Interesting research paper

For those of you interested in the science of it all There is quite a bit on the science of VLCD, mostly good and I can not understand why LL have not done a litterature review. They really would come out looking well...only reason I guess is that they do not acctually have the academic researchers to do it. I did a scientific lit search and there are over 300 papers on VLCD including the one below specificially on LL. There are other LL ones, but they are written by LL and I am not sure of their impartiality and I do not think they are in peer reviewed journals and they are simply case studies of their data as opposed to research. I am not sure about their sample sizes (but pretty standard for a clinical study) and also using ANOVA as there is lots more they could have done, but it does show LL benifits of 3 and 9 months outweigh conventional dieting. anyway happy reading

Randomized clinical trial of standard dietary treatment versus a low-carbohydrate⁄high-protein diet or the LighterLife Programme in the management of obesity
Catherine ROLLAND, Michelle HESSION, Susan MURRAY,Alan WISE and Iain BROOM

Journal of Diabetes 1: (2009) 207–217

Abstract
Background: With the current obesity epidemic, the search for effective
weight loss approaches is required. In the present study, changes in weight,
body composition and cardiovascular (CV) risk in response to a lowfat,
reduced-energy diet (LFRE), a low-carbohydrate ⁄ high-protein diet
(LCHP), or a commercially available very low-calorie diet (LighterLife;
LL) were assessed.
Methods: One hundred and twenty obese patients (body mass index
‡35 kg ⁄m2) underwent a screening period of 3 months on the LFRE.
Those who lost >5% of their body weight were maintained on this
approach for an additional 3 months, whereas those who lost >10% at
this time were maintained for 1 year. Patients failing to achieve these targets
were randomly allocated to either the LCHP (n = 38) or LL (n = 34)
for a period of 9 months.
Results: Significantly greater weight loss was seen for patients on the LL than
the LCHP at 3 (mean (±SD) )11.6 ± 12.9 vs )2.8 ± 4.5 kg, respectively;
P < 0.0001) and 9 months ()15.1 ± 21.1 vs )1.9 ± 5.0 kg, respectively;
P < 0.0001) after screening. Significantly greater improvement in total cholesterol,
low-density lipoprotein–cholesterol, fasting glucose, and diastolic
blood pressure was seen at 3 months in patients on the LL compared with
the LCHP (P < 0.05). These differences were no longer significant at
9 months, with the exception of fasting glucose. The attrition rate was elevated
in the LCHP group, but did not differ significantly from the LL group.
Conclusion: Greater weight loss and improved CV risk were achieved with
the LL, which mostly reflects the patient support provided for each dietary
treatment.

Yes, I agree, but it's "Horses for Courses"
LL certainly worked for me. I am aware that is because it was the right thing at the right time. My head and body were both ready for it when I started.
After years of being "fat and happy" I realised I was in denial and wanted to change my life.
It was definitley the psychology and having a great LL counsellor and peer support in my special group (including BL x) that made the difference for me.
Whatever weight loss regime I might have chosen at a different time in my life wouldn't have worked because I wasn't ready to address the issues.
It has certainly been life changing for me. Thank God.