Very Interesting Study (Lancet 1956)
Options
FIT_Goat
Posts: 4,227 Member
This is a very old study, but one that I just found and found the results interesting. It certainly leads to an interesting discussion about how long we've known that losing weight is more than just calories. What is interesting is that they dealt with obese patients only, patients that I [FIT_Goat] would think are most likely to be sensitive to carbs and insulin.
Here's the link for those who want to read the whole thing. I'll sum up the parts I found interesting.
Kekwick-Pawan-1956-Lancet
The n=#s are fairly small. They did an n=6 where the percentages of macros were based on normal percents but the calories varied (2000->1500->1000->500) and, sure enough, the less people ate the more they lost! *shocking* {Note: water intake was calculated and held steady as was salt, to help control for that.}
They did an n=14 where the calories were held steady at 1000 a day. And they varied the Protein, Fat, and Carbs so that each one represented 90% of the calories for a period. So, the people ate 90% fat for a while, then 90% protein, and then 90% carbs (not necessarily in that order). Again, total water and salt consumption was calculated and controlled for.
"So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories." [ quote regarding this portion of the study from the article ]
"It will be seen that weight was lost rapidly when 90% of the calories was given as fat or protein, but that weight could be maintained during these brief periods when 90% of the calories was given as carbohydrate. Fig. 8 shows [. . .] to illustrate that the order in which the diets were given did not matter."
They finally, they did an n=5 where some patients were put on a normal 2000 calories a day diet, where they were maintaining or gaining weight. They were then switched to a 2600 calories a day diet that was high in fat or protein, with one exception, they all lost weight at 2600 calories a day of high fat or high protein.
Women might find it interesting to read how frustrating the menstrual cycle was for these experiments. The scientists (almost assuredly men) were shocked at the impact the cycle could have on weight and weight loss. As one woman was found to retain as much a 3 extra liters of water during one part of her cycle (that's 6.6 pounds... in case you're wondering). I'm sure the women here could attest to that fact without some scientist pointing it out.
Summary
So... I found it interesting. I especially found the part with the 1000 calories of 90% carbs resulting in no loss (at least for the short duration of the experiment) and the increase of 600 calories, which changing the macros, causing weight loss where there was none before. Good stuff.
Here's the link for those who want to read the whole thing. I'll sum up the parts I found interesting.
Kekwick-Pawan-1956-Lancet
The n=#s are fairly small. They did an n=6 where the percentages of macros were based on normal percents but the calories varied (2000->1500->1000->500) and, sure enough, the less people ate the more they lost! *shocking* {Note: water intake was calculated and held steady as was salt, to help control for that.}
They did an n=14 where the calories were held steady at 1000 a day. And they varied the Protein, Fat, and Carbs so that each one represented 90% of the calories for a period. So, the people ate 90% fat for a while, then 90% protein, and then 90% carbs (not necessarily in that order). Again, total water and salt consumption was calculated and controlled for.
"So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories." [ quote regarding this portion of the study from the article ]
"It will be seen that weight was lost rapidly when 90% of the calories was given as fat or protein, but that weight could be maintained during these brief periods when 90% of the calories was given as carbohydrate. Fig. 8 shows [. . .] to illustrate that the order in which the diets were given did not matter."
They finally, they did an n=5 where some patients were put on a normal 2000 calories a day diet, where they were maintaining or gaining weight. They were then switched to a 2600 calories a day diet that was high in fat or protein, with one exception, they all lost weight at 2600 calories a day of high fat or high protein.
Women might find it interesting to read how frustrating the menstrual cycle was for these experiments. The scientists (almost assuredly men) were shocked at the impact the cycle could have on weight and weight loss. As one woman was found to retain as much a 3 extra liters of water during one part of her cycle (that's 6.6 pounds... in case you're wondering). I'm sure the women here could attest to that fact without some scientist pointing it out.
Summary
3. When calorie intake was constant at 1000 per day, however, the rate of weight-loss varied greatly on diets of different composition. It was most rapid with high-fat diets; it was less rapid with high-protein diets; and weight could be maintained for short periods on diets of 1000-calorie value given chiefly in the form of carbohydrate.
4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in four out of five obese patients. In these same subjects significant weight-loss occurred when calorie intake was raised to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of fat an protein.
So... I found it interesting. I especially found the part with the 1000 calories of 90% carbs resulting in no loss (at least for the short duration of the experiment) and the increase of 600 calories, which changing the macros, causing weight loss where there was none before. Good stuff.
0
Replies
-
Wow. Thanks for sharing.0
-
I don't want to burst your bubble, but the study's authors already burst it:
In such a study, the difficulties are formidable. The first and main hazard was that many of these patients had inadequate personalities. At worst they would cheat and lie, obtaining food from visitors, from trolleys touring the wards, and from neighboring patients. At best, they cooperated fully, but a few found the diet so trying that they could not eat the whole of their meals. When this happened, the rejected part was weighed, and the equivalent calories and foodstuffs were added to a meal later in the day. The results we report are selected, a considerable number of known failures in discipline being discarded.
It would be great if the results could be replicated, but given that disclaimer, I'd say it was more a study of food palatability.0 -
I read that. Seemed to me they did their best to account for such things and deal with them. The conditions were also fairly well controlled. Those patients caught not following the diet were removed from the results. Maybe that speaks to the compliance rate, but not sure how that impacts the end conclusion.
Edit: Duplicated results would be awesome. I can understand why they haven't been though. The costs of running a study of this nature would be prohibitive, especially when "we already know lower calories works" (which is something the study does show).
Someone could try and replicate the results themselves, but it would be very complicated. Especially controlling for the total water and sodium each day.0 -
That is fabulous Goat, thanks for sharing this. I have been my own guinea pig for my own experiments, and my results are in keeping with what you have summarized above. It's just nice to see it spelled out in black and white. I have noticed that water weight gain during my cycle is much less while eating keto, but is still a factor.0
-
What I find interesting is that they were actually looking at the differences of high carb diets vs low carb diets in 1956. Science was already noticing a correlation between carbs and various health issues even then, despite the obesity/diabetes epidemic being a current problem. Whenever someone posts a study and it gets a response of "well, yeah, but you can't really know because of x,y, and z" I always think, "well, yeah, that's always going to be the case." Even if the people in the study do everything exactly the same and according to plan, you still have things like genetics, lifestyle, psychology, etc...that can lead to differences.0
-
The scientists (almost assuredly men) were shocked at the impact the cycle could have on weight and weight loss.
Excuse me a moment....
*Picks self back up off the floor (20 minutes later).*0 -
Gary Taubes links a lot of different research in his books. Looking at populations/cultural groups rather than individuals.
One thing that many researchers come back to is the example of the Inuit tribes. High fat low carb for centuries.
But once they started trading for flour and sugar, obesity and heart disease rates increased substantially.
Going veg is no guarantee either. A pulmonologist I saw was a vegetarian Hindi. Yet he struggled with high triglycerides.
Regardless any weight loss advantage of low carb, I know form my own blood tests that high fat low carb results in the best blood test results I have ever had. When I slip up and carbs go up, so does my bad cholesterol and triglycerides.
But wellness nurse still tend to think when I rattle off what I eat that I'm listing what I don't eat.0 -
Kitnthecat wrote: »That is fabulous Goat, thanks for sharing this. I have been my own guinea pig for my own experiments, and my results are in keeping with what you have summarized above. It's just nice to see it spelled out in black and white. I have noticed that water weight gain during my cycle is much less while eating keto, but is still a factor.
I gained and lost 3 lbs in water weight earlier this week, pretty much overnight and then lost 4 lbs a few days later, also overnight.
I guess that extra pound was the 1 I actually worked off this week!0 -
This is a very old study, but one that I just found and found the results interesting. It certainly leads to an interesting discussion about how long we've known that losing weight is more than just calories. What is interesting is that they dealt with obese patients only, patients that I [FIT_Goat] would think are most likely to be sensitive to carbs and insulin.
Here's the link for those who want to read the whole thing. I'll sum up the parts I found interesting.
Kekwick-Pawan-1956-Lancet
The n=#s are fairly small. They did an n=6 where the percentages of macros were based on normal percents but the calories varied (2000->1500->1000->500) and, sure enough, the less people ate the more they lost! *shocking* {Note: water intake was calculated and held steady as was salt, to help control for that.}
They did an n=14 where the calories were held steady at 1000 a day. And they varied the Protein, Fat, and Carbs so that each one represented 90% of the calories for a period. So, the people ate 90% fat for a while, then 90% protein, and then 90% carbs (not necessarily in that order). Again, total water and salt consumption was calculated and controlled for.
"So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories." [ quote regarding this portion of the study from the article ]
"It will be seen that weight was lost rapidly when 90% of the calories was given as fat or protein, but that weight could be maintained during these brief periods when 90% of the calories was given as carbohydrate. Fig. 8 shows [. . .] to illustrate that the order in which the diets were given did not matter."
They finally, they did an n=5 where some patients were put on a normal 2000 calories a day diet, where they were maintaining or gaining weight. They were then switched to a 2600 calories a day diet that was high in fat or protein, with one exception, they all lost weight at 2600 calories a day of high fat or high protein.
Women might find it interesting to read how frustrating the menstrual cycle was for these experiments. The scientists (almost assuredly men) were shocked at the impact the cycle could have on weight and weight loss. As one woman was found to retain as much a 3 extra liters of water during one part of her cycle (that's 6.6 pounds... in case you're wondering). I'm sure the women here could attest to that fact without some scientist pointing it out.
Summary3. When calorie intake was constant at 1000 per day, however, the rate of weight-loss varied greatly on diets of different composition. It was most rapid with high-fat diets; it was less rapid with high-protein diets; and weight could be maintained for short periods on diets of 1000-calorie value given chiefly in the form of carbohydrate.
4. At a level of intake of 2000 calories per day, weight was maintained or increased in four out of five obese patients. In these same subjects significant weight-loss occurred when calorie intake was raised to 2600 per day, provided this intake was given mainly in the form of fat an protein.
So... I found it interesting. I especially found the part with the 1000 calories of 90% carbs resulting in no loss (at least for the short duration of the experiment) and the increase of 600 calories, which changing the macros, causing weight loss where there was none before. Good stuff.
Really interesting @FIT_Goat . Thanks for sharing.
0 -
Yes, thank you Fit_Goat for sharing this interesting information! I'm ROFL too Dragonwolf! That's hilarious!!!0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »The scientists (almost assuredly men) were shocked at the impact the cycle could have on weight and weight loss.
Excuse me a moment....
*Picks self back up off the floor (20 minutes later).*
Awesome, DW! How many calories did that burn? Must have been an awesome ABS workout. Hee hee.0
This discussion has been closed.