I found this study while cruising the internet and found it very interesting.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/10/778

So it boils down to lowering caloric intake....unless I'm reading it wrong.

Actually, it's showing that either lowering carb intake or lowering caloric intake is about equally effective for weight loss, but that low carb intake actually produced more results in lowering triglyceride levels. This is contrary to the bad press that low carb (sometimes referred to as high fat) get. It also shows that people on low carb diets maintained their good colesterol levels better.

Here's the conclusion quote from the study.

Conclusion: Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss.

You are correct LaurAnn, but it was a small study with a mixture of individuals who were/were not already affected by poor glycemic control and metabolic syndrome. I haven't seen anything compelling to date in the medical research which would prove one diet more effective than another. I just read a huge comparison of all the diets in a canadian medical journal. The idea that a "diet" ( no matter which one) naturally results in limitation of caloric intake is probably the most important factor. Thanks for the link, I agree, it was interesting.

I thought it said you lost weight faster or more on low carb. I didn't read the whole article since it seemed to be repeating itself, but it did indicate right at the beginning that the low carbers lost more.

Anyway I can't see the study being very effective anyway. What they needed was to find two groups of people who both really wanted to be on a diet. Those who wanted to low carb, and those who wanted to reduce calories. Maybe then their study would have had more willing participants who would have stuck with it to the end of the study.

I know my triglycerides went WAY lower on low carb. Before dieting, they were like in the 500 range. After some months on Atkins they were like 70 something.

From October to close to the end of January, I have been counting calories. I eat 1730 calories a day.

Starting two weeks ago when I began back on this program, I still count the calories and I'm still eating 1730 calories a day.

The only difference is that I'm not eating starchy carbs. I eat veggies and a small amount of fruit and macadamia nuts. Plus whatever carbs are in Atkins Advantage bars.

From October to close to the end of January, I lost 5 lbs total. In the past 2 weeks, I'm already down 4.

It did show that the low carbers lost more, but the difference was not very significant.

Hockeyfan - I also don't think that calories is the answer to all diets. I certainly don't limit my caloric intake while doing Atkins. My previous experience was quite dramatic. This time it has been much slower. The funny thing is that the last time I did the diet I actually ate more calories. This time I'm not just b/c I don't have the money to waste on food. I have to limit my "snacking".