3 ms·
Huh? Just because one can binge so much that the difference is irrelevant hardly means that the difference isn't important in general. The study this cites ear
by colomon 15y ago
Huh? Just because one can binge so much that the difference is irrelevant hardly means that the difference isn't important in general.
The study this cites early on suggests that a low-carbohydrate diet with N calories a day is roughly equivalent to a low-fat diet with only 70% of N calories a day. So a 2000 calorie-a-day low-carbohydrate diet is equivalent to a 1400 calorie-a-day low-fat diet. That result is huge. (And makes me regret having had pasta three times this week!)
- Udo 15y agoI allege that it indeed makes very little difference, except in cases where people indeed manage to eat only one category (most food is a mix, even when people claim to be on a <insert here> diet). As other people said, the results of this study are not new. We learned that in basic biochemistry when the metabolic pathways were discussed. > So a 2000 calorie-a-day low-carbohydrate diet is equivalent to a 1400 calorie-a-day low-fat diet. It is so not.
- colomon 15y ago"A low carbohydrate group (LoCHO = 1800 kcal for men; 1500 kcal for women), a low fat group (LoFat, 1800 and 1500); a third group also consumed a low carbohydrate diet but an additional 300 kcalories were provided (LoCHO+300, 2100 and 1800). The order of average amount of weight lost was LoCHO = 23 lbs, LoCHO+300 = 20 lbs LoFat = 17 lbs." That's not quite the same math I used, but it seems to pretty strongly suggest that a LoCHO+600 group would have have lost 17 lbs, exactly the same as the LoFat group. Perhaps there is some reason to doubt this study, but saying "It is so not" is hardly a rational rebuttal.
- fijal 15y agoProvided you assume those effects are linear, then yes. There is however no evidence for that.