There are studies of 6 mos. duration now, whereas the ones showing more rapid
weight loss are a max. of 12 weeks, IIRC.

Susan

"Jenny is making up the long term studies"

Yup. It's a huge conspiracy.  I've had to pay off the people at Medscape to
publish the articles.  But it's worth it because someday I'll rule the world
.<demonic laughter>

-- Jenny  - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes,
hba1c 5.2.
Cut the carbs to respond to my  email address!

Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes,
strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at
http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/

Looking for help controlling your blood sugar?
Visit  http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm

Disprove, actually.   Assertions like: The metabolic advantage is pure
BS.  Caloric balance is the be-all and end-all of any weight loss
therefore low carb systems work exclusively by caloric balance.

Simply put, for the folks above there is indeed more at work than caloric
balance and it makes sense to call the difference a metabolic advantage.
Even if it only applies to a few.

It is like Einstein/Lorenz/Fitzgerald redoing Newton/Galileo.  If you
take the claim that space, time and matter are absolutes, Einstien and
company *disproved* Newton and company.  Thus I "disproved" the literal
assertions.  If you view space, time and matter as very close to stable
and the Newtonian system as an excellent approximation most of the time,
then Einstein and company offered a more general solution.

I understand that for most people most of the time, caloric balance is
the mechanism at work.  But knowing that caloric balance is not actually
the be-all and end-all of loss allows me to search for exceptions that
work within the more complete theory.  Thus staying at 1800 calories
averaged across a week, I can lose at one carb intake, maintain at
another, and gain at yet another.  Because a calorie is a calorie is
a calorie is not true.  Caloric balance that considers every source of
calories in any mixture to be the same is provably wrong.  Caloric
balance that takes source and mixture into consideration becomes too
complex to call caloric balance.

Caloric balance works okay as an approximation near the center of
mixtures so on the USDA Food Pyramid reducing calories is what works.
But both low fat and low carb are at the edges and they find loopholes
where simple calorie counts don't work as well.  Even on the edges,
over eat enough and you still gain, but the same-total-calorie case
doesn't work that way.

The claim that all loss must be based on calorie restriction and
that carbs, protein and fat should be counted at 4, 4 and 9 calories
per gram is a brute force approach that hits evolutionairy defense
mechanisms square in the face.  Eventually folks need to go below
1000 calories per day to overcome this issue.

Both low fat and low carb are skill approaches that skill around the
body's evolutionairy defense mechanisms.

Brute force approaches can be understood in minutes.  Skill approaches
can take years to understand.  Most folks spend minutes not years.
So nearly all of the advice on public access boards is brute force.
Sure enough, count posts on ASLDC and nearly all of them push reducing
carbs, reducing calories, and more exercise.  But the core books on
the topic by the experts on the topic explicitly do *NOT* stay the
same thing.  The basic Atkins plan starts at 20 and moves up in week
3.  The basic Eades plan starts at 30 and moves up in week 3.  The
basic Heller plan never goes below 100ish at all.  I have only skimmed
South Beach but it doesn't look like it takes you very low either.
And none of them stress low calories, either.  Only on exercise is there
uniform agreement between the experts and the general public and that's
because the low carb experts don't suggest specific exercise plans so
they aren't expert at that particular field.

The experts and the general public disagree.  In a broad sweep, the
experts all say more carbs work better than less and none recommend
zero.  Yet the general public gets that carbs are the enemy and wants
to push zero.  Go with the experts.  In a broad sweep, the experts all
avoid discussion of low calorie and specify reasonable portions that
are not small.  Yet the general public gets that calories are the
enemy and wants to push to zero.  Go with the experts.

In a broad sweep, my advice echoes the experts and so my advice
disagrees with the general public.  So be it.  Go with the general
public all you like, but you'll be moving away from Atkins, Eades,
Heller, Atgaston and so on.  In detail parts of my advice agrees with
some and disagrees with others.  So be it.  I pick and chose based
on several years of consistant study.  I've learned enough to be
able to find each expert's strengths and weaknesses.  Maybe I'm wrong,
maybe not.

Then they are losing more than just fat (possibly lean) and/or something
other that pure calorie restriction and caloric balance is at work.

I will *not* be in a relationship with you of the sort that you are in
with the rest of the group.

I'm asking nicely.  I do not wish you to speak to me.  Please killfile
me or otherwise ignore me.

I have a prediction to make.  You will *not* be happy if you do not
ignore me.

No, we can only blame you for throwing out too much personal
information....again and again.