quaker oats reported from Stanford and Yale:

http://www.quakeroatmeal.com/wellne...rbohydrates.cfm

Comments, anyone???

This one is just of those studies... where calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Hence BS.

To quote Dr. Sears(Zone which is very close to PP) one needs view diet
as hormonal modulator and it should be such that Insulin/Glugagon are
maintained in the tight delicate balance. Note Protein Power, Zone and
Schawazebein Principle all discuss about it graphically with sound reasons.

All overweight pepole are either hyperinsullenemic (high fasting level of insulin) and/or insulin resistant(imparied glucose transport mechanism)
and for them(us) insulin balance(hormonal balance) is important than
caloric equation..

my 2cent..
neeam.

grrrrrrrrrrrrr.i wasn,t overweight when i started l-c and i still lost a stone and i eat many more cals now than i did on a l-f diet.as for not staying on this WOE,there are many of us thats stuck to it for well over 2 years and not put the weight back on.
the responce they found on the insulin reaction is wrong as well otherwise i would still be injecting it.

grrrrrr...is right. I lost 22 lbs since March, and my husband kept saying, you eat so much, how can you be on a "diet"..

I just asked him again, do you think I eat less [calories] as one would on a diet, he said no.

I guess "they" hate low-carbing because it works!!!!!!!!

It also bothers me all the things they didn't do: take exercise into consideration and monitor over 90 days, to name two.
Just goes to show you, they can skew numbers any which way they want!!!!

Hmmm... that article seems to have disappeared from the site. (Or maybe their site is down.)

I just tried it, it workerd for me. Maybe, go to the quaker oats site, it's in the August 2003 newsletter.

I don't see what the problem is with the Quaker Oats review. It looked at studies of low-carb diets and found they resulted in weight loss and had no medical problems. There are now studies of low-carb diets that did extend longer, but these were not included (not available yet to the reviewers?).

From what I've read, exercise does not result in weight loss (just lost inches). Muscle does weigh more than fat.

It would have been more interesting if they had also compared the low-fat diet studies.

As an aside, I have been on Atkins for more than a year, am over 53 and have lost much weight, greatly improved my blood lipids and feel much better than I did after years of low-fat dieting.

Mike

And just how much oatmeal do you buy at the grocery store??? Now you know where they are coming from...

I do buy oatmeal and grind it down to flour for low carb baking.

The most interesting quote in the article " but the restriction in caloric intake and the length of time spent on the diet are the biggest reasons why weight loss occurs."
Length if time on the diet means that you can actually live this way.
danny

Maybe it's me, but the study seemed one-sided. It seemed to me they were much against low-carbing to lose weight. At the very least, the article would NOT encourage one to start a low-carb regime!!! It mentions low-calorie intake in L-Cing????? What can they be thinking....I erat way more calories than I ever did on any other weight-loss effort!!!!!

Also, exercise burns calories, and aids in weight loss. Esp. if the person was not doing any exercise before L-Cing.
Trust me on this. I speak from experience. When I stop using the treamill regularly, my weight loss stalls.

I REALLY got a problem with restriction in caloric intake....I mean, how many of you consume reduced calories vis a vis a regular "diet"????

Also, regular dieting (low-fat) means you're always hungry. And don't learn proper eating habits. Thus, the weight returns most of the time. And low many "regular" dieters stick with it more than a week or two.

IMHO, the study stinks.

Check out the USA today article on the subject:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health...-analysis_x.htm
The atkinscenter reply is at the end of the article.
I read this article as I was well into my plan and it really made me think about doing atkins. I found I had to be aware of my calories to lose weight on atkins, and this was something I did not think you had to do.
In DANDR when Dr A goes over calories which he does in several chapters, he says that they do count, that this is an advantage over but not a replacement for the calories in-calories burned formula, and that by eating this way you will naturally be eating less than you did pre atkins or than you would on a low fat diet.
I am eating way fewer calories than I did pre atkins, I have never done a low fat diet so I have no comparison. I think we are all eating less than we did before doing atkins, thats nothing to be ashamed of.
I have yet to find a study that isnt flawed in some way. I have found that my weight loss is directly attributed to a reduction of calories, and increase in exercise. Low carbing has been a healthy way to have the energy to exercise, and to eat less and feel full. Thats why I am an atkins devotee!

Sure, I am consuming less calories with Atkins than I was previously consuming.
But, I am eating WAY MORE calories than with past diets! A calorie is not a calorie. Eating few low-fat calories cannot be compared to eating Atkins WOE. You lose more w/Atkins, while eating more than traditional low-fat "diets".

It is NOT JUST calorie reduction, it is the change in metabolism due to what we are eating.
Of course, pre-Atkins, I am not really sure how much I ate. I was gaining weight eating the same amount I always had...my metabolism changed due to hormonal shifts with menopause.

Nobody can deny that energy could not come from nowhere or go nowhere. So, at least theoritically, reducing your calorie intake should increase your weight loss. However, the fact that our bodies reduce their energy consumption when the energy supply is low sets a limit to that.

With low carb dieting, we should lose weight even if we eat enough food to give us all the energy we need. The reason is that we waste some of the energy we receive. The amount of ketones that leave the body unused and the difference in effeciency between ketones and glucose as a fuel are contributing factors to that.