Saying that fat contains twice the calories as carbs ignores the plain fact that carbs contain a hell of a lot of calories. This is the problem with modern eat

Saying that fat contains twice the calories as carbs ignores the plain fact that carbs contain a hell of a lot of calories. This is the problem with modern eating. We don't realise how many calories there are in a slice of bread or a bowl of pasta. Low carb works because people can't seem to understand that flour is 95% the energy density of sugar, and it's easier for them to trick themselves into calorie restriction by pretending that carbs are metabolised in a weird fat making way than it is for them to understand that wheat contains a lot of calories. Also - people don't realise that after you've done all the calculations - eating an extra pound of fat will make you weigh roughly an extra pound. Here's my diet advice: If the thing you're eating is used in nature as an energy store, then it's probably packed with calories. The article sets off alarm bells with me, because it places so much emphasis on slowing metabolisms at the beginning. As far as I'm aware, your metabolism doesn't slow down until you're close to starvation (all reserves used), and the reduction in energy output caused by the slowing metabolism is minor. Speed of metabolism seems to be something only people on the dodgy end of the weight loss spectrum believe in.