5 ms·

This is demonstrably false. No respectable scientist believes in the calories-in-calories-out model of obesity anymore.

by amasad 8y ago

zaptheimpaler 8y ago
Go eat 5000 calories a day of veggies without becoming obese then. Just because calories isn't the only important factor in obesity does not mean its not a factor at all. Scientists are simply building a more sophisticated understanding of obesity that looks at many other factors.
- User23 8y ago
  I think the post you’re responding to is referring to well established results such as that there is no metabolic pathway to convert dietary protein to adipose tissue. While some dietary protein is glycolysized, that pathway only satisfies immediate energy needs. Excess dietary protein that isn’t used on lean tissue is eliminated by the kidneys.
  - zaptheimpaler 8y ago
    Thats interesting.. so does that mean eating a lot of protein cannot make you gain fat? It would just be a tax on your kidneys instead?
    - indecisive_user 8y ago
      Well in practice it would be very tough to over eat on protein alone. Assuming a 2000 calorie diet you'd need to eat over 500g of protein which is roughly 4lbs of chicken breast or 5lbs of tuna. But at that point it would also be quite harmful to the kidneys
      - User23 8y ago
        Unless you’re Dwayne Johnson. Seriously though if you don’t have kidney disease then you really don’t have to worry about protein consumption.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I think it may be difficult to eat that much just eating vegetables.
- jakobegger 8y ago
  Eating 5000 calories of veggies is impossible. That's like 25kg of tomatoes or 35kg of lettuce. You can't eat that in a day.
Gobd 8y ago
What do they believe in now? I still thought calorie-in/out was the truth. I'd love to see some articles.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  Be wary anytime someone mentions "scientists" in their argument. More than likely OP has no source. Nevertheless, I get his point. Basically, calorie-in/out is still very much used but it doesn't tell the full story. At the end of the day you will gain weight if you eat too many Calories, but eating an apple will make you feel fuller than a chocolate bar, etc. Scientists dont even have a stake in this really it's more like nutritionists, and the jury is out as to whether we can call them scientists.
- benjaminl 8y ago
  It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised. The average person gains an extra 1 to 2 pounds a year. It takes 6,000 calories to gains 2 pounds. This is about ~16.5 calories a day. About a fifth of a slice of bread. This is an imbalance of energy, on a 2000 calorie diet, of less than 1%.
  - projektir 8y ago
    > It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised. The whole point of something like calorie counting is so that this is no longer some automated, subconscious process.
projektir 8y ago
OK... that is news to me... do you have a link to a paper that proves this demonstrably false? Disproving a law of thermodynamics sounds like a big deal. How does the new model explain people losing weight in adverse conditions? I'm watching someone steadily lose weight via calories-in-calories-out model in front of me right now.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. For example, your body's shifting metabolism. Eating certain things causes this to shift. Some people eat healthy constantly and remain overweight; others can't put on pounds no matter what they take in. That's a difference in their natural metabolisms. This is also why exercise matters beyond just the calories you burn over the course of a workout.
  - projektir 8y ago
    > Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions. Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target. It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight. Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.
- 8y ago
quest88 8y ago
Huh, what do they believe to be true now?
diab0lic 8y ago
Could you please do us the service of demonstrating that it is false? Overeating is unhealthy is demonstrably true.
rosstex 8y ago
Related: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496172/ https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.2017 https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.201...
Numberwang 8y ago
Seems like it doesn’t matter what scientists say. People still go for stupid things like keto and other weird train wreck diets.
dangrossman 8y ago
Several people have asked for sources, so I'd like to point those people to this article, which is an easy-to-digest overview: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-calorie-count-fda-rule-20180520-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-calorie-... It starts with "Since the early 1900s, medical research has shown that people do lose weight on calorie-restricted diets — in the short term. But in most cases, they quickly gain it back..." and goes onto the studies on things that actually do work long-term, like fixing your sleep, fixing your stress, and limiting carbohydrates in your diet.
- DanAndersen 8y ago
  >But in most cases, they quickly gain it back. So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The point of any of these things, CICO or otherwise, is that you do them for your lifetime as a lifestyle change.
  - dangrossman 8y ago
    We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. I just sourced this above. Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death" is not a reasonable "lifestyle change" to suggest. That's why "just count calories" is not the advice any respectable scientist would give an obese person, which I believe was @amasad's point.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      But to sustain a weight loss you basically do have to eat less, forever. I say this being 60 pounds below my highest weight (200 vs 260). Someone is talking about protein conversion, but I expect it is just harder to eat excess calories of meat. The 2 pounds of beef a day it would take many people to maintain body weight is a lot of beef to sit and eat.
    - projektir 8y ago
gameswithgo 8y ago
It isn't that no one believes in that model of obestity any more. If you locked people in a cage and gave them 1,000 calories of snickers bars a day, yeah they would get lean. But what complicates the situation is that what you eat affects how much you crave food, and what foods you crave, and how much energy you have, and how you sleep, etc. Sugar seems to be bad on all of these ancillary fronts.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Well, yeah, exactly. Saying that "consuming fewer calories than you expend leads to weight loss" is obviously true, but it's a little like saying "you win a game of football by scoring more points than your opponent." While it isn't wrong it doesn't tell you that much about how to go about it.
eloff 8y ago
Not the OP, but for all the people commenting below, I think what the OP means to say is that the body is a very complex system and calories from different sources absolutely do have different affects, on your ability to control fat storage and fat burning and to modulate your appetite. The laws of thermodynamics still hold - if you overeat it doesn't matter what you're eating, you will gain weight. But calories in calories out is so simplistic by comparison to reality, that it's a harmful way to look at things.
- jib 8y ago
  It is the Newtonian physics of nutrition. It is demonstrably wrong, yet following the rule will lead to success for just about every real life use case.
knicholes 8y ago
You're really going to have to clarify what you mean by "this." Overeating is healthy?
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I'd think the part about "what particular foods you eat doesn't matter"
baal80spam 8y ago
They they shouldn't call themselves respectable.
mattybrennan 8y ago
I mean, this calories in calories out study is in the same NYT issue: "Exercise May Aid in Weight Loss. Provided You Do Enough." https://nyti.ms/2KMz7f9 https://nyti.ms/2KMz7f9
WilliamEdward 8y ago
Calories-in-Calories-out is a straight-up fact. The thing 'scientists' don't like about it is that even if you lose the same amount of weight, where you got your calories from will impact your health differently depending on whether it's a chocolate bar or an apple. Nevertheless, Calories-in-Calories-out is a true model.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Very true. But don't make it the only factor in losing weight. You need to manage amount of food, what you eat and when you eat. They all are important.
  - projektir 8y ago
    Important in what sense? Important in this context to me would mean: if I don't eat spinach, or if I skip breakfast, I will NOT lose weight on a calorie deficit. Is that what you mean by important what you eat and when you eat, or something else?
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Let's assume you eat the same amounts. It makes a difference if you eat in the morning or in the evening. If you eat very late most likely you won't digest as well and you will gain weight. You will always lose weight on a deficit but depending on when you eat the amount for a deficit will be different. Same for the type of food. From my own observation I will gain weight if I eat only a few pretzels daily even if everything else is the same. I assume they cause my digestive system to lose efficiency.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Let's assume you eat the same amounts. It makes a difference if you eat in the morning or in the evening. If you eat very late most likely you won't digest as well and you will gain weight. That’s considered a myth that’s been debunked ages ago. https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-truth-myth-eating-night-causes-weight-gain https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-truth-myth-eating-n...
baseethrowaway 8y ago
These works seem to disagree with you. Your turn. Please do try to disprove the law of conservation of energy. Swinburn B, Sacks G, Ravussin E. Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity . Am J Clin Nutr. (2009) Lack of evidence for high fructose corn syrup as the cause of the obesity epidemic Leibel RL, et al. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition . Am J Clin Nutr. (1992) Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets . Am J Clin Nutr. (1996) Golay A, et al. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (1996) Luscombe-Marsh ND, et al. Carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein are equally effective at promoting fat loss and improving blood lipids . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005) Bray GA, et al. Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating: a randomized controlled trial . JAMA. (2012) Noakes M, et al. Effect of an energy-restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005) Keogh JB, et al. Long-term weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors are not different following weight loss on carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein in obese hyperinsulinaemic men and women . Br J Nutr. (2007) Farnsworth E, et al. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2003) Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on weight control and cardiovascular risk markers in obese hyperinsulinemic subjects . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2004) McLaughlin T, et al. Effects of moderate variations in macronutrient composition on weight loss and reduction in cardiovascular disease risk in obese, insulin-resistant adults . Am J Clin Nutr. (2006) Sargrad KR, et al. Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus . J Am Diet Assoc. (2005) Boden G, et al. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes . Ann Intern Med. (2005) Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Effect of energy restriction, weight loss, and diet composition on plasma lipids and glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (1999) Parker B, et al. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (2002) Thomson RL, et al. The effect of a hypocaloric diet with and without exercise training on body composition, cardiometabolic risk profile, and reproductive function in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome . J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2008) Strasser B, Spreitzer A, Haber P. Fat loss depends on energy deficit only, independently of the method for weight loss . Ann Nutr Metab. (2007) Astrup A, Meinert Larsen T, Harper A. Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss . Lancet. (2004) Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2000)

This is demonstrably false. No respectable scientist believes in the calories-in-calories-out model of obesity anymore.

by amasad 8y ago

This is demonstrably false. No respectable scientist believes in the calories-in-calories-out model of obesity anymore.

Go eat 5000 calories a day of veggies without becoming obese then. Just because calories isn't the only important factor in obesity does not mean its not a factor at all. Scientists are simply building a more sophisticated understanding of obesity that looks at many other factors.

User23 8y ago
I think the post you’re responding to is referring to well established results such as that there is no metabolic pathway to convert dietary protein to adipose tissue. While some dietary protein is glycolysized, that pathway only satisfies immediate energy needs. Excess dietary protein that isn’t used on lean tissue is eliminated by the kidneys.
- zaptheimpaler 8y ago
  Thats interesting.. so does that mean eating a lot of protein cannot make you gain fat? It would just be a tax on your kidneys instead?
  - indecisive_user 8y ago
    Well in practice it would be very tough to over eat on protein alone. Assuming a 2000 calorie diet you'd need to eat over 500g of protein which is roughly 4lbs of chicken breast or 5lbs of tuna. But at that point it would also be quite harmful to the kidneys
    - User23 8y ago
      Unless you’re Dwayne Johnson. Seriously though if you don’t have kidney disease then you really don’t have to worry about protein consumption.
emodendroket 8y ago
I think it may be difficult to eat that much just eating vegetables.
jakobegger 8y ago
Eating 5000 calories of veggies is impossible. That's like 25kg of tomatoes or 35kg of lettuce. You can't eat that in a day.

Gobd 8y ago

What do they believe in now? I still thought calorie-in/out was the truth. I'd love to see some articles.

WilliamEdward 8y ago
Be wary anytime someone mentions "scientists" in their argument. More than likely OP has no source. Nevertheless, I get his point. Basically, calorie-in/out is still very much used but it doesn't tell the full story. At the end of the day you will gain weight if you eat too many Calories, but eating an apple will make you feel fuller than a chocolate bar, etc. Scientists dont even have a stake in this really it's more like nutritionists, and the jury is out as to whether we can call them scientists.
benjaminl 8y ago
It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised. The average person gains an extra 1 to 2 pounds a year. It takes 6,000 calories to gains 2 pounds. This is about ~16.5 calories a day. About a fifth of a slice of bread. This is an imbalance of energy, on a 2000 calorie diet, of less than 1%.
- projektir 8y ago
  > It is way more complicated than that. The body autonomously regulates the amount of calories that you eat. For example when you exercise more studies show people will eat almost exactly an extra amount of food equalent to the calories exercised. The whole point of something like calorie counting is so that this is no longer some automated, subconscious process.

projektir 8y ago

OK... that is news to me... do you have a link to a paper that proves this demonstrably false? Disproving a law of thermodynamics sounds like a big deal. How does the new model explain people losing weight in adverse conditions? I'm watching someone steadily lose weight via calories-in-calories-out model in front of me right now.

_bxg1 8y ago
Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. For example, your body's shifting metabolism. Eating certain things causes this to shift. Some people eat healthy constantly and remain overweight; others can't put on pounds no matter what they take in. That's a difference in their natural metabolisms. This is also why exercise matters beyond just the calories you burn over the course of a workout.
- projektir 8y ago
  > Obviously calories matter, but there's just so much more going on than that. The purpose of black box perspective is to not worry about the "so much more going on". Regardless of what happens in the box the rules of energy must stay put. As for the human body, the science there is young, it's extremely complex, there's a lot of misinformation, a lot of it was grabbed by governments ("don't eat fat!") to ill effect. Let's not. Just take it easy with the portions. Metabolism shifts are not that large. If you are following CICO, you're counting calories, and that is already an error prone process. There's not a big difference between "my metabolism shifted because of this odd food", "I drank some alcohol", and "I miscounted how much beans I actually had". It's fine, if you have a good enough weekly target and you stick to it, you will have a baseline. If you are not losing weight, reduce the target. It will work. If you are saying it won't I want to see a straight up study that says it put 500 men on a 1500 cal/day diet and they didn't lose weight. Note that I am only talking about the physical angle, not the sociological one. "Juice is not healthy" is, to me, a non-sociological claim, but a scientific one, and I would prefer that "x is unhealthy" means "x is mildly poisonous", not "x is calorie-dense", because there's nothing actually wrong with calorie-density.
8y ago

quest88 8y ago

Huh, what do they believe to be true now?

diab0lic 8y ago

Could you please do us the service of demonstrating that it is false? Overeating is unhealthy is demonstrably true.

rosstex 8y ago

Related: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496172/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496172/ https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.2017 https://www.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/ajpendo.00156.201...

Numberwang 8y ago

Seems like it doesn’t matter what scientists say. People still go for stupid things like keto and other weird train wreck diets.

dangrossman 8y ago

Several people have asked for sources, so I'd like to point those people to this article, which is an easy-to-digest overview: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-calorie-count-fda-rule-20180520-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-teicholz-calorie-... It starts with "Since the early 1900s, medical research has shown that people do lose weight on calorie-restricted diets — in the short term. But in most cases, they quickly gain it back..." and goes onto the studies on things that actually do work long-term, like fixing your sleep, fixing your stress, and limiting carbohydrates in your diet.

DanAndersen 8y ago
>But in most cases, they quickly gain it back. So they gain it back once they stop being on calorie-restricted diets? This isn't a surprise to anyone. The point of any of these things, CICO or otherwise, is that you do them for your lifetime as a lifestyle change.
- dangrossman 8y ago
  We have a century of evidence that calorie restriction is not a diet people can stay on. I just sourced this above. Calorie restriction alone while eating fast food, soda, cake, etc is a diet of chronic hunger/deprivation, and "become a monk with an iron will until your death" is not a reasonable "lifestyle change" to suggest. That's why "just count calories" is not the advice any respectable scientist would give an obese person, which I believe was @amasad's point.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    But to sustain a weight loss you basically do have to eat less, forever. I say this being 60 pounds below my highest weight (200 vs 260). Someone is talking about protein conversion, but I expect it is just harder to eat excess calories of meat. The 2 pounds of beef a day it would take many people to maintain body weight is a lot of beef to sit and eat.
  - projektir 8y ago

gameswithgo 8y ago

It isn't that no one believes in that model of obestity any more. If you locked people in a cage and gave them 1,000 calories of snickers bars a day, yeah they would get lean. But what complicates the situation is that what you eat affects how much you crave food, and what foods you crave, and how much energy you have, and how you sleep, etc. Sugar seems to be bad on all of these ancillary fronts.

emodendroket 8y ago
Well, yeah, exactly. Saying that "consuming fewer calories than you expend leads to weight loss" is obviously true, but it's a little like saying "you win a game of football by scoring more points than your opponent." While it isn't wrong it doesn't tell you that much about how to go about it.

eloff 8y ago

Not the OP, but for all the people commenting below, I think what the OP means to say is that the body is a very complex system and calories from different sources absolutely do have different affects, on your ability to control fat storage and fat burning and to modulate your appetite. The laws of thermodynamics still hold - if you overeat it doesn't matter what you're eating, you will gain weight. But calories in calories out is so simplistic by comparison to reality, that it's a harmful way to look at things.

jib 8y ago
It is the Newtonian physics of nutrition. It is demonstrably wrong, yet following the rule will lead to success for just about every real life use case.

knicholes 8y ago

You're really going to have to clarify what you mean by "this." Overeating is healthy?

emodendroket 8y ago
I'd think the part about "what particular foods you eat doesn't matter"

baal80spam 8y ago

They they shouldn't call themselves respectable.

mattybrennan 8y ago

I mean, this calories in calories out study is in the same NYT issue: "Exercise May Aid in Weight Loss. Provided You Do Enough." https://nyti.ms/2KMz7f9 https://nyti.ms/2KMz7f9

WilliamEdward 8y ago

Calories-in-Calories-out is a straight-up fact. The thing 'scientists' don't like about it is that even if you lose the same amount of weight, where you got your calories from will impact your health differently depending on whether it's a chocolate bar or an apple. Nevertheless, Calories-in-Calories-out is a true model.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Very true. But don't make it the only factor in losing weight. You need to manage amount of food, what you eat and when you eat. They all are important.
- projektir 8y ago
  Important in what sense? Important in this context to me would mean: if I don't eat spinach, or if I skip breakfast, I will NOT lose weight on a calorie deficit. Is that what you mean by important what you eat and when you eat, or something else?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Let's assume you eat the same amounts. It makes a difference if you eat in the morning or in the evening. If you eat very late most likely you won't digest as well and you will gain weight. You will always lose weight on a deficit but depending on when you eat the amount for a deficit will be different. Same for the type of food. From my own observation I will gain weight if I eat only a few pretzels daily even if everything else is the same. I assume they cause my digestive system to lose efficiency.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Let's assume you eat the same amounts. It makes a difference if you eat in the morning or in the evening. If you eat very late most likely you won't digest as well and you will gain weight. That’s considered a myth that’s been debunked ages ago. https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-truth-myth-eating-night-causes-weight-gain https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-truth-myth-eating-n...

baseethrowaway 8y ago

These works seem to disagree with you. Your turn. Please do try to disprove the law of conservation of energy. Swinburn B, Sacks G, Ravussin E. Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity . Am J Clin Nutr. (2009) Lack of evidence for high fructose corn syrup as the cause of the obesity epidemic Leibel RL, et al. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition . Am J Clin Nutr. (1992) Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets . Am J Clin Nutr. (1996) Golay A, et al. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (1996) Luscombe-Marsh ND, et al. Carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein are equally effective at promoting fat loss and improving blood lipids . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005) Bray GA, et al. Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating: a randomized controlled trial . JAMA. (2012) Noakes M, et al. Effect of an energy-restricted, high-protein, low-fat diet relative to a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet on weight loss, body composition, nutritional status, and markers of cardiovascular health in obese women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2005) Keogh JB, et al. Long-term weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors are not different following weight loss on carbohydrate-restricted diets high in either monounsaturated fat or protein in obese hyperinsulinaemic men and women . Br J Nutr. (2007) Farnsworth E, et al. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women . Am J Clin Nutr. (2003) Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on weight control and cardiovascular risk markers in obese hyperinsulinemic subjects . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2004) McLaughlin T, et al. Effects of moderate variations in macronutrient composition on weight loss and reduction in cardiovascular disease risk in obese, insulin-resistant adults . Am J Clin Nutr. (2006) Sargrad KR, et al. Effect of high protein vs high carbohydrate intake on insulin sensitivity, body weight, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus . J Am Diet Assoc. (2005) Boden G, et al. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes . Ann Intern Med. (2005) Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Effect of energy restriction, weight loss, and diet composition on plasma lipids and glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (1999) Parker B, et al. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes . Diabetes Care. (2002) Thomson RL, et al. The effect of a hypocaloric diet with and without exercise training on body composition, cardiometabolic risk profile, and reproductive function in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome . J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2008) Strasser B, Spreitzer A, Haber P. Fat loss depends on energy deficit only, independently of the method for weight loss . Ann Nutr Metab. (2007) Astrup A, Meinert Larsen T, Harper A. Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss . Lancet. (2004) Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low-energy food combining or balanced diets . Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. (2000)