New JAMA Weight Loss Study
jesguinn
Posts: 94 Member
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
21
Replies
-
39 -
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.8 -
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 spelling19 -
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.13 -
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."16
-
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.13 -
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.2 -
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?
13 -
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.18 -
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.16 -
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.15 -
This comic is getting quite a workout this week:
13 -
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".3 -
Here's a different take on the same study: https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/3
-
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.)6 -
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?
2 -
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.17
-
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.18 -
Tacklewasher 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)1 -
Tacklewasher 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.3 -
I do wonder how well these research subjects maintain their new weights. That would be an interesting follow up in 3 years. Too bad it is not a metabolic wars study.1
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Here's a different take on the same study: https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/
From the Q&A with Dr. Gardner, the lead study author:We wanted for them to find a new eating pattern they could maintain maintain without even thinking of it as a “diet”. We got a lot of positive feedback from the participants: they were happy to not have to “count calories” (to not have to limit their daily caloric intake). Table 2 in the paper shows that the participants reported “achieving” a ≈500 calorie deficit, without us prescribing one … and it was fairly consistent through the 12 months. Now, I honestly think they likely exaggerated the caloric restriction. But in fact they did lose >6,500 lbs collectively by the end of the study (≈3,000 kg), even though the level of physical activity only went up a little in both groups (the level of activity they reached was not statistically different from baseline). So they must have eaten less. I think this is an important area to explore.
So calories DO matter - whether you count them or not.
It's also worth noting NuSi took part in the research. NuSi was founded by Gary Taubes, who is a quack, ketovangelist and insulin fearmongerer. How interesting that the study showed that insulin production from a diet higher in carbs and lower in fat had no adverse effect upon weight loss.
But Taubes has already openly stated that even if research conclusively proved him wrong, he would not change his mind on the subject. Not surprising though, since his degree is in journalism and he has no training/education in nutrition/health sciences.5 -
Also interesting to look at the chart showing distribution of weight loss among low-fat vs. low-carb participants. Notice how even and virtually identical the distribution patterns are:
9 -
'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.39
-
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
You "ate yourself thin" by consuming less calories than you were expending. Because that's how weight loss works, whether you count calories or not (which is not the same thing as CICO, by the way).
Congratulations on finding a way to do it that worked for you.19 -
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone who read the study got to "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods. It's miles away from the study itself.12
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I'm still trying to figure out how anyone who read the study got to "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods. It's miles away from the study itself.
Sometimes people see what they want to see - whether it's actually there or not.8 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
Da *kitten*!?! How did you manage to post 2600 posts over 8 years and not tumble upon this way of eating till the first week on January of 2018?
Like, seriously, what ways of eating were you exploring these past 8 years? What was your purported/believed/"paper" caloric deficit per year and what were your actual weight trend results?
Kudos for your perseverance in the face of adversity. I am known for being very patient but I'm sure I would have given up during eight years of no results.20 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed.
Are you another person who can't tell calorie counting from CICO?i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories..
Good for you. I've lost not counting before too, so I know it's possible (it was still CICO, though -- I ate less and moved more than when I wasn't losing).
However, in 2014-15, I lost 95 lbs counting calories. Lost the first 80 in a year, which is FAR more than the people in the study did. So how does the study disprove calorie counting again (obviously it does not disprove CICO, as that's how the people in the study lost).now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day.
Was that really a new thing for you? I was into cooking and ate whole foods, lean proteins, lots of veg (many of us here are pretty into vegetables), some fruit (how are "unprocessed carbs" a different thing from fruit, puzzled by that), and so on when losing, but also when gaining and when maintaining an overweight weight. Just doing that wouldn't have been a change, so it wouldn't have been enough for me.
Oh, I used salt in cooking when I lost (still do), didn't hurt me a bit (I'm into cooking and I think a little salt makes a huge difference in taste, you don't have to make things salty).
If your diet was really so awful that it was the problem, I'm glad you fixed it!10 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
Da *kitten*!?! How did you manage to post 2600 posts over 8 years and not tumble upon this way of eating till the first week on January of 2018?
Like, seriously, what ways of eating were you exploring these past 8 years? What was your purported/believed/"paper" caloric deficit per year and what were your actual weight trend results?
Kudos for your perseverance in the face of adversity. I am known for being very patient but I'm sure I would have given up during eight years of no results.
And how in 8 years has the abundance of graphs posted not sink in regarding every diet boiling down to cico?! I’m truly bewildered12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions