The findings, though, indicate that the reason is appetite suppression, not biochemical reaction to carbohydrates, may be the real explanation.

ARGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I know I'm picking on blogging shorthand, but this is not an "either-or" scenario.

1. There is a "biochemical reaction" to the high protein/low carbohydrate diet - simple examples: less insulin spikes (fat storing), glucagon (fat-storing), higher GH and testosterone levels (fat burning), among a bunch of other things.

2. There is the fact that a diet high in protein and fat can represent a diet that represents less calories overall, as calories are more easily and quickly consumed in the form of carbs.

3. And there is a satiation affect related to some of the aforementioned "biochemical reactions" that effectively reduces carbohydrate cravings after a period on the diet, reinforcing the other two factors. This produces a suppressed appetite and can even gin up a slight euphoric effect.

And probably a hundred factors that I haven't listed.

The real crime here is committed by the dumbass (and I don't throw that word around lightly) nutritionists that cling to the old "calories in = calories out" balancing equation regarding weight loss, like some flat-earth adherents of yesteryear.

It's notable that this article and research directly challenges that inaccurate conventional wisdom:

This has encouraged researchers to consider that changing the ingredients of the diet, but not its calories, makes a difference in people's waistlines.

Ya think?

Phew.

Ok, I'm all better now.