Science Daily article

[gitfiddle]

I found this artcle on the Science Daily website. Usually they're pretty mainstream.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/
090304114256.htm


ScienceDaily (Mar. 5, 2009) — Any diet will do? Not if you want to lose fat instead of muscle. Not if you want to lower your triglyceride levels so you'll be less likely to develop diabetes and heart disease. Not if you want to avoid cravings that tempt you to cheat on your diet. And not if you want to keep the weight off long-term.

"Our latest study shows you have a better chance of achieving all these goals if you follow a diet that is moderately high in protein," said Donald Layman, a University of Illinois professor emeritus of nutrition. The research was published in the March Journal of Nutrition.

[Mackay Rippey]

Maybe Dr. Eades is right and the Old Guard Nutritional Walls are tumbling down.

[Roadstr]

I found this artcle on the Science Daily website. Usually they're pretty mainstream.

I think the macro nutrients in the diets are pretty mainstream...
Both diets were equal in calories. Half followed a diet of 40% carbohydrates, 30% protein, 30% fat and the other half followed were given 55% carbohydrates, 15% protein, 15% fat.

[gitfiddle]

True, they weren't low carb in Dr. Mike's definition, what surprised me was the fact that the article was written at all!

[gocubbies]

From what you can tell from this article, this study is a simple version of the bigger studies that Gary Taubes talks about. How in the world can they raise BOTH the protein AND fat amounts from 15 to 30 percent, AND lower the carbs from 55 to 40, and come to the conclusion that it was "the protein that made all the difference?????" I'm all for eating protein, but you could just as easily say that it was the fat that made all the difference. And how do you NOT attribute anything to the fact of lowering the amount of carbs???
Amazing.