Low-fat vs. low-carb

L1zardQueen

https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

janejellyroll

Fascinating, thanks for posting this.

deannalfisher

what the *kitten* is a low-fat genotype????

All participants were screened for the “low-fat” genotype (hypothesized to do better on a low-fat diet), the “low-carb” genotype, or neither.

janejellyroll

deannalfisher wrote: »

what the *kitten* is a low-fat genotype????

All participants were screened for the “low-fat” genotype (hypothesized to do better on a low-fat diet), the “low-carb” genotype, or neither.

There's a hypothesis that individuals will have weight loss success on a low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet if they have a certain genotype. I don't think anybody has established that this is a real thing. From another article on the study: "Participants also had a blood test to determine the presence of single nucleotide polymorphisms of three genes (PPARG, ADRB2, and FABP2) related to fat and carbohydrate metabolism, and they were classified as having a genotype believed to respond to a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet, or neither."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892859#vp_2

catherineg3

"no significant weight-loss differences between the low-fat and low-carb groups." but "Neither group was able to stick to the very low starting intakes: by month 3, the low-fat group was already consuming an average of 42 g of fat per day, whereas the low-carb group was consuming an average of 96.6 g of carbs per day." Almost 100g of carbs per day is not low-carb. Of course, the study does not show significant differentiation, because for 9 months of the 12 month long study, no one was compliant with the original definitions of low fat <20g fat and low carb <20g carb.

asviles

https://www.apnews.com/7bf0bae4798242efb2030224c79642f7/Carbs,-fats,-genes?-Weight-loss-is-finicky,-new-study-shows

No. Calories.

L1zardQueen

janejellyroll wrote: »

deannalfisher wrote: »

what the *kitten* is a low-fat genotype????

All participants were screened for the “low-fat” genotype (hypothesized to do better on a low-fat diet), the “low-carb” genotype, or neither.

There's a hypothesis that individuals will have weight loss success on a low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet if they have a certain genotype. I don't think anybody has established that this is a real thing. From another article on the study: "Participants also had a blood test to determine the presence of single nucleotide polymorphisms of three genes (PPARG, ADRB2, and FABP2) related to fat and carbohydrate metabolism, and they were classified as having a genotype believed to respond to a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet, or neither."

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/892859#vp_2

I had my DNA done on 23andMe and my results were that I am better suited to eat low fat. Thanks for mentioning this. Double checking 23andMe results.

nvmomketo

catherineg3 wrote: »

"no significant weight-loss differences between the low-fat and low-carb groups." but "Neither group was able to stick to the very low starting intakes: by month 3, the low-fat group was already consuming an average of 42 g of fat per day, whereas the low-carb group was consuming an average of 96.6 g of carbs per day." Almost 100g of carbs per day is not low-carb. Of course, the study does not show significant differentiation, because for 9 months of the 12 month long study, no one was compliant with the original definitions of low fat <20g fat and low carb <20g carb.

By most people's standards, 96.6g of carbs a day is still low carb - it just is not ketogenic, being almost double the usual accepted upper carb limit of 50g for a ketogenic diet.

It is interesting how the low carbers almost quintupled the carb gram intake but fat intake was only doubled. It is sort of funny that they started the low carb group out as ketogenic but then let it drift back into glucose as the primary fuel. Both groups would be using mainly glucose for fuel; they were just consuming different amounts of it.

My guess is that carbs drifted up so much because fat was never increased to make up for lost calories. According to their graphs, both groups started around 90g of fat. The low fat group dropped to about 40g then went back up to about 60g. Weirdly, the low carb group's fat fell from about 90g to 80g - not what usually happens when one eats a low carb diet.

The graphs do not show carbs or fat ever hitting 20g, and then "drifting" back up (as they put it). It looks more like they touched 20g and then leaped back higher, immediately. I wonder if they helped those through the early week (or day or two - however long they lasted) of ketosis? Did they have them add more sodium to their diet so there was no electrolyte imbalance and feelings of poor health? They did not have them increase fat, that looks fairly certain.

Apparently, the low carb group ended up at 132g (on average - that would put quite a few over the low carb limit as mentioned by catherineg3), and low fat ended up at 57g. LOL ... Who did these graphs? LOL



Supposedly both groups lowered their calorie intake by 500 kcal a day... so they should have lost 52 lbs in a year instead of the average 13 lbs.

And I really hope that they did not do an OGTT on the low carbers - those tests are next to useless for people on a low carb diet.

All I got from this was:

1. If people restrict calories they will lose weight - shocking.
2. People underestimated (or lied) about what they were eating. They had a 150 kcal deficit and NOT a 500kcal deficit.
3. Most people will not stick to a dietary change without need. My guess is that those who would stick to it are those who have a need to like health issues or eating less becomes easier.

Not much here, IMO. NuSi needs to do better.

andrewbrownketo

Where did the low carb group get their hunger satiated, if not from an increase in fat? It looks to me like the low carb group was set up for failure. If you are doing a low-carb diet, you need the high fat to satiate yourself. Otherwise, you will always be hungry, and therefore binge!!!

lemurcat12

andrewbrownketo wrote: »

Where did the low carb group get their hunger satiated, if not from an increase in fat? It looks to me like the low carb group was set up for failure. If you are doing a low-carb diet, you need the high fat to satiate yourself. Otherwise, you will always be hungry, and therefore binge!!!

Most commonly people in low carb diet studies increase protein as well as fat, and protein is the most satiating macro on average for most people.

Not everyone finds high fat satiating. (I don't, although I do find it enjoyable and it helps me not feel like I'm on a restrictive diet.)

However, in this study they did (obviously) increase fat, although the focus was on cutting one macro -- the low carb group stuck to around 90 g of carbs by the end (started lower) and lost 13 lb in a year with protein around 100 g, so that's less than 800 cal from carbs/protein -- obviously a high fat diet, especially at the beginning but even at the end.