"Cutting fat from your diet leads to more fat loss than reducing carbohydrates"

Crisseyda

Someone recently shared this study, and I just have to repost. Apparently this made news last summer as it "debunked" low carb.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33905745

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

I just carefully read the actual study. Let's clarify the blatant misinformation presented here. Important points are as follows:

1. The Restricted carbohydrate (RC) and Restricted fat (RF) diets both led to weight loss, but significantly more weight was lost following the RC diet.
2. Fat mass change as measured by DXA revealed significant changes from baseline, but did not detect a significant difference between RF and RC diets.
3. This study lasted 2 weeks. There were 10 men and 9 women in the study.
4. Carbohydrate restriction was only to an average of 140 grams/day.
5. They calculated daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber. This means numbers compared were (a) the fat intake from from RF group (7% of total calories) minus how much fat they oxidized (on a calorie deficient diet, of course they were oxidizing body fat) vs. (b) the fat intake from the RC group (49% of total calories--a much greater number) minus how much fat they oxidized--a difference that is accounted for more than 3 times in the intake.

So in summary, the only conclusion this study supported was that if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume! We already knew that!!! This study does NOT support the hypothesis that a low fat diet results in greater total fat burning than a high fat/low carbohydrate diet.

If you look at the hard data, the only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet.

They also found decreased insulin, decreased triglycerides, and elevated HDL with the carbohydrate restricted diet - all known benefits!

KETOGENICGURL

I read a lot of nutrition studies in pubmed…. NOT ONE ever restricts carbs when they are testing High vs Low fat…as example: 7% fat vs 12% (high) fat intake..but the CARBS are set at 45-65% which is STANDARD USDA guidelines. And most are only 2 weeks which we know isn't long enough for real results.

So no study currently exists testing a true H Fat diet with very restricted carbs too (for weight loss Keto/brain studies may exist).

I heard Dr. Peter Attia is running such a study but may not have results for a few years.

Because the entire medical and nutrition system (almost world wide) is still running under the "MORE carbs are better" advice from 1970 I see no way for serious, interested scientists to get funding for a true LCHF/full Keto diet for weight loss. It is STILL considered UNSAFE/risky to subject people to high fat diets longer term.

We all know even the RDs are threatened by their peers with expulsion for teaching LCHF (reported during LC down Under in AU 2014), and Prof Noakes is being sued for advising children's LC diets…so the tide is still out.

MOST of us have experience with medical staff blowviating on the evils of cholesterol/fats/heart disease combo.

So we have little reports from here and there, and CONTINUED HC/LFstudies being presented all still "proving" SF are bad, eat more carbs, veggie oils, margarine, heart healthy grains, etc.

Here is a POSITIVE report:
Why Low-Carb Diets Must Be High-Fat, Not High-Protein
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html#.VxEhRulVsb1

wabmester

Kevin Hall does the best studies. Here's a fixed link for the one you're talking about:
Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity

I have no qualms with the study, but it misses the major difference between low-fat and low-carb: HUNGER.

auntstephie321

I don't read studies because they never really seem to prove anything and usually have very limited participants.

Plus since I already debunked the low fat woe for fat loss, by losing 35 lbs eating 50-70% fat a day, who needs anything else

Crisseyda

wabmester wrote: »

Kevin Hall does the best studies. Here's a fixed link for the one you're talking about:
Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity

I have no qualms with the study, but it misses the major difference between low-fat and low-carb: HUNGER.

Exactly, it was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal.

The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the RC group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.

wabmester

There was an agenda, and both sides have responded publicly. Hall wanted to "disprove" Taubes' carb-insulin theory of obesity.

Taubes responded "what about hunger?"

Taubes concedes low fat can work, but he points to Keys' Minnesota starvation experiments to show the consequences. Low fat makes you crazy.