If its really about calories then explain to me why.....

Facts are facts, huh?

Fact is, humans were eating grains long before farming happened. Why do you think they started farming them to begin with? Archaeological records show humans baking flatbreads on hot rocks over 30,000 years ago.

There isn't any evidence of “bread”, just ground plant material. The resulting paste/powder could have been baked, made into a porridge, or eaten as is by babies. It’s all supposition.

As for "improved performance of low carb?" Controlled studies have shown that there is no improved performance, all other variables (exercise, caloric deficit, protein levels) held constant. It's fully a personal preference.

Wrong.
The "A TO Z: A Comparative Weight Loss Study:" http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html
The peer-reviewed paper written in JAMA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
The video about the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

After all, facts are facts.

Except when they're not.

Facts are facts, huh?

Fact is, humans were eating grains long before farming happened. Why do you think they started farming them to begin with? Archaeological records show humans baking flatbreads on hot rocks over 30,000 years ago.

There isn't any evidence of “bread”, just ground plant material. The resulting paste/powder could have been baked, made into a porridge, or eaten as is by babies. It’s all supposition.

As for "improved performance of low carb?" Controlled studies have shown that there is no improved performance, all other variables (exercise, caloric deficit, protein levels) held constant. It's fully a personal preference.

Wrong.
The "A TO Z: A Comparative Weight Loss Study:" http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html
The peer-reviewed paper written in JAMA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
The video about the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

After all, facts are facts.

Except when they're not.

From your study:

In all four groups, however, some participants lost up to 30 pounds.

Although the Atkins group led in terms of the average number of pounds lost, this group also gained back more weight in the second half of the study than those in the three other groups. Gardner also noted that the women in the Atkins group had lost an average of almost 13 pounds after six months, but ended the one-year period with a final overall average loss of 10 pounds.

Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.

Women in the study had to prepare or buy all their own meals, and not everyone followed the diets exactly as the books laid out, just as in real life.

So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.

Fat's actually 9 calories per gram. It's alcohol that's 7 calories per gram. :drinker:

Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.

Since all diets have lousy compliance issues, there would have probably been more quitters just like in the other diet groups. Your point is?

So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.

What do you mean by metabolic advantage? From a biochemical perspective, there's a documented and clear-cut advantage. Gluconeogenesis results in a 43% energy loss of converting protein to glucose. Of course, that's not the only reason why low-carb results in better weight losses.

You are correct that this isn't a metabolic ward study, so we have no idea how much better low carb would have done if all the diets were force fed and subjects monitored 24-hours a day over a year. This study was more of a realistic study of people left to their own devices. In other words: allowed to cheat. Even with cheating, Atkins beats them all for results. That's an advantage in my book.

My experience with eating low carb was it produced brain fog. I couldn't concentrate, I couldn't do math in my head, I couldn't do multi-step problem solving etc. Apparently my capacity for awesome smartistity is greater than my body's capacity to produce carb-based brain fuel.:laugh:

I didn't read every post so I may be repeating what someone said

My understanding is that very low carb diets create ketosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis

This leads to weightloss that, in my observation, is very difficult to maintain.

Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??

Going low carb reduces the fluid in your tissues. As soon as they start eating carbs again, that weight comes back. That's why I don't like any kind of fad diet. I can't imagine not having many carbs the rest of my life. I love food..

Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.

Since all diets have lousy compliance issues, there would have probably been more quitters just like in the other diet groups. Your point is?

So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.

What do you mean by metabolic advantage? From a biochemical perspective, there's a documented and clear-cut advantage. Gluconeogenesis results in a 43% energy loss of converting protein to glucose. Of course, that's not the only reason why low-carb results in better weight losses.

You are correct that this isn't a metabolic ward study, so we have no idea how much better low carb would have done if all the diets were force fed and subjects monitored 24-hours a day over a year. This study was more of a realistic study of people left to their own devices. In other words: allowed to cheat. Even with cheating, Atkins beats them all for results. That's an advantage in my book.

From James Kreiger, a recognized expert in the field of dieting and nutrition when writing a summary paper on research of Low Carb Diets:
1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.

James Kreiger's credentials: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3

No offense but I put more stock in what he says than in what you say. FTR, he does not view low carb unfavorably. In his larger body of work he is postively disposed to it for some people. I agree. But it is not nessesarily "better" for all.

For example a friend of mine started out weighing 215 she lost 75 lb in less than 6 months! Never have I heard of this being done counting calories! She was eating 20 grams of carbs a day & not counting calories just carbs!

I watch my calories in that I maintain a deficit: 1000 calories below what I burn each day (for first 6 months, now I've now switched to 900 cal/day deficit). I have lost more than 70 lbs in less than 6 months. And that is documented with doctor visits. And I know even more precisely than my calories what my carbs are because on Aug. 30 2012 I was diagnosed with diabetes. And as of last Tuesday, I'm off all medication and totally non-diabetic. I did it by counting carbs religiously. I ate between 130-190 net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) that entire time and still do.

I've read that studies show that insulin-resistant people do best on low carb diets and insulin-sensitive people do best on high/moderate carb diets. Yes the human body works the same for everyone, but the number of variables and medical conditions complicate it by an order of magnitude, so you just have to find what works for you. :flowerforyou:

Why is it that sooo many people lose weight so much quicker when they eat less than 20 grams of carbs per day? I see soooo many success stories where people lose 50-60 lb in 5 months (for example) these are people who are not extremely obese either..whereas counting calories you rarely see where they lose that much in that short period of time? So is it really the deficit in your daily calories that count? All these numerous stories I read & see lose so much so quick eating low carb!!

Because when people cut out carbs they don't end up eating as much... and because some (most) carbs cause water retention.