Hmmm. Not sure I recall that, though it sounds vaguely familiar.  The
studies that's shown a diff have it closer to 50% more calories on low
carb *and* more weight loss.

That's clearly a big part of the diff in the short term studies, but
less so when the study is 6 months or more.  I dunno about you, but my
water loss ended within two weeks.  I think, as I mentioned, that it's
part of the explanation for why the difference is gone by one year.

  I seem

Roger, you're nicer than I am.  I don't think the complexity of the
issue is hiding it from *us*, just from the cement brained researchers
who present only one possibile explanation for each finding.  ;-)

I gained on more than 800 per day back then; my IR was extreme.  I was
thin, BTW.

 To me, it

I was able to lose on LF too, til I couldn't anymore.

 All

I suspect our variations are at least as great.  You and I are at two
extremes, you with your DM control and non DM results, me with the
extreme nature of my IR and slowness of my metabolism.

Genes, illness, lifestyle, natural human variety.  If you were to read
the PCOS group, for example, there are so many obese women there
(extreme IR) who diliently diet and exercise with no weight loss til
they get on LC or LC with metformine for IR.

Susan

I think that the reason this is controversial at all is because *all*
sides of the argument are true.

If you eat low-calorie, whether low-fat, low-carb, or whatever - you do
lose weight.

If you eat low-carb, you can eat more calories than on low-fat and
still lose weight.

If you eat low-carb, and eat *enough* calories, you will not lose
weight.  There *is* a metabolic advantage to low-carb, likely moreso
for those with IR or diabetes, but... you can overwhelm that advantage
by eating too many calories.

It comes down to ketones vs. sugars in metabolism.  Fats break down to
ketones, which can be used for energy *or* discarded if you don't burn
them all, whereas carbs break down to sugars which have to be burnt up
to be discarded.

When I talk about ketosis, I don't mean peeing on a stick, but the
actual underlying biochemistry, which occurs anytime you don't eat
enough carbs to prevent it.  Some of the ketones present when you have
a glucagon-mediated biochemistry are lost via respiration and/or
urine... they're not completly broken-down, thus your body "loses" some
of those calories.

Ketones are physically smaller than sugars.  You don't generally lose
sugar through urine unless you have *very* high bg.

You also don't lose carbs through respiration, your body has to break
the sugars way down to the level of C02 to exhale the products of carb
metabolism.  But even if you don't have ketone-breath to be noticeable,
you are losing some ketones in your breath.

So... your body burns carbs more efficiently, extracting every bit of
energy from them, than it does fats.

And, of course, there's also the hunger-limiting advantages of eating
low-carb.

The thing is... that you have an advantage doesn't mean you *will*
succeeed.  You *can* eat enough calories on low-carb to not only not
lose weight, but to actually gain it.  Any number of advantages can be
overcome by enough bullheaded stupidity on the part of the dieter.

The *only* time I think calories don't matter at *all* is on induction,
because weight loss isn't the goal anyways, but switching over from
insulin-mediated to glucagon-mediated biochemistry.  *Just* sticking to
low-carb long enough to make that switch is the important thing.  It's
*preparatory* to weight-loss, and I don't personally expect to lose
*any* fat during induction.  In fact, I think that it's very likely the
only weight loss that occurs during induction at all is water loss.
There's withdrawal and cravings to deal with, and a whole lot of
overeating occurs until the first week or two is past.

So... I think it's *fine* to eat 3000, 4000 or even more calories on
induction, prepartory to actual weight loss, but if someone does that
beyond the first week or two... they'll gain other advantages of
low-carb dieting, but not lose weight.

I think that the reason this is controversial at all is because *all*
sides of the argument are true.

If you eat low-calorie, whether low-fat, low-carb, or whatever - you do
lose weight.

If you eat low-carb, you can eat more calories than on low-fat and
still lose weight.

If you eat low-carb, and eat *enough* calories, you will not lose
weight.  There *is* a metabolic advantage to low-carb, likely moreso
for those with IR or diabetes, but... you can overwhelm that advantage
by eating too many calories.

It comes down to ketones vs. sugars in metabolism.  Fats break down to
ketones, which can be used for energy *or* discarded if you don't burn
them all, whereas carbs break down to sugars which have to be burnt up
to be discarded.

When I talk about ketosis, I don't mean peeing on a stick, but the
actual underlying biochemistry, which occurs anytime you don't eat
enough carbs to prevent it.  Some of the ketones present when you have
a glucagon-mediated biochemistry are lost via respiration and/or
urine... they're not completly broken-down, thus your body "loses" some
of those calories.

Ketones are physically smaller than sugars.  You don't generally lose
sugar through urine unless you have *very* high bg.

You also don't lose carbs through respiration, your body has to break
the sugars way down to the level of C02 to exhale the products of carb
metabolism.  But even if you don't have ketone-breath to be noticeable,
you are losing some ketones in your breath.

So... your body burns carbs more efficiently, extracting every bit of
energy from them, than it does fats.

And, of course, there's also the hunger-limiting advantages of eating
low-carb.

The thing is... that you have an advantage doesn't mean you *will*
succeeed.  You *can* eat enough calories on low-carb to not only not
lose weight, but to actually gain it.  Any number of advantages can be
overcome by enough bullheaded stupidity on the part of the dieter.

The *only* time I think calories don't matter at *all* is on induction,
because weight loss isn't the goal anyways, but switching over from
insulin-mediated to glucagon-mediated biochemistry.  *Just* sticking to
low-carb long enough to make that switch is the important thing.  It's
*preparatory* to weight-loss, and I don't personally expect to lose
*any* fat during induction.  In fact, I think that it's very likely the
only weight loss that occurs during induction at all is water loss.
There's withdrawal and cravings to deal with, and a whole lot of
overeating occurs until the first week or two is past.

So... I think it's *fine* to eat 3000, 4000 or even more calories on
induction, prepartory to actual weight loss, but if someone does that
beyond the first week or two... they'll gain other advantages of
low-carb dieting, but not lose weight.