New JAMA Weight Loss Study

jesguinn

I just saw this article about the findings of a study recently published by the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked into the importance of diet quality, specifically eating either a low-fat or low-carb diet, to successful weight loss. Both the low-fat and low-carb groups were directed to eat whole foods with no added sugar and refined grains, but they did not count calories. Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories. At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html

aeloine

L1zardQueen

jesguinn wrote: »

I just saw this article about the findings of a study recently published by the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked into the importance of diet quality, specifically eating either a low-fat or low-carb diet, to successful weight loss. Both the low-fat and low-carb groups were directed to eat whole foods with no added sugar and refined grains, but they did not count calories. Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories. At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html

Only one way to skin this cat.

ccrdragon

jesguinn wrote: »

I just saw this article about the findings of a study recently published by the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked into the importance of diet quality, specifically eating either a low-fat or low-carb diet, to successful weight loss. Both the low-fat and low-carb groups were directed to eat whole foods with no added sugar and refined grains, but they did not count calories. Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories. At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html

There are already several threads going on this newspaper article - the basics of all of the threads is that the article lies about what the study reported and the papers that have carried this should be ashamed of themselves.

The actual result of the study was that there is no difference in the results from people who eat low carb and people who eat low fat.

eta spelling

janejellyroll

I think there are some issues in how you summarized the results of this study, at least given how I read it.

First, we don't know to what extent each group actually restricted or eliminated added sugar or refined grains. While both groups experienced some success, it was rather modest compared to the weight loss goals of many people who are posting here. Also, some lost no weight and some actually gained weight.

I don't think anybody here claims that calorie *counting* is the "be all end all" for weight loss. It's simply a tool for weight loss that many have found effective because it's a relatively efficient way to put yourself in a calorie deficit, the state that actually creates weight loss (whether you're consciously counting calories or not).

If you're interested, there is currently an active thread discussing this study in the "Debate" area.

r3488

Quote from the study leader (emphasis added): "Dr. Gardner said it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they were not conscious of it."

nowine4me

Not sure if anyone else here eat WFPB like me, but it constantly baffles me when people say on the Facebook page that they’ve been eating plant based for XX weeks and haven’t lost weight.

Yes nuts and avocadoes are plants. Eating them will NOT automatically make you lose weight.

janejellyroll

nowine4me wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else here eat WFPB like me, but it constantly baffles me when people say on the Facebook page that they’ve been eating plant based for XX weeks and haven’t lost weight.

Yes nuts and avocadoes are plants. Eating them will NOT automatically make you lose weight.

I am not strictly whole foods, but I am a vegan who eats a lot of whole foods and I agree -- some of my most calorie-dense meals are the ones that have the most whole foods.

PAV8888

jesguinn wrote: »

Both the low-fat and low-carb groups.... Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories. At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss.

My friend you either need to work on definitions or on producing coherent arguments

So you say that these forums emphasize that in order to lose weight you need to consume less calories than you spend (emphasis on CICO)

You then go on to say that a couple of specific diets that emphasize Whole Foods are likely to reduce the amount of calories in. In other words that they modify the CI part of the CICO equation.

And then you conclude that the act of accounting for calories eaten and spent is not the end all when it comes to weight loss.

Well you're absolutely correct, the act of writing figures in your accounting Ledger will not ensure that you're in the black or in the red.

All it can do is tell you approximately Where You Are and allow you to modify your behavior so that you end up where you want to be.

How you get there is absolutely up to you!

Who said otherwise?

Silentpadna

CICO is the be-all end-all of weight loss.

That is not the same as calorie counting. Any method that leads to a negative energy balance will result in lost weight over time. You don't have to count calories to get to CICO, but you have to get to CICO somehow to lose weight.

Tacklewasher

I really want to find out who the idiot at NYP that put this POS out there for public consumption. The author or the article, as well as the Doctor quoted, need to gain a basic understanding of the English language as what they reported had NOTHING to do with what the study was about or the conclusions drawn.

The study is interesting. The reporting of it is a steaming pile of male bovine manure.

SusanMcMc

I used to be in medical/public health public relations. Let me just say that the standard for medical science reporting in mainstream outlets is very, very poor. Add to the fact that the headlines "The Key to Weight Loss is Quality Not Quantity Study Says" is not written by the article writer. So here we have a JAMA article about comparing the efficacy of precision method dieting--ie tailoring weight loss diet method to an individual's genetics--to weight loss. The NYT article title implies that what you eat is more important than amount--something not supported by the NYT article OR the JAMA published study. Then the NY Times article focuses on the lack of need to "count calories," but even in the end quotes a doctor who contradicts this:

"Dr. Gardner said it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they were not conscious of it. The point is that they did this by focusing on nutritious whole foods that satisfied their hunger."

So depending on if someone reads the JAMA article, the NYT article or (most likely) the NYT headline, you come away with three very different sets of information. But this is exactly how people start believing woo like you can eat as much of said "good" food as you want and not worry about gaining weight.

diannethegeek

This comic is getting quite a workout this week:

L1zardQueen

diannethegeek wrote: »

This comic is getting quite a workout this week:

You should add this to your post, "I like old posts and I cannot lie".

diannethegeek

Here's a different take on the same study: https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

lemurcat12

jesguinn wrote: »

Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories.

They lost 5-6 kg in a year.

Sure, better than gaining, or losing nothing, but I lots a whole lot more in the same period of time calorie counting.

Also, improving diet quality may work if one is in the habit of eating a relatively poor diet, as many Americans are (based on stats). But IME it's very easy to gain or maintain at an overweight weight eating a high quality diet if one is used to doing so, and probably when someone gets used to a changed diet and cooking and whole foods and so on that person also figures out how to overeat doing that. So I don't think we've shown that diet quality is sufficient for weight loss in general.

At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss.

CICO is not the same thing as calorie counting. CICO is what matters for weight loss, but you don't need to count calories to get the result you want. (That said, it seems to be a more efficient way than the study based on results, at least vs. my own experience, and especially since my diet quality was already high so not sure how I would have lost weight -- I guess low fat or low carb, shrug.)

pinuplove

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I really want to find out who the idiot at NYP that put this POS out there for public consumption. The author or the article, as well as the Doctor quoted, need to gain a basic understanding of the English language as what they reported had NOTHING to do with what the study was about or the conclusions drawn.

The study is interesting. The reporting of it is a steaming pile of male bovine manure.

You're taking this really hard, aren't you?

inertiastrength

Just because you don't count; doesn't mean CICO doesn't apply. Do you NEED to count calories to lose weight? No. Do you need to look at your speedometer to keep a speed of 60mph? No, but if you find yourself getting tickets you might want to.

Tacklewasher

pinuplove wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I really want to find out who the idiot at NYP that put this POS out there for public consumption. The author or the article, as well as the Doctor quoted, need to gain a basic understanding of the English language as what they reported had NOTHING to do with what the study was about or the conclusions drawn.

The study is interesting. The reporting of it is a steaming pile of male bovine manure.

You're taking this really hard, aren't you?

I don't know why it's pissed me off so badly. It just set something off for some reason.

I mean, weight loss is hard enough, the study offers some good helpful insight, and then some quack and some hack go and write crap about it and that is what ends up on FB, here, and I'm sure my wife will read it. We've had ~ 6 threads that reference it, and only one started off referring to the actual study in some way and not just quoting the crap article.

I know. I need a Snickers.

pinuplove

Tacklewasher wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I really want to find out who the idiot at NYP that put this POS out there for public consumption. The author or the article, as well as the Doctor quoted, need to gain a basic understanding of the English language as what they reported had NOTHING to do with what the study was about or the conclusions drawn.

The study is interesting. The reporting of it is a steaming pile of male bovine manure.

You're taking this really hard, aren't you?

I don't know why it's pissed me off so badly. It just set something off for some reason.

I mean, weight loss is hard enough, the study offers some good helpful insight, and then some quack and some hack go and write crap about it and that is what ends up on FB, here, and I'm sure my wife will read it. We've had ~ 6 threads that reference it, and only one started off referring to the actual study in some way and not just quoting the crap article.

I know. I need a Snickers.

And a hug

(You're not wrong, though)

SusanMcMc

Tacklewasher wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I really want to find out who the idiot at NYP that put this POS out there for public consumption. The author or the article, as well as the Doctor quoted, need to gain a basic understanding of the English language as what they reported had NOTHING to do with what the study was about or the conclusions drawn.

The study is interesting. The reporting of it is a steaming pile of male bovine manure.

You're taking this really hard, aren't you?

I don't know why it's pissed me off so badly. It just set something off for some reason.

I mean, weight loss is hard enough, the study offers some good helpful insight, and then some quack and some hack go and write crap about it and that is what ends up on FB, here, and I'm sure my wife will read it. We've had ~ 6 threads that reference it, and only one started off referring to the actual study in some way and not just quoting the crap article.

I know. I need a Snickers.

If it makes you feel better, this sort of stuff makes me see red too. I was ranting to my husband this morning when I first read the NYT article. I HATE bad science reporting with the fiery passion of 1,000 suns.