Originally Posted by tandoorichicken
For anyone who's interested, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study today that pitted three diets against each other over the short term (4 weeks) for ease of weight maintenance. As many of us know, weight loss is hard enough, but maintenance is 10x trickier.
The link's here
but the here and there of it is that a low carb diet resulted in an extra 300 calories/day extra energy expenditure at rest compared to a low fat diet that's typical of what's recommended by AHA. Low glycemic diet resulted in an extra 120 calories/day compared to low fat.
Most reviews of this study do remark that the low carb diet increased markers of inflammation that enhance heart disease risk. However, those same reviews for some reason fail to highlight that the study also found that the low fat diet has the worst record among markers for metabolic syndrome (which also raise heart disease risk), such as lowest HDL, highest triglycerides, and worst insulin sensitivity among the three diets. In fact, it's the low carb diet that boasts highest HDL and lowest serum triglyceride among the three.
Just some food for thought
Is interesting, but I think the diet didn't use many participants.
I do think nutritionally a high-carb diet is more likely to include processed foods, many of which are as close to worthless as one can get. I was eating corn chips last night with cheese for dinner (normally I eat much better) and thinking how patently worthless those things are. They have on carb energy and nothing else. Everything has been refined out of them. So I wonder if the high-carb dieters' results are due to some metabolic inefficiency. If that's the case though I might think a less efficient body requires more calories, not less. I dunno