>>76287316This is an interesting study as I personally follow a high carb, low fat diet and am always interested in more relevant studies, so thank you for posting it. I will preface this by saying that I am fully in support of a high carb, low fat diet; I just think it's important to be realistic about what people can expect to gain from it, especially if they're not doing it for the right reasons (health and longevity) but for some fad-chasing weight loss shit.
That said, one, this is a study of people whose glycogen stores were depleted prior to being placed on a high carb diet therefore their bodies had a lot of metabolic work to do refilling those stores once they were given ample nutrients. The necessary increase in calories was more due to the pressure to refill glycogen stores rather than metabolic rate being spiked so quickly, as evidenced by the fact that this initial spike decreased over the following days, lowering very quickly from the initial 2100 extra calories to a mild 100 extra calories.
Two, per your chart, energy expenditure rose from around 2600 calories to around 3100 calories. Hard to get exact numbers from a chart like that but how much of an increase is that, going from 2600 to 3100? If you guessed
>>76286448>around a 20% increasethen you're right, it's almost exactly 20%. Now, it's possible that it may have kept rising had the experiment continued but it seems more likely that it would have stabilized just like the excess calories stabilized. You're not going to get an infinitely rising metabolism, after all.
The study text claims a 35% increase in energy expenditure so I may be reading that chart wrong but follows by stating
>It is of interest to assess how much of this food-induced thermogenesis is due to the obligatory costs incurred for nutrient storage.so I'd want to see another study of people whose glycogen stores weren't intentionally depleted prior to the study and who were kept on a similar diet for longer than a week.