NIH study: cutting dietary fat more effective than cutting carbs for body fat loss
Replies
-
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 -
Woah...Total energy expenditure decreased significantly in the low-carbohydrate group, but not in the low-fat group (-98 vs. -50 kcal/d).
TDEE drop of 50 cal/day is 5 pounds a year - assuming the differential doesn't increase over time.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.
Eh, I'm at 150 g (40% for me), pretty sure I'm not low carb.
SAD intake assumes a ridiculous number of calories so isn't applicable to someone at a deficit.
Besides, according to those standards lots of us may well be low carb AND low fat.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Stephan Guyenet's blog post on the study is well worth reading, IMO:
A New Human Trial Undermines the Carbohydrate-insulin Hypothesis of Obesity, Again
This is a good read, thanks!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Besides, according to those standards lots of us may well be low carb AND low fat.
Yep.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Stephan Guyenet's blog post on the study is well worth reading, IMO:
A New Human Trial Undermines the Carbohydrate-insulin Hypothesis of Obesity, Again
Wow. I missed seeing in the original articles that the high carb group's fat was brought down to 8%! That even beats Ornish, doesn't it?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Baseline/Restricted Carb/Restricted Fat
Carbohydrate (g) 350 140 352
Total fiber (g) 24 16 21
Sugars (g) 152 37 170
One of the things I don't understand from this study is the carb composition of the restricted fat diet is half sugars (170g) while the Baseline diet is less than half sugar (152g) and the restricted carb diet is is about 25% sugar (37g).
170 grams of sugar is like feeding the restricted fat group 4 cans of coke a day! Couldn't they find some vegetables? I would think to have credibility in results they would need to keep the sugar to carb ratio somewhat consistent.
Baseline/Restricted Carb/Restricted Fat
Energy (kcal) 2,740 1,918 1,918
Protein (g) 101 101 105
Fat (g) 109 108 17
Carbohydrate (g) 350 140 352
The other concept I can't make sense of is the definition of 'low'. Carbohydrates are not nutritionally required to sustain normal function, but fats are. The official 'lowest' recommendations I could find were 0% for carbs and 15% for fats (and I'm not sure the fat number is correct). So - why is the restricted carb set at 140g/29% of total calories and restricted fat is set at 17g/8% of total calories??? (please correct me if the math is off)
To me it looks like they gave the restricted fat crew only half the fat needed to function? But on the other hand, the "restricted" carb group weren't actually very restricted since no carbs are required and they gave them 30% of calories in carbs.
I think it is a very interesting study, but it could have been much more interesting!
(apologies for formatting, I suck!)
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I like any diet studies to be at least 3650 days long to show long term validity for human use.
Kinda hard to find participants willing to live in a lab for 10 years.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
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.
They had increased protein oxidation and urinary nitrogen in the low carb group, and they said that's a sign of lbm losses, yes. Also water weight of course. Mostly water weight probably with only a few grams of lbm loss. Looking at the protein balance graph it looks like about 25 grams per day were lost on the low carb one.
"Furthermore, nitrogen balance measurements in several previous studies have suggested greater lean tissue loss with low-carbohydrate diets (Bell et al., 1969, Bortz et al., 1967, Bortz et al., 1968, Vazquez and Adibi, 1992, Vazquez et al., 1995)."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.
They explained why they didn't go lower. They wouldn't have been able to keep calories in both groups the same without increasing either fat or protein in the low carb group and they absolutely didn't want to do that as to not change results because of that.
Also, of course 140 would be about half for a small woman at 1100 calories. It would be less than 20% for someone who is eating 3000. Context is important. I don't think "low carb" is defined by a constant value of grams.
Edit: @Umayster asked the same, that's why.
They wanted to test especially for lowering carbs (particularly sugar, I guess because that's the boogeyman) vs. lowering fats. So they kept the other two macros each at around the same values as baseline. And they didn't want to risk lowering insulin secretion in the low fat group, to show Taubes he's wrong.
"Note also that the RF diet did not have a decrease in sugar content compared to baseline (Table 2). This was important since a decrease in sugar content with the RF diet would be expected to decrease insulin secretion despite no change in total carbohydrate content compared to baseline."0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Stephan Guyenet's blog post on the study is well worth reading, IMO:
A New Human Trial Undermines the Carbohydrate-insulin Hypothesis of Obesity, Again
Wow. I missed seeing in the original articles that the high carb group's fat was brought down to 8%! That even beats Ornish, doesn't it?
8%! That's way below the 20 to 35% acceptable distribution range for fat intake set by the Institutes of Medicine.
For someone with a maintenance level of 2000 in the low-fat group, they would only be consuming about 12 grams of fat a day. That seems scary low to me. I would think you'd be headed down a pretty quick path to skin problems, deficiencies in fat-soluble vitamins, hormonal issues...0 -
Do the maths. The energy balance does not reach steady state and glycogen stores are continuing to be depleted throughout the very short time frame of the study. Effectively they tested half of an Atkins Induction phase.
To get a useful comparison requires a 2-3 week adaptation to low carb before the experiment. I corresponded with Kevin Hall and he sent me the poster.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
That's Lustig not Taubes.0 -
Here's one for the CICO disciples - if the calorie deficits were the same why was the weight loss not the same ? Or put another way why was there a 324 calories per day difference in weight loss.0
-
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
That's Lustig not Taubes.
Whoops. Sometimes it's hard distinguishing these people.0 -
-
Baseline/Restricted Carb/Restricted Fat
Carbohydrate (g) 350 140 352
Total fiber (g) 24 16 21
Sugars (g) 152 37 170
One of the things I don't understand from this study is the carb composition of the restricted fat diet is half sugars (170g) while the Baseline diet is less than half sugar (152g) and the restricted carb diet is is about 25% sugar (37g).
170 grams of sugar is like feeding the restricted fat group 4 cans of coke a day! Couldn't they find some vegetables? I would think to have credibility in results they would need to keep the sugar to carb ratio somewhat consistent.
Baseline/Restricted Carb/Restricted Fat
Energy (kcal) 2,740 1,918 1,918
Protein (g) 101 101 105
Fat (g) 109 108 17
Carbohydrate (g) 350 140 352
The other concept I can't make sense of is the definition of 'low'. Carbohydrates are not nutritionally required to sustain normal function, but fats are. The official 'lowest' recommendations I could find were 0% for carbs and 15% for fats (and I'm not sure the fat number is correct). So - why is the restricted carb set at 140g/29% of total calories and restricted fat is set at 17g/8% of total calories??? (please correct me if the math is off)
To me it looks like they gave the restricted fat crew only half the fat needed to function? But on the other hand, the "restricted" carb group weren't actually very restricted since no carbs are required and they gave them 30% of calories in carbs.
I think it is a very interesting study, but it could have been much more interesting!
(apologies for formatting, I suck!)
In the real world, the 18 gram sugar difference between baseline and restricted fat could be due to more vegetables or even just a piece of fruit plus a few more vegetables, which you'd expect people to be eating if lower fat. You also get sugar in foods like plantains, sweet potatoes, beets. I expect my sugar consumption would go up if I ate low fat, but mostly from whole foods like this, as I don't really like sweets without fat. Worth looking at the specific explanation in the study, though, for sure.0 -
And goes to show how people pay attention to misleading pictures without reading the words.stevencloser wrote: »
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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