Calories vs Diet Composition

This doesn't sound like it was controlled for simply eating less calories.

I'm just skimming through the paper and I see no calorie equated control group or even measuring caloric intake.If that's the case than this is another "eating less causes weight loss" study, and measuring the benefits of caloric restriction.They don't even equate caloric restrictions between the methods they compare ?

Wait a minutes the title is all wrong compare to the scientific article. It’s not that there is no benefit, but that there is no weight loss differences. The scientists didn’t research about health in general and the impact of this type of diet, but about weight loss differences between the two diets…

This is the problem with all weight loss and dieting studies and anecdotal evidence. Nothing is ever fixed or set in stone. Some people lose weight with lots of small meals. Some lose weight with one big meal. Some find low carb works, others eat carbs and lose weight. Human metabolism and body weight regulation is very complicated and doesn't readily yield to simple rules or heuristics (beyond CICO).

if the study didn't control total calories between groups, the improved health markers on his tests were likely a result of lower total calories over time. i.e. the studies probably did not match calories between groups.

>Eating more calories than you burn make you overweight. Not the type of calorie. This has been proven (wish I could find the research paper) and was funded by Gary Taubes' research group.This article [1] is a good writeup of the study (with the original study linked) and does a very good job at contextualizing the results and limitations, alternative viewpoints, and criticisms. My takeaway is, while a very interesting pilot study, the small sample size, lack of a control group, lack

So many problems with the interpretation of the starvation study here.Quantity of food (in caloric terms) not type, is the single biggest predictor of weight loss. In fact unless your body magically defies the law of conservation of energy; it's impossible to lose weight in a caloric surplus regardless of food choices.The subjects in the study stopped losing weight despite staying at the same caloric consumption BECAUSE THEY LOST A LOT OF WEIGHT ALREADY. Therefore, their maintenance c

I think this is not so surprising, given that the calories are not restricted in the study. High carb, low fat foods I think are not satiating relative to low carb, high fat foods. As an example:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36051903/Any type of caloric restriction will improve health outcomes.

No one's going to mention that the title is wrong? The experiment showed that a calorie reduced diet slows metabolism in humans. The researcher specifically says that a long term study that follows participants until their death would be required to see if they live longer.

I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet.You lost weight, by removing calories from your diet.I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows,So you are less hungry when you don't calorie restrict as much.PS: Doing callorie ristriction dieting without reducing nutrition is hard, however meat contains most nutrients your body needs which impacts hunger. So, comparing a study that controwls for nutrition with your perconal habits is probably