U.S.A Cholesterol Guidelines are changing
punchgut
Posts: 210 Member
For those of you not paying attention, the United States is preparing to change their guidelines regarding dietary cholesterol. They are finally admitting that dietary cholesterol does not affect serum cholesterol, but if you've looked into the research you know this already.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/
Next up... Saturated fat.
Also, research is starting to clearly show that a low carbohydrate high fat diet is more affective for weight loss and improving cardiac scores.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
But wait, there's more... The Energy Balance Consortium Study is underway with some of the biggest scientists in the nutrition and health fields to answer finally if it's CICO or if it depends on the types of macronutrients. This is a major study combining some of the largest biomedical research facilities in the U.S. and the brightest people. And early results are starting to indicate that CICO isn't always correct.
Go read more about the study.
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.VNwDhl54oTg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/
Next up... Saturated fat.
Also, research is starting to clearly show that a low carbohydrate high fat diet is more affective for weight loss and improving cardiac scores.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
But wait, there's more... The Energy Balance Consortium Study is underway with some of the biggest scientists in the nutrition and health fields to answer finally if it's CICO or if it depends on the types of macronutrients. This is a major study combining some of the largest biomedical research facilities in the U.S. and the brightest people. And early results are starting to indicate that CICO isn't always correct.
Go read more about the study.
http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.VNwDhl54oTg
0
Replies
-
cico will always win for weight loss, it just may not win for other health benefits. do we really need great minds on this?0
-
Tagging0
-
So I've heard
CICO for the win
ETA: But not always I guess0 -
Gary and friends, no bias there. This post could be contrived as spam considering the first link has nothing to do with the last.0
-
from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
0 -
...The Energy Balance Consortium Study is underway ...http://nusi.org/the-science/current-science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium-study/#.VNwDhl54oTg
I wonder why they are only using 14 men and no women.
0 -
from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
Well, the metabolic ward is for controlling food intake and not meant to be real life. It will, however, remove the criticism that participants recording their own food intake generally isn't reliable.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be more like a pilot study and more funding would be generated if the results are promising. However, only men is going to lead to extrapolation errors and I'm sure whatever is found will be way overblown by the media and whichever side "wins." But with 14 participants who are all men, the results will be nothing more than perhaps interesting.
0 -
I didn't look but were the results consistent across the board in all 14?from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
Well, the metabolic ward is for controlling food intake and not meant to be real life. It will, however, remove the criticism that participants recording their own food intake generally isn't reliable.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be more like a pilot study and more funding would be generated if the results are promising. However, only men is going to lead to extrapolation errors and I'm sure whatever is found will be way overblown by the media and whichever side "wins." But with 14 participants who are all men, the results will be nothing more than perhaps interesting.
0 -
I don't think the study of these first 14 men has started yet. The article was dated January of 2015.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
I didn't look but were the results consistent across the board in all 14?from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
Well, the metabolic ward is for controlling food intake and not meant to be real life. It will, however, remove the criticism that participants recording their own food intake generally isn't reliable.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be more like a pilot study and more funding would be generated if the results are promising. However, only men is going to lead to extrapolation errors and I'm sure whatever is found will be way overblown by the media and whichever side "wins." But with 14 participants who are all men, the results will be nothing more than perhaps interesting.
they do not have results yet…they just announced the study, design, sample size etc…
I am not sure where people are getting 14 from ..it said 16 at bottom...0 -
from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
Well, the metabolic ward is for controlling food intake and not meant to be real life. It will, however, remove the criticism that participants recording their own food intake generally isn't reliable.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be more like a pilot study and more funding would be generated if the results are promising. However, only men is going to lead to extrapolation errors and I'm sure whatever is found will be way overblown by the media and whichever side "wins." But with 14 participants who are all men, the results will be nothing more than perhaps interesting.
makes sense…but wouldn't you want it to reflect actual real world situation and real world error with logging the can and does take place….0 -
Okay, my mistake.
Enrollment: 16 subjects
Study start date: 1/5/2014
I'm confused now. Did I miss the results???
0 -
Real world is full of confounders. Ward studies are the gold standard as is doubly labeled water.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
Well, the metabolic ward is for controlling food intake and not meant to be real life. It will, however, remove the criticism that participants recording their own food intake generally isn't reliable.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be more like a pilot study and more funding would be generated if the results are promising. However, only men is going to lead to extrapolation errors and I'm sure whatever is found will be way overblown by the media and whichever side "wins." But with 14 participants who are all men, the results will be nothing more than perhaps interesting.
makes sense…but wouldn't you want it to reflect actual real world situation and real world error with logging the can and does take place….
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Gary and friends, no bias there. This post could be contrived as spam considering the first link has nothing to do with the last.
Yes, a lot of bias. I wonder if the results will be released before his debate with Alan Aragon in May0 -
There's a debate, goody. Gary is not the greatest debater I've ever heard.neanderthin wrote: »Gary and friends, no bias there. This post could be contrived as spam considering the first link has nothing to do with the last.
Yes, a lot of bias. I wonder if the results will be released before his debate with Alan Aragon in May
0 -
I did find these results posted in 2014 but I don't think its the same study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090010/
Excerpt:
Conclusions.
Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced in terms of its macronutrient composition. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.
These conclusions seem to contradict the info in the OP.
0 -
I did find these results posted in 2014 but I don't think its the same study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090010/
Excerpt:
Conclusions.
Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced in terms of its macronutrient composition. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.
These conclusions seem to contradict the info in the OP.
so CICO works and a calorie is a calorie …shocking...0 -
Yeah, not comparable, totally different demographic for the participants....didn't read much past that.I did find these results posted in 2014 but I don't think its the same study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090010/
Excerpt:
Conclusions.
Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced in terms of its macronutrient composition. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.
These conclusions seem to contradict the info in the OP.
0 -
from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.0 -
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?0 -
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
0 -
double post0
-
neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?0 -
It will always be CICO. All metabolic anomalies, dysfunction etc is already accounted for in the EBE, we just keep finding them and calling it something other than what t is.neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
It will always be CICO. All metabolic anomalies, dysfunction etc is already accounted for in the EBE, we just keep finding them and calling it something other than what t is.neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?
Call it what they want or what you want, if there is a way of eating that lets me have more calories while losing or maintaining for whatever reason, I want in!0 -
Protein is king.neanderthin wrote: »
It will always be CICO. All metabolic anomalies, dysfunction etc is already accounted for in the EBE, we just keep finding them and calling it something other than what t is.neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?
Call it what they want or what you want, if there is a way of eating that lets me have more calories while losing or maintaining for whatever reason, I want in!
0 -
About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.0
-
When Walter Willett agrees on something that was the cornerstone of his philosophy, you know he's ready to retire.....lol just kidding, but seriously, he must be eating crow.MoiAussi93 wrote: »About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.
0 -
I think that's a problem with nutritional recommendations in general. Doctors and scientists are taught one thing early on. Or they build a career on certain findings...and then they are resistant to new evidence that contradicts what they believed. It's human nature to some degree. You need to have the same smoking gun show up in 100 different studies before they will finally be convinced to change their thinking. That's probably why certain recommendations...like limiting cholesterol...stick around much longer than they should.neanderthin wrote: »
When Walter Willett agrees on something that was the cornerstone of his philosophy, you know he's ready to retire.....lol just kidding, but seriously, he must be eating crow.MoiAussi93 wrote: »About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions