NIH study: cutting dietary fat more effective than cutting carbs for body fat loss
Options
Replies
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.
Actually, we know it contains 2.25 more calories per gram.
We also know that it will take the body 2.25 times more energy to process the fat than it will the carbs, mass being equal.
All weight loss trials are just a battle of energy vs hunger. For me, if I have fat macros over 70% for breakfast, I can sustain 8-12 hours comfortably without eating anything and drinking sufficient water.
This way of eating also allows me to workout however long or hard I want while fasted.
Do you have links to support these statements?
I was always under the impression that carbs delivered roughly 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories.
I have also never seen anything suggesting fat takes more energy to process than carbs.0 -
I like how the study implicitly calls Taubes crazy.0
-
Sounds good. So long as the roads are paved with CICO, they'll get built to go to the right way.I didn't go low-fat for the heck of it, but do eat a low-fat, high-carb diet. So, I know it's possible to lose weight this way.
It's also possible to lose on a high-fat diet.
There are so many roads that lead to weight loss. We all find the way that works for us.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It covers weight loss, weight gain and weight maintenance. It's just an extremely basic way of saying that calories are related to weight and is not a WOE.
CICO can also help you gain.
That road goes in more than one direction and has a turning lane.0 -
Was this study about eating strategies? I guess missed something. Thanks for explaining.
Sounds good. So long as the roads are paved with CICO, they'll get built to go to the right way.I didn't go low-fat for the heck of it, but do eat a low-fat, high-carb diet. So, I know it's possible to lose weight this way.
It's also possible to lose on a high-fat diet.
There are so many roads that lead to weight loss. We all find the way that works for us.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It covers weight loss, weight gain and weight maintenance. It's just an extremely basic way of saying that calories are related to weight and is not a WOE.
CICO can also help you gain.
That road goes in more than one direction and has a turning lane.
0 -
I've always been a pretty big fan of the balanced diet approach...old fashioned I know...and not nearly enough zealotry for most. I mean what fun is there in moderate carbs, moderate fat, and moderate protein? Nothing to really fight too much about there.0
-
Fair enough to call the results preliminary but important; less sure about using mathematical models to predict biological processes ( presumably some assumptions are made based on previous work, but only time & studying it all over time will tell) - overall though very cool0
-
Working through the study. This seems important to note.The model predicted that weight loss increased with decreasing carbohydrate. However, body fat loss was relatively insensitive to isocaloric substitutions of dietary fat and carbohydrate, suggesting that the body acts to minimize differences in fat loss when the diet calories and protein are held constant. In fact, the experimental RC and RF diets resulted in close to the maximum predicted differences in body fat loss. In other words, the modest differences in body fat loss achieved by the diets used in our experiment are probably greater than would be observed with other ratios of carbohydrate and fat.0
-
This is music to my earsFurthermore, we can definitively reject the claim that carbohydrate restriction is required for body fat loss (Taubes, 2011).0 -
I take this with a grain of salt. Not all bodies work the same way. Some people, due to body chemistry, do better with more fat, less fat, more carbs, less carbs, more protein, less protein. I know I feel awful if I don't have enough meat. This doesn't mean I can't eat vegetarian sometimes. But over the long term my energy levels end up really low. The wrong ratio of carbs leaves me too hungry.0
-
I read it quickly and skimmed a bit so I may be way off here, but it really is a shame they didn't actually test low carb. The reduced carb group was 29% and the high carb group was 71% carbs. 29% seems closer to the Zone diet (30-40%) than a low carb diet.
Some very active people can do up to 150g of carbs per day but most consider low carb below 100g per day with a large number doing less than 50g per day so they can actually benefit from being in ketosis. As I see it, they reduced the carbs on someone who is used to burning carbs/glucose for energy, and for only a week... I'm guessing it wasn't a pleasant experience for that person to have their fuel restricted.
As I see it, they compared a (on the low side of) moderate carb diet to a high carb diet.
I would have liked to have seen an actual low carb diet (below 100g or 50g) compared to high carb, and over at least 3 months since it can take the body a few weeks to adapt to lower carbs.
Plus, keep in mind they used less than a couple of dozen healthy people. People with IR and other health issues are the ones who benefit the most from a low carb (and slightly restricted I guess) carb diet. For healthy people, low carb doesn't offer the same health benefits or weight loss benefits.
JMOstevencloser wrote: »
This is music to my earsFurthermore, we can definitively reject the claim that carbohydrate restriction is required for body fat loss (Taubes, 2011).
I think when Taubes said that it was in reference to a restricted calorie diet, aka CI<CO. He was saying that when you cut calories, carbs often end up getting cut so the dieter ends up with a restricted carb diet... Most people do not cut back on / restrict protein when dieting. Most people do not cut fat by a lot and it is often the fats paired with a carb that do get cut. ie a bagel, crackers, potato chips, peanut butter on toast.
That quote was taken out of context.0 -
Taubes is the guy who says fructose should be treated like poison and thinks sugar is the sole reason for obesity. I don't think this is taken out of context.0
-
I like any diet studies to be at least 3650 days long to show long term validity for human use.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Working through the study. This seems important to note./quote]
The model predicted that weight loss increased with decreasing carbohydrate. However, body fat loss was relatively insensitive to isocaloric substitutions of dietary fat and carbohydrate, suggesting that the body acts to minimize differences in fat loss when the diet calories and protein are held constant. In fact, the experimental RC and RF diets resulted in close to the maximum predicted differences in body fat loss. In other words, the modest differences in body fat loss achieved by the diets used in our experiment are probably greater than would be observed with other ratios of carbohydrate and fat.
So is this saying that the extra weight lost on the low-carb diet compared to the low-fat diet was all (or pretty much all) lean body mass? If so, how is that a good thing?
Also, doesn't this contradict the original synopsis of the study as showing low-fat diets are more effective?
I guess I'm really confused.
Edited (multiple times) to get the study quote that I'm responding to to actually show up in my post.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I have this objection to this study, as well. Ask anyone who's ever gone low carb about how they felt during the first week or so. Sluggishness, headaches, etc. are the physical symptoms of the changeover. If the study doesn't even go beyond this period to the point where one is actually burning only fat then it's invalid.RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
At 140g of carbs this study wasn't actually low carb (130g and under being the usual low carb cut off point) so there would not have been any low carb adjustment period to contend with.
SAD carb intake is around 300g/day, so I fully accept 140g as being low carb.
0 -
140g is not low carb by a long shot. For a small woman dieting it represents about half of her entire intake (when setting macros in MFP by percentage at about 1200kcal).
I could get 9.7 slices of cheap multigrain bread in for 140g of carbs!
No self respecting low carber would be eating all that bread. Even my partner only has 6 slices of bread a day and he is not on any sort of diet what so ever. He loves his carbs.0 -
I'm eating over 400g per day. Should I be dead soon?AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I have this objection to this study, as well. Ask anyone who's ever gone low carb about how they felt during the first week or so. Sluggishness, headaches, etc. are the physical symptoms of the changeover. If the study doesn't even go beyond this period to the point where one is actually burning only fat then it's invalid.RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
At 140g of carbs this study wasn't actually low carb (130g and under being the usual low carb cut off point) so there would not have been any low carb adjustment period to contend with.
SAD carb intake is around 300g/day, so I fully accept 140g as being low carb.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I'm eating over 400g per day. Should I be dead soon?AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I have this objection to this study, as well. Ask anyone who's ever gone low carb about how they felt during the first week or so. Sluggishness, headaches, etc. are the physical symptoms of the changeover. If the study doesn't even go beyond this period to the point where one is actually burning only fat then it's invalid.RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
At 140g of carbs this study wasn't actually low carb (130g and under being the usual low carb cut off point) so there would not have been any low carb adjustment period to contend with.
SAD carb intake is around 300g/day, so I fully accept 140g as being low carb.
There's no obvious reason why you should be, that I know of, anyway.0 -
Stephan Guyenet's blog post on the study is well worth reading, IMO:
A New Human Trial Undermines the Carbohydrate-insulin Hypothesis of Obesity, Again0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
This is music to my earsFurthermore, we can definitively reject the claim that carbohydrate restriction is required for body fat loss (Taubes, 2011).
+1
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions