^^^^
I repeat: don't talk complete shit.
Dan duchaine, lyle mcdonald as well as other experts have pretty conclusively proven that lowering carbs, rather than the other macros, results in greater fat loss (FAT loss, not WEIGHT loss).
Your body can live quite easily without carbs, which is why it should be the first thing you start reducing.
If you want to lose fat quickly, while maintaining your health, then minimizing carbs is a great idea. Sacrificing the other 2 macros would be plain stupid.
I couldn't care less about what you "doubt", the fact is that insulin plays a major role in calorie partitioning.
That means it influences where the weight loss is coming from.
Most people notice that when they create a 3500 calorie deficit they NEVER lose exactly 1 pound of fat - insulin, among other hormones, plays a part in this.
Summary:
Minimizing carbs is a fantastic idea and very useful to maximize fat loss
Insulin, whether you "doubt it" or not, plays a factor in how much fat you lose.
source: http://www.steroidology.com/forum/diet-forum/659460-primer-dca-iifym-aspiring-dieters.html
"Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
Surwit RS, Feinglos MN, McCaskill CC, Clay SL, Babyak MA, Brownlow BS, Plaisted CS, Lin PH.
Source
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
surwi001@mc.duke.edu
Abstract
In response to evidence linking obesity and high amounts of dietary fat, the food industry has developed numerous reduced-fat and nonfat food items. These items frequently derive a relatively large percentage of their energy from sugars and the effect of these sugars on weight regulation is not well known. We studied the comparative effects of high- and low-sucrose, low-fat, hypoenergetic diets on a variety of metabolic and behavioral indexes in a 6-wk weight-loss program. Both diets contained approximately 4606 kJ energy/d with 11% of energy as fat, 19% as protein, and 71% as carbohydrate. The high-sucrose diet contained 43% of the total daily energy intake as sucrose; the low-sucrose diet contained 4% of the total daily energy intake as sucrose. Twenty women aged 40.6 +/- 8.2 y (mean +/- SD) with a body mass index (in kg/m2) of 35.93 +/- 4.8 consumed the high-sucrose diet; 22 women aged 40.3 +/- 7.3 y with a body mass index of 34.93 +/- 4.4 consumed the low-sucrose diet. Mixed-design analysis of variance showed a main effect of time (P < 0.01), with both diet groups showing decreases in weight, blood pressure, resting energy expenditure, percentage body fat, free triiodothyronine (FT3), urinary norepinephrine, and plasma lipids. Small but significant interactions were found between group and time in total cholesterol (P = 0.009) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (P = 0.01). Both groups showed decreases in depression, hunger, and negative mood, and increases in vigilance and positive mood with time (P < 0.01). Results showed that a high sucrose content in a hypoenergetic, low-fat diet did not adversely affect weight loss, metabolism, plasma lipids, or emotional affect.
Sucrose in weight-loss regimens. [Am J Clin Nutr. 1998]
PMID: 9094871 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
^^^Surwit et. al. performed a study on two groups of hypocaloric dieters (those eating in a calorie deficit). One group, low-Sucrose group, got 4% of total calories from sucrose while another group, high-Sucrose group, got 43% of total calories from sucrose. The results were NO SIGNIFICANT impact on weight or fat loss between high-Sucrose and low-Sucrose groups. So eating 43% of your DAY'S TOTAL CALORIES from TABLE SUGAR is not enough to stop the fat loss in a hypocaloric diet. Both groups felt less hunger, depression, and mood swings. Does any more need to be said?
The Effect of Two Energy-Restricted Diets, a Low-Fructose Diet vs. a Moderate Natural Fructose Diet ***8211; Research Review
Madero M et. al. The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial. Metabolism. 2011 May 27. [Epub ahead of print]
One of the proposed causes of obesity and metabolic syndrome is the excessive intake of products containing added sugars, in particular, fructose. Although the ability of excessive intake of fructose to induce metabolic syndrome is mounting, to date, no study has addressed whether a diet specifically lowering fructose but not total carbohydrates can reduce features of metabolic syndrome. A total of 131 patients were randomized to compare the short-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets-a low-fructose diet vs a moderate natural fructose diet-on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters. Patients were randomized to receive 1500, 1800, or 2000 cal diets according to sex, age, and height. Because natural fructose might be differently absorbed compared with fructose from added sugars, we randomized obese subjects to either a low-fructose diet (<20 g/d) or a moderate-fructose diet with natural fruit supplements (50-70 g/d) and compared the effects of both diets on the primary outcome of weight loss in a 6-week follow-up period. Blood pressure, lipid profile, serum glucose, insulin resistance, uric acid, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and quality of life scores were included as secondary outcomes. One hundred two (78%) of the 131 participants were women, mean age was 38.8 ± 8.8 years, and the mean body mass index was 32.4 ± 4.5 kg/m(2). Each intervention diet was associated with significant weight loss compared with baseline. Weight loss was higher in the moderate natural fructose group (4.19 ± 0.30 kg) than the low-fructose group (2.83 ± 0.29 kg) (P = .0016). Compared with baseline, each intervention diet was associated with significant improvement in secondary outcomes. Reduction of energy and added fructose intake may represent an important therapeutic target to reduce the frequency of obesity and diabetes. For weight loss achievement, an energy-restricted moderate natural fructose diet was superior to a low-fructose diet.
^^^Madero and colleagues broke down participants in a low-Fructose group (<20g/day) and high-Fructose group (50-70g/day). Patients were randomized to either 1500, 1800, or 2000 calorie diets based on age, sex, weight, etc. This means the high-fructose group had ~12-16% of total calories come from fructose alone, not including other forms of carbs. Results? Weight loss was higher in moderate-Fructose group than low-Fructose group.
Take home point: Don't be scared of carbs. Low carbs does not mean you won't get fat just like high carbs doesn't mean you will get fat. It's about energy balance first and foremost.
Carb Recommendations: Unless you plan on doing a ketogenic diet or prefer low carbs/carb cycling diets, you should try and include at least 100-150g/day of carbs as a bare minimum.
It will help keep your intensity up in the gym among other benefits."
First of all I said focus on PROTEIN INTAKE, once u hit that with some fats there is not many calories left to play with carbs. Iam not saying go and pig out on ice cream, all I want to say is that moderate carb intake [100-150g] will be much more easier and NOT LESS EFFECTIVE for him than low to no carb diet !!! 
