Here’s a study that may fit your criteria – http://jp.physoc.org/content/492/Pt_1/293.

I know that 177g is not considered low-carb by anyone’s standards but a couple of observations in the study still point to deteriorated physical performance on low(er)-carb diets:

1. Note that blood ketones rose markedly in the low(er)-carb group, indicating fat adaptation to at least some degree.

2. In the eighth week when both groups ate high-carb, the low(er)-carb group’s performance increased by 18%.

Keep in mind that in most studies testing sprinting or extended periods of low Vo2max (e.g. marathon) all show deteriorated performance with low-carb. It’s actually not surprising if you know basic biochemistry.

“1 week, this is not enough time … Only studies going out beyond 4-6 weeks are relevant.” <– This is the issue

1. In the first study, the subjects were only eating low carb for 1 week, this is not enough time for the body to adapt to efficiently using fat as an energy source and this is the common problem with most low carb excercising studies. Only studies going out beyond 4-6 weeks are relevant.

2. In addition to not knowing the time frame of the 2nd study, low carb does not mean high protein. Fat should replace carbs, not protein. Given protein’s poor conversion to energy you dont need a study to confirm high carb outperform high protein diets. The point of eating low carb is to have the body switch to using fat as an energy source, the study needs to look at high carb diets vs high fat diets, protein remaining constant.

I have not decided what to do yet but I would really be interested to see similar studies performed between high carb and high fat diets and allowing high fat diet subjects enough time for adaption, say 6 weeks.

Well, my thoughts on Taubes are long, elaborate and rather unpleasant and Vance Lehmkuhl of the NAVS put it much more eloquently than I probably could:

All in all, the article is not without some merit: It encouraged more discussion of the role of different fats, and the possibility that different levels of fat and carbs may work differently for different people. Since “Big Fat Lie” appeared, some studies have confirmed, once again, that Atkins-style diets can indeed cause weight loss, and without any short-term health effects. On the other hand, a massive Stanford University survey of low-carb trials confirmed that the key to the diet’s success is simple calorie restriction rather than any “magical” metabolic process. And, in one of the “success story” studies (New England Journal of Medicine, May 2003), people on the low-carb program gained twice as much weight back after a year than did the low-fat participants, leading the Washington Post to call the “long-term benefits negligible.” And in June, another New York Times writer, Jason Epstein, penned a public apology to readers for his earlier Atkins evangelizing.

The entire article is well worth a read:

http://www.navs-online.org/nutrition/dietmyths/atkinsomissions.php

Another good read, questioning the scientific framework of Taubes’ theory, can be found here:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/gary-taubes-goo.html

Has anybody read “Why We Get Fat; and What To Do About It” by Gary Taubes? I’ve been doing calories in vs.calories out for two years with little result. I track EVERYTHING that goes into my mouth. I run everyday, somtimes up to 5 miles. No luck. Taubes says Carbs are to blame and sites studies that many Health and Fitness uthorites seem to have ignored. He says things are a little bit more complicated by simple math that the law of thermodynamics (calories in vs calories out) is a law of PHYSICS applied to a study of biology.

He also says inactivity and overeating are symptoms of overweight, not the cause. He likens it to a room that has too many people in it. If you ask “why are there so many people in the room?” and you get told “well, because more people entered it than left it,” wouldn’t you think that person was being a wiseguy? Of course that’s true! But it doesn’t tell you anything. WHY did more people enter than leave?

It’s an interesting book, He goes after a lot of weight loss’ sacred cows so to speak. Wondering what people think…

Double no.

Yes, basically it always comes down to calories in vs. calories out. No matter if low carb, high carb or whatever else – do what you are most comfortable with.

And according to what I read, we Germans are the fattest Europeans 🙂

I think you are on to something here; many of those diets that restrict a certain macronutrient lead to weight loss not because x or y is not eaten, but because it leads the people doing those diets to (maybe unknowingly) control their calorie consumption for the first time ever.

My brother went low carb for two weeks and dropped ten pounds. He jogged about a mile a day, but wouldn’t really eat dinner that my mom made. He probably lost weight simply because he wasn’t eating as much. After quitting that diet, he lost over 65 pounds keeping his regular diet but simply cutting calories, and doing some home weightlifting and jogging.