Scientists (sort of) settle debate on low-carb vs. low-fat diets

washingtonpost.com

2 points·Libertatea··2 comments

I've tried both and can't stick to low fat. My genotype is carb sensitive. Eating carbs of low nutrient value (bread, grains, pasta ...) makes me hungry. A well formulated low carb diet that has me keto-adapted reduces my appetite dramatically and has me losing 2+ lbs a week. Of course I have to exercise but I have been doing that for years. And I do count calories. It is not hard to stay under my requirement for calories.

It is important to understand what a well formulated low carb diet means. I track protein, carbs and net carbs after fiber. I have targets for each. Fat is mostly from good oils like olive oil.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Science-Low-Carbohydrate-Living/dp...

The study seems flawed. Low carb diets assert that you need to be keto adapted. That can take weeks. It took about 3 weeks for me. And there may be other benefits of keto adapted diets: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367001/

I didn't read the study, but the WSJ article also didn't even mention the amount of fat or carbohydrates in the diets. I wouldn't be surprised if a "low-carb, but not actually ketogenic" diet was bad for you - if you're restricting carbs to be lower than the control 50% but still consuming, say, 20% carbohydrates, then you would never even become keto adapted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com