Cutting carbs is more effective than cutting fat...apparently.

natboosh69

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11963385/Cut-out-carbs-not-fat-if-you-want-to-lose-weight-Harvard-study-finds.html

This was also one of the main stories on the news in the UK this morning, cue mass of low carb diets!

Why is it not mainstream information that cutting calories is all that is needed, not carbs or fat or whatever? Frustrates me so much reading cr*p like this.

Sued0nim

No it's not

But it sure does drive internet hits doesn't it

Sighs deeply

scyian

Frustrates me too. I was expecting Jamie Oliver to be mentioned in that article somewhere now his irritating face is on the ban sugar bandwagon.

People can see I've lost weight without giving things up, I tell them is CICO yet they'll still pick a 'diet' method and wonder why they couldn't stick with it and gained it all back when they went back to their normal eating habits.

SezxyStef

eh it is comparing the two current fads...low fat vs low carb and saying low carb works better than low fat.

It probably does...get rid of bread, pasta and potatos bam lots of calories gone.

Fat helps with satiety so of course if you eat fat you feel fuller longer and eat less of other stuff.

The final note in the article

But doctors said any diet which reduced portion size and focussed on a healthy balanced range of fresh and unprocessed foods could form an effective route to weight loss. Dr Tobias said: "We need to look beyond the ratios of calories from fat, carbs, and protein to a discussion of healthy eating patterns, whole foods, and portion sizes.
<snip>
He said the key message from the research is that overall calorie intake determined the extent of weight loss, however it was achieved.

“In order to control body weight, it still remains sensible advice to eat less (restrict portion size) and avoid consuming excess amounts of fat and sugar especially as fatty meat, deep fried foods, cakes and biscuits and sugar-sweetened beverages,” he said.

msf74

natboosh69 wrote: »

Why is it not mainstream information that cutting calories is all that is needed, not carbs or fat or whatever?

I suspect because most people want, and I am guessing respond better to, easily executable solutions.

For many people calorie counting doesn't seem simple to incorporate into their daily lives and will move away from it.

Therefore they are more likely to embrace a message like "low carb" than "CICO".

msf74

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

I'm interested to see if the genetic studies prove genetic predisposition to one type of diet over the other. Preliminary studies show a genetic element which affects which type of diet (low carb or low fat) works best for an individual. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703862704575099742545274032

The NIH is funding further multi-year studies which are due to end in 2017. http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-DK091831-03

I think it stands to reason that genetics must play some part but I guess the question is how much of a part.

I'm a big fan of the "experiment, see what you respond favourably to, discard that which you do not" approach. I guess finding what fits best for a person would be easier if they had some reasonable guiding point to begin with.

However, just like genetic factors in sport for example genetics in of itself does not show the whole picture and things like environment, culture and psychological factors also interact and have parts to play.

In addition the answer to the question "low carb" or "low fat" also depends on what I am hoping to achieve. For leaness or sporting achievements it is low(er) fat. For general, happy lifestyle where I don't have any events on the horizon low(er) carb.

It is possible to have it all

msf74

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

I agree. I managed to lose my weight using MFP's default macro split. It worked well for me. I just find it interesting, that's all.

For sure.

What exactly makes us who we are as individuals and as part of the human race is a fascinating area.

yarwell

"A just-published article in the prestigious journal The Lancet summarizes all major scientific trials on losing weight on low fat. The conclusion? There’s no evidence that low-fat helps to lose weight, compared to any other diet advice." - actual study abstract at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(15)00367-8/abstract

nordlead2005

I love the comments on the article arguing that carbs turn straight into fat as the counter argument for CICO (that it doesn't work). They completely ignore that once the energy runs out it HAS to come from somewhere, and the answer is the majority will be from the fat deposits in your body unless you eat more. CICIO still holds, I can't help it you may end up stuffing your face if you eat 100% carbs.

lemurcat12

The article goes on to point to a 2 lb difference over a year (given how much I lost last year, this hardly convinces me I had the wrong approach), and also says: "any diet which reduced portion size and focussed on a healthy balanced range of fresh and unprocessed foods could form an effective route to weight loss. Dr Tobias said: 'We need to look beyond the ratios of calories from fat, carbs, and protein to a discussion of healthy eating patterns, whole foods, and portion sizes. Finding new ways to improve diet adherence for the long-term and preventing weight gain in the first place are important strategies for maintaining a healthy weight.'"

Low carb has a quicker starting out loss (typically due to more water weight), for SOME will help with appetite control, and beyond that it appears that more dramatic changes can be more effective in the short term, especially for people who aren't monitoring calories (since if you cut out a bunch of stuff you relied on it takes a while to figure out what else to eat -- I also think this is why super low fat diets tend to test better than the usual "under 30%" low fat, which isn't really low fat. The bigger question is if the way of eating is sustainable for someone not participating in a study over time, and help that person eat consistent at a more appropriate calorie level for the activity they do. That's going to be personal, not something answered by a study.

nvmomketo

This has been discussed many times in the the last few months. The article has nothing really new. It has been known for a while that a LCHF diet results in faster early (first 6 months) weight loss, mainly in the large minority ( getting close to 50%) of people who have some form of insulin resistance (PCOS, T2D, prediabetes, NAFLD). The weight loss then basically evens out at about a year. A two pound difference is about the same.

I do wonder that if they just studied those with IR on a LCHF diet, if they would see even greater weight loss trends? LCHF diets coupled with CI<CO can be quite "magical" for some of us when it comes to weight loss. A LCHF diet often improves our health too, with or without the calorie deficit, which many low ravers find to be the main benefit.

ETA that this WOE is just as sustainable as any other diet. For those of us who have experienced the health benefits of this WOE, I would hasten to guess that we are more likely to use this WOE for life. We have too much to lose from walking away from it.

yarwell

lemurcat12 wrote: »

The article goes on to point to a 2 lb difference over a year

presumably a mean, concealing a whole load of variation like this 12 month diet comparison :-

dianaiku

I feel like this is true in my personal experience

Sabine_Stroehm

I wish these reports would emphasize health. But that's just me.

cwolfman13

i lost weight and maintain weight just fine eating a well balanced diet of carbs, fat, and protein...

nvmomketo

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

I wish these reports would emphasize health. But that's just me.

I completely agree!

Sabine_Stroehm

cwolfman13 wrote: »

i lost weight and maintain weight just fine eating a well balanced diet of carbs, fat, and protein...

With lots of nutrient dense foods, I bet.

cwolfman13

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

i lost weight and maintain weight just fine eating a well balanced diet of carbs, fat, and protein...

With lots of nutrient dense foods, I bet.

truth...

SergeantSausage

Only because when I eat cake, I eat 9 pieces and I don't stop until the Entire Pizza is gone.

Nothing to do with the secret magic in a Carb Calorie as opposed to, say, a Bacon Calorie.

xKoalaBearx

They don't know what they're talking about. The difference was two pounds.

True weight loss is all about the calories. The media is so annoying.

jgnatca

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

I wish these reports would emphasize health. But that's just me.

I got a lot healthier when I lost my first twenty pounds, and the health benefits just compounded after I lost fifty. I had a rather stern conversation with my pharmacist last night as he had "lost" a prescription I filed a month ago. He commented that I hadn't gotten prescription medications for a very long time. "That's right", I growled, "but that vitamin prescription I assure you was filed with you a month ago. Look again." He found it.

yarwell

SergeantSausage wrote: »

Only because when I eat cake, I eat 9 pieces and I don't stop until the Entire Pizza is gone.

is your short term memory affected ?

BarbieAS

But adherence is a major player here, as well as how the individual mentally responds to a diet, not just physically. Looking at this particular piece in isolation, my guess is that for many obese people, using a "low carb" diet removes a lot of temptation to eat too much of many of the foods that got us here. Think about it - of course, this isn't meant to be a blanket statement because obviously nothing applies to everyone, but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.

Many, many people are able to exercise moderation and still include these foods in smaller amounts while losing weight, and that's great - that's the best-case scenario. But I think that low carb works for some people in part because it completely eliminates the "ability" to even think about touching the foods that they used to over-eat. They're off limits. There's no "I'll just have one cookie" that turns into 6, because it's not an option. It's certainly not impossible, but it's a lot more difficult to mindlessly munch and blow your calorie goal for the day when you're eating meat and vegetables in front of the TV than it is Doritos and Oreos. That makes it easier to "stick to," and therefore more effective for those people.

Low fat on the other hand...there are tons and tons and tons of snack foods that offer little to no satiety that one can eat out of emotion or boredom to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of calories - that are "fat free" or "low fat." It's harder stay within your calorie goals if your diet is 60% foods that don't make you full.

I realize these are very very general statements. They absolutely do not apply to everyone. But I just think that adherence and mental as well as physical satisfaction while trying to lose weight is one of the most important factors in success, and for some people low-carb offers that to a greater degree than low-fat, or in some cases even just a balanced CICO approach.

rankinsect

It's interesting, but it doesn't conflict with the CICO notion.

Basically, it comes down to what feedback mechanism you are using to control your food intake. For those who don't track calories, this feedback is internal - hormones like leptin and ghrelin, social pressure, psychology, etc. We all know the body isn't great at perceiving how much it consumed. You can eat 800 calories of cake and be hungry again in an hour, while 800 calories of, say, grilled chicken breast makes you full for a very long time, if you can even consume that much. Diet clearly helps or hinders proper weight regulation here. What these people are eating is also changing their calories in.

With calorie counting, we are replacing that internal feedback loop with a more accurate external one - not perfect, but most of us here are far more successful than when we let our bodies regulate our intake.

To that extent, the strategies that help non-counters are typically of limited utility for us; it can help us make more informed decisions about satiety and thus perhaps help us be more successful, but our method is a completely different type of feedback control versus what controls a non-counter's intake.

lemurcat12

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

I wish these reports would emphasize health. But that's just me.

Losing weight can make a huge difference to health, but the bit I quoted from the article seems related to health too:

"any diet which reduced portion size and focussed on a healthy balanced range of fresh and unprocessed foods could form an effective route to weight loss. Dr Tobias said: 'We need to look beyond the ratios of calories from fat, carbs, and protein to a discussion of healthy eating patterns, whole foods, and portion sizes. Finding new ways to improve diet adherence for the long-term and preventing weight gain in the first place are important strategies for maintaining a healthy weight.'"

lemurcat12

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

i lost weight and maintain weight just fine eating a well balanced diet of carbs, fat, and protein...

With lots of nutrient dense foods, I bet.

And of course obsessing about low carb vs. low fat takes the attention away from that, as neither has a monopoly on nutrient dense foods and you can do both while focusing on them and both while ignoring them (although personally I'd have a harder time eating a poor diet while doing low fat, possibly due to personal preferences).

Quite a lot of nutrient dense foods are carbs, after all.

lemurcat12

but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.

Most of these foods (with the exception of crackers, which I've never heard named as a trigger food before) and cocktails, are either also high fat or tend to be eaten with high fat foods (bread, pasta).

One thing is that low carb diets tend to require that such foods be cut out, but "low fat" diets aren't really low fat (more like below 30%) so you can still eat this kind of stuff -- the diet as a whole changes less.

This one examined a wide range of diets, but for example on extremely low fat diets like Ornish or Fuhrman you couldn't eat most of this stuff either, or would do so in a very different way (whole wheat bread, plain; pasta with a vegetable based sauce, no cheese, little olive oil). So it would present just as big a change.

I never get why people want to classify foods that about about half fat (like fries or chips -- both foods that are considered unhealthy more because of the oil typically used than anything about potatoes) as simply "carbs" and then slam the health benefits of carbs based on that. (Not saying you personally are doing this--it's just a pet peeve.)

BarbieAS

lemurcat12 wrote: »

but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.

Most of these foods (with the exception of crackers, which I've never heard named as a trigger food before) and cocktails, are either also high fat or tend to be eaten with high fat foods (bread, pasta).

One thing is that low carb diets tend to require that such foods be cut out, but "low fat" diets aren't really low fat (more like below 30%) so you can still eat this kind of stuff -- the diet as a whole changes less.

This one examined a wide range of diets, but for example on extremely low fat diets like Ornish or Fuhrman you couldn't eat most of this stuff either, or would do so in a very different way (whole wheat bread, plain; pasta with a vegetable based sauce, no cheese, little olive oil). So it would present just as big a change.

I never get why people want to classify foods that about about half fat (like fries or chips -- both foods that are considered unhealthy more because of the oil typically used than anything about potatoes) as simply "carbs" and then slam the health benefits of carbs based on that. (Not saying you personally are doing this--it's just a pet peeve.)[b/]

No, I'm definitely not doing that. Fries and chips are definitely high fat as well, but within the confines of a low-carb diet, they are absolutely too high in carbohydrates to be included in any fashion. I wasn't trying to categorize any foods into exclusively carbs or fats, I was simply listing foods that are calorie-dense and prone to over-consumption for many folks that are also too high in carbs to include in any significant quantity on a low carb diet.

As I said, the best case scenario is to eat all food groups in moderation. I was simply trying to point out that from an adherence standpoint - which I think EVERYONE can agree is one of the top predictors of success, because it doesn't matter how perfectly tailored or balanced your meal plan/diet is, it is absolutely meaningless if you can't stick to it - low carb may make that easier for some people who tend to over-consume, since a lot of the foods that make that easy are high carb, and eliminating those as an option may mentally make the choice not to over-eat easier.

(Also, for the record, crackers are for SURE a trigger - I can put down a box of Cheez Its like I'm being paid to do it. )

SergeantSausage

yarwell wrote: »

SergeantSausage wrote: »

Only because when I eat cake, I eat 9 pieces and I don't stop until the Entire Pizza is gone.

is your short term memory affected ?

We have this construct in our language. Its called a conjunction, right? Maybe you oughta click that link ...

glisteninglight18

natboosh69 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11963385/Cut-out-carbs-not-fat-if-you-want-to-lose-weight-Harvard-study-finds.html

This was also one of the main stories on the news in the UK this morning, cue mass of low carb diets!

Why is it not mainstream information that cutting calories is all that is needed, not carbs or fat or whatever? Frustrates me so much reading cr*p like this.

So wait... I don't get it ? It's best to just Calorie count then cut carbs ? I thought it just depends on body type because not all the same things work for everyone.

rankinsect

glisteninglight18 wrote: »

So wait... I don't get it ? It's best to just Calorie count then cut carbs ? I thought it just depends on body type because not all the same things work for everyone.

Calorie counting is the single most effective strategy for weight loss, but not everyone will do it.

For those who don't do it, reducing carbs helps slightly more than reducing fat in terms of enabling people to regulate their weight better.

Think of it like this - the best tool for financial stability is to create and stick to a budget. Not everyone does that. For those who don't, paying in cash instead of credit may help them reduce spending. But if you do stick to a budget, or if you're naturally frugal, it really doesn't matter.