Of course weight loss is a result of caloric deficit. What would you expect from a weight-loss plan? Isn't the purpose of a weight-loss diet to restrict calories, to create a deficit that will result in weight loss? Or do you think that low-carb proponents subscribe to some theory that explains weight loss through some means other than caloric deficit?

As to the failure to establish a control population specifically for this study, why would that be necessary? Isn't it legitimate to presume that weight loss/gain would be insignificant in a control population, following an unchanged diet, i.e, a group not experiencing a caloric surplus or deficit? Are you suggesting that there was some external (uncontrolled) factor that caused the test population to lose weight and would have caused a control population to lose weight, too, without dieting? (If so, I'm curious what that external factor might have been. If we could figure it out maybe we could bottle it up and sell it, cure the obesity epidemic and get rich in a hurry!)

As to the complaints about your mistake with regard to Atkins' first name, I agree with you: It was a petty complaint, even if the mistake does make your work appear sloppy.

Per future RD:



Per the abstract from the study:

Edit to add: Unfortunately, the link to the study's abstract, while free, requires registration. Sorry that I missed this the first time around.



Emphasis in bold is mine in both of the above.

How can you say they had a "severe caloric restriction," when the abstract of the study specifically states they did not? Alas, I'm unwilling to part with $30.00 of my hard earned money to read the entire thing, especially since I'm unsure how much of it I'd understand, but you seem to be putting words in the mouths of the researchers.

The ketosis/ketoacidosis issue was dealt with by Rosebud. Please respond to her.

Finally, are you going to respond to the other questions I raised? You questioned the methodology of the study, and I was looking for some clarification. I await your response.

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that the 1,447 + 350 kcal was supposed to be 1,447 +/- 350 kcal. This means that the mean caloric intake ranged from 1,097 to 1,797. Mean means an average which means that some were higher and some were lower as well as some days for individuals being higer or lower. While 1,100 calories per day is low, nearly 1,800 could not be considered "severe caloric restriction" by any means for a weight loss diet. My registered dietician put me on a 1,200 calorie reduction diet when it was low fat/high carb and I didn't lose much weight. Funny how now that I'm almost 12 years older, I can lose at between 1,500 and 1,800 calories on low carb and I've lost a lot more than I did then. BTW, on the ADA diet, I was maintaining or actually gaining on 1,500 calories before. Since I'm anticipating that you'll say that I was underestimating how much I was eating, I weighed and measured everything I ate while on the ADA diet and unless their exchange rates are drastically wrong, my figures are as precise as they can be.

You also seem to have missed this study: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet...y.ap/index.html in which the low carb participants lost more weight than those on the standard low fat diet while eating on average 300 more calories per day.

I don't think that anyone will argue that weight loss isn't based on calorie restriction, but it seems that the metabolic advantage that Dr. Atkins spoke of, which simply means that you can eat a bit more on low carb than you could on other plans, still lose weight better and not have to suffer constant hunger pangs and cravings, does exist.

BTW, my bloodwork results (HgbA1C, Total cholesterol, HDL, LDL and Tryglycerides) are far better on low carb than they ever were on any other plan, including WW or ADA. Weight loss issues aside, it would seem that this is the better plan for my health from purely an objective measurement point of view. The only supplements I currently take are an all purpose daily mutivit and some additional calcium/magnesium. I avoid soy. Oh...is being on low carb for going on 3 years long enough for you to consider those results valid?

Having said all that, why do I have the feeling that we're all just helping you write your paper here?

I was thinking along those lines too ..


Doreen

Future RD,

I read your very short paper. It seems to be more of a critical analysis of a study then the basis for a thesis.

I purpose that you conduct your own study and write your thesis based on those conclusions. When doing your study you will need to have throughly researched all sides of the argument and choose what you want to focus on. If your research does not come out the way you thought it would, then argue why you think it didn't.

Another thing....don't take this the wrong way....but you need some help with your research writing skills.

I wish you the best of luck.

Eh? I think you're confusing me with Future RD.



Thanks anyway, I can always use it.

I am an experienced agricultural researcher, and wrote a number of points regarding your critique, and how to do proper research etc., but much has been covered by other posters, and I am losing interest in proving LC to the world. I have seen in my own field, times when farmers have achieved excellent results where professional agrologists or conventional wisdom would have discouraged a particular management practice.

Doctors prescribing LC to their patients have thousands of patients providing favourable anecdotal evidence. Dr. Schwarzbein originally prescribed a low fat high carb diet to her patients. The problem was that the people who followed it most closely got sicker while the biggest cheaters ate meat, eggs and fat, and got healthier. From their she developed the Schwarzbein Principle.

LC obviously works for me (I am less carb-restricted than Atkins). And I knew one week in that it was right. I have been very active physically for the past two decades, yet gained 65# during this time. I have trained for and completed and Ironman triathlon without losing weight. I have followed weight watchers to lose weight to 168#, yet unable to maintain that due to hunger. I have worked several months in a row, long hours outside climbing over logs and around trees yet not lost weight.

Now, thanks to reading a paperback by a much maligned author, and no thanks to the Canada Food Guide, Triathlete Magazine, Weight Watchers and RDs, I am full all day every day yet losing weight easily. Fitday.com tells me I get all the nutrition I need, lots of fiber and antioxidants.

Is LC hazardous? I doubt it but admit I don't know for sure, though I would rather weigh 175 not knowing than 241 (and rising) not knowing. Is HC hazardous? For me, 20 years experience tells me "You bet it is!"

Oppsies.....sorry about that. I had been studying all day and the brain was a little on the fried side...correcting now.

People vary widely. Without finding a large enough group, it seems a comparison of before and after of the same group of people is actually more accurate than the classic "experimental" group and the "control" group.
With a control group, would you have matched pairs, with the same excess pounds, blood numbers, and blood pressure? And what are the chances of finding them?
Or you'd have to go for the difficult task of having enough people for your study so that these differences would wash out, which would be a rather high number, once you include people who are losing ten pounds, losing a hundred pounds, don't need to lose weight but have bad blood numbers...etc.

Do you see how control groups are actually not as effective as you would think?

Where different experimental groups could come in handy is comparing same calories/different diet composition. There are such studies out there and they disprove your "calorie is a calorie" hypothesis. The same amount of calories (in the same people) create different amounts of weight loss depending on the ratios of carbohydrate/fat/protein. I would check out these studies before I go out on a limb with it as a criticism. Such studies show that the "calorie is a calorie" hypothesis is not sufficiently supported.

I have to agree with everyone about the blood sugar problem. The dietician I saw told me to eat more carbs. Eating that way, I could never get my blood sugars below 170 and that was with medication. I have been off meds for a long time now and my blood sugar is usually in the 90's. I have been eating this way for many years and my cholestrol is very low and my triglygerides have remained around 55. I havent seen any long term effects except continued weight loss and consistantly great blood test results.

Something makes me think we've seen the last of FutureRD.

Synn-
This critique has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY THESIS proposal. You need to read what I wrote more closely. This was merely a critique on another study. My thesis is on a Lo-CHO diet, yes, but is totally independent of this 2 pg paper.
Thanks for the insult; I don't know how it is that my name has been PUBLISHED as author of a study in a peer-reviewed journal. You can confirm that my publication is legitimate: Check out te FASEB journal, Experimental Biology 2003, Abstract # 448.7. You'll see my name, Lindsay Brean. Not bad for someone who you claim needs help with their research writing skills.

Nick Fender: I don't have time to check the forum thread because I am too busy with the 16 hours of class I have on top of 20 hours of work.

To Lisa N, KWalt, Rosebud and all others who condemn my writing capabilities:

I'm 26 years old, and JUST began my Master's Program. I am niether a bitter nor close-minded Registered Dietitian; I'm only a STUDENT, as I indicated. I put my critique of a study out on your forum, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY THESIS PROPOSAL, for the sole intention of gaining constructive criticism; not so I could be ridiculed.
I have not even had the opportunity to be a professional in the feild yet, because I am still LEARNING. I chose this nutrition because I have an interest in helping people, not misleading them.. I want to open my mind to new ideas and information, not close it. I chose to engage myself in this forum because I want to learn about the real-life experiences that people are having with Low-CHO diets, instead of just the stuff that comes out of controlled clinical settings (and usually unable to be replicated in real life circumstances).

Despite trying to take this self-directed innitiative to learn outside the classroom environment, I have been criticized heavily and from all sides. Many comments aren't constructive at all to me because they're outright rude. The only thing this forum HAS given me, is reservations about helping people with the whole-hearted passion I have!
Certain comments make me feel as if my B.S. in Nutrition was a useless waste of time, and that the fact that I want to be an R.D. is a crime punishable by death.

I only have the desire to LEARN, folks. I cannot help it if everything I've been taught thus far is contradictory to what this forum advocates. I went out on a vulnerable limb by putting my homework (article crtique) out there for your insight, and because I am still collecting ideas as to what I want to do my thesis on. I hoped to conduct a study on Atkin's vs. ADA-type diet and effects on submaximal exercise, but I have only been discouraged by comments such as, "learn to write", and "you're not credible" and "dammned R.D.'s with their EAT LESS FAT mantras!". These comments are slowly eroding my interest in trying to learn from the devil's advocates.

With all fairness, I am just trying to maintain my integrity as a student of nutrition. For God's sake, throw me a bone!
I'll leave everyone with the peer-reviwed journal that I am published in. You can find my name in the FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), Vol 17, No 4, Part1, Abstract # 448.7 Author: (me) Lindsay Brean, Title: The Role of Glycine in the Hypolipidemic Effects of Soy Protein Relative to Casein.
Maybe I should ask the publisher if they think I have poor research-writing skills.

Sincerely, Lindsay Brean

...and that the fact that I want to be an R.D. is a crime punishable by death.

Not at all! We have re-education camps for people like you! There, you'll be fed a tasty, healthful low-carb diet and be taught a useful trade. Liquidation is not likely, unless you persist in your heresy.

Certain comments make me feel as if my B.S. in Nutrition was a useless waste of time,

Then our work here is done.

Just kidding, my brother. Nothin' but love, man, nothin' but love.