if there is any conclusion to be made, it's that low-carb diets may have some positive benefit on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but don't seem to have an

if there is any conclusion to be made, it's that low-carb diets may have some positive benefit on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but don't seem to have any net benefit when it comes to weight control. This observation is hugely important because one of the biggest myths about low-carb diets is that eating all that fat will be bad for your heart when in reality study after study shows that such diets outperform low-fat calorie-resricted diets on the most important lipid indicators - HDL, VLDL, and triglycerides. The scare-tactic logic runs something along the lines of "Sure, you might lose weight but think about what you'll be doing to your heart." When hard numbers show that eating unrestricted amounts of fat and protein lead to similar weight loss as a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet, the lipid results are swept under the rug. This matches my personal experience. I had similar weight loss result on both types of diets, but my blood panels were dramatically better on a low-carb diet. I'd also add that I never felt hungry on a low-carb diet, while I was constantly hungry on the low-fat, calorie-restricted diet. I find the main difficulty with low-carb diets is that they are boring. Our society does not cater to them. Ordering at restaurants and eating lunch with your workgroup when meals are brought in ase challenging. There's also a lot of social pressure around dessert (parties) and alcohol. Unfortunately - at least for me - cheating on a low-carb diet is a major setback because it can set up a cycle of hunger that take at least a few days to get out of. Low-fat diets aren't the same, mostly because you are often convincing yourself to be hungry all the time anyway.