[jacques_chester]

You've missed the point, which is that body mass is directly predicted by total calories and is not statistically distinguished regardless of macronutrient composition. There are multiple studies listed, you just picked one.

Review articles come to the same conclusion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198

[mietek]

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198

I don't think this citation supports your point of view.

[jacques_chester]

> A systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets found that the weight loss achieved is associated with the duration of the diet and restriction of energy intake, but not with restriction of carbohydrates.

Put another way: ketogenesis isn't a magic escape hatch from physics. If you eat foods rich in protein, you are satieted sooner and total calories consumed falls.

Total calories consumed falls.

That's what causes the weight loss. Not a particular hormonal-metabolic configuration.

[mietek]

So, you're saying that it's actually easier to lose weight with a low-carb diet? Well, then, glad we agree.

As for the "calorie is a calorie" point of view, I recommend reading the following:

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

[jacques_chester]

We're arguing about different things. Some people do genuinely believe that ketogenesis is on a per-calorie basis somehow better at losing weight due to the distinct hormonal configuration. But the effect is totally predicted by net calorie balance, whether or not that balance is within observability (I can't, for example, control for my own particular thermic reaction to protein vs carbs, can't control for variation in food density blah blah blah it's on the average).

Myself personally, I like to eat substantial food and I train hard, so high protein, high carbohydrates suits me to a T.