We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Interesting article about carb cutting vs calories
cartersmom06
Posts: 68 Member
Replies
-
I'd like to see the original study. No link to it in the article.5
-
Wont let me post...maybe have search on google.4
-
This is relating to the recent study that was released by the BMJ 1 week ago. Nothing earth shattering, but the media is exploiting it.7
-
Dr. Ludwig is trying to sell a book. The thermogenic properties of food are already known and understood and typically only play a minor roll... but yes, not all calories are alike. Cutting carbs but staying in a calorie surplus would still cause weight gain. The article title is misleading...27
-
"These findings show that all calories are not alike to the body, and that restricting carbohydrates may be a better strategy for long-term weight loss than restricting calories," said study co-author Dr. David Ludwig, co-director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital."
I would be cautious.
Also, the article states that the low carbohydrate group exercised more than the other groups. It's not a mystery to figure out how they burned more calories, is it?
For those interested in the study itself, I think this is it: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583
26 -
janejellyroll wrote: »"These findings show that all calories are not alike to the body, and that restricting carbohydrates may be a better strategy for long-term weight loss than restricting calories," said study co-author Dr. David Ludwig, co-director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital."
I would be cautious.
Also, the article states that the low carbohydrate group exercised more than the other groups. It's not a mystery to figure out how they burned more calories, is it?
For those interested in the study itself, I think this is it: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583
Thanks. Skimmed through it. It does seem they exercised more. I wonder if they exercised more due to the diet giving them more energy, or if it was just an anomaly?
I know, for me personally, I tend to freak out and binge when I cut carbs too low. That would negate the extra 22 pounds the low-carb group lost in the study. The study subjects had their diet provided to them. I wonder how well it would work for all of them in the real world. I suspect some would love it and some would hate it, freak out and binge.20 -
Apparently the study was only 20 weeks, which doesn't say much about long-term maintenance.
One comment on the study that I thought raised some good points (from Hana Kahleova):
"...Unfortunately, several methodological issues make the interpretation of the results problematic and the conclusions not well justified.
First of all, the main study objective was to find out if carbohydrate quantity had any significant effect on energy expenditure. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to keep the carbohydrate quality constant across the diets. This may be easily accomplished by standardizing the relative contribution of dietary fiber to total carbohydrates. However, the authors were not only changing carbohydrate quantity, but also carbohydrate quality. More specifically, glycemic index was increasing with the increasing carbohydrate content (GI=30 for low, GI=46 for moderate, and GI=49 for high carbohydrate content). In other words, the higher the carbohydrate quantity, the poorer the carbohydrate quality. This was also mirrored by an increase in serum triglycerides in the high-carbohydrate group, which is another marker of poor carbohydrate quality. Changing carbohydrate quality together with carbohydrate quantity has introduced a serious confounder into the pursuit of the stated research objective."
My note: this is significant because if the carbs in the lower carb diets were more from fiber, calories were not constant.
"Another significant confounding factor was the repeated manipulation of caloric intake when the researchers were adjusting the participants’ energy intake periodically to maintain weight loss within 2 kg of the level achieved before randomization. Even though this study is claiming to have looked explicitly at the metabolic effects of carbohydrates, the changes in caloric intake may have significantly confounded the findings.
Interestingly, the authors admit that “total physical activity, and moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity, were marginally higher in the group assigned to the low carbohydrate diet,” but do not report the exercise in detail. The difference in exercise may well explain, at least partially, the difference in energy expenditure between the diet groups...."
"Finally, the practical implications of the study’s findings are questionable. Long-term adherence to low-carbohydrate diets has been shown to be fairly low (3), plus these diets do not provide any benefits for weight management compared with other diets, particularly in studies with a duration of at least 12 months (4)...."
Note: This was something that struck me too, based on prior studies I've seen.
I'll also note that Ludwig has a big dog in this hunt, so I'm skeptical unless it's shown that the results can be replicated, and over a truly long-term period. The claims are certainly contrary to my own experiences.
Cited references:
3. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43–53.
4. Snorgaard O, Poulsen GM, Andersen HK, Astrup A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary carbohydrate restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1):e000354.28 -
Apparently the study was only 20 weeks, which doesn't say much about long-term maintenance.
One comment on the study that I thought raised some good points (from Hana Kahleova):
"...Unfortunately, several methodological issues make the interpretation of the results problematic and the conclusions not well justified.
First of all, the main study objective was to find out if carbohydrate quantity had any significant effect on energy expenditure. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to keep the carbohydrate quality constant across the diets. This may be easily accomplished by standardizing the relative contribution of dietary fiber to total carbohydrates. However, the authors were not only changing carbohydrate quantity, but also carbohydrate quality. More specifically, glycemic index was increasing with the increasing carbohydrate content (GI=30 for low, GI=46 for moderate, and GI=49 for high carbohydrate content). In other words, the higher the carbohydrate quantity, the poorer the carbohydrate quality. This was also mirrored by an increase in serum triglycerides in the high-carbohydrate group, which is another marker of poor carbohydrate quality. Changing carbohydrate quality together with carbohydrate quantity has introduced a serious confounder into the pursuit of the stated research objective."
My note: this is significant because if the carbs in the lower carb diets were more from fiber, calories were not constant.
"Another significant confounding factor was the repeated manipulation of caloric intake when the researchers were adjusting the participants’ energy intake periodically to maintain weight loss within 2 kg of the level achieved before randomization. Even though this study is claiming to have looked explicitly at the metabolic effects of carbohydrates, the changes in caloric intake may have significantly confounded the findings.
Interestingly, the authors admit that “total physical activity, and moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity, were marginally higher in the group assigned to the low carbohydrate diet,” but do not report the exercise in detail. The difference in exercise may well explain, at least partially, the difference in energy expenditure between the diet groups...."
"Finally, the practical implications of the study’s findings are questionable. Long-term adherence to low-carbohydrate diets has been shown to be fairly low (3), plus these diets do not provide any benefits for weight management compared with other diets, particularly in studies with a duration of at least 12 months (4)...."
Note: This was something that struck me too, based on prior studies I've seen.
I'll also note that Ludwig has a big dog in this hunt, so I'm skeptical unless it's shown that the results can be replicated, and over a truly long-term period. The claims are certainly contrary to my own experiences.
Cited references:
3. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43–53.
4. Snorgaard O, Poulsen GM, Andersen HK, Astrup A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary carbohydrate restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1):e000354.
I think it's really irresponsible for Ludwig to specifically spin this as somehow showing low carbohydrate diets are better for keeping weight off long-term. A twenty week study isn't sufficient to conclude that.
Not that I'm surprised . . .22 -
So, it seems like another sensationalized article to sell newspapers. This Meta-analysis of 32 studies where calories and protein were controlled and exercise and quality of carbohydrates were not manipulated comes to very different conclusions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/
No advantage to Keto or Low Carb. Slight advantage to low fat.21 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Apparently the study was only 20 weeks, which doesn't say much about long-term maintenance.
One comment on the study that I thought raised some good points (from Hana Kahleova):
"...Unfortunately, several methodological issues make the interpretation of the results problematic and the conclusions not well justified.
First of all, the main study objective was to find out if carbohydrate quantity had any significant effect on energy expenditure. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to keep the carbohydrate quality constant across the diets. This may be easily accomplished by standardizing the relative contribution of dietary fiber to total carbohydrates. However, the authors were not only changing carbohydrate quantity, but also carbohydrate quality. More specifically, glycemic index was increasing with the increasing carbohydrate content (GI=30 for low, GI=46 for moderate, and GI=49 for high carbohydrate content). In other words, the higher the carbohydrate quantity, the poorer the carbohydrate quality. This was also mirrored by an increase in serum triglycerides in the high-carbohydrate group, which is another marker of poor carbohydrate quality. Changing carbohydrate quality together with carbohydrate quantity has introduced a serious confounder into the pursuit of the stated research objective."
My note: this is significant because if the carbs in the lower carb diets were more from fiber, calories were not constant.
"Another significant confounding factor was the repeated manipulation of caloric intake when the researchers were adjusting the participants’ energy intake periodically to maintain weight loss within 2 kg of the level achieved before randomization. Even though this study is claiming to have looked explicitly at the metabolic effects of carbohydrates, the changes in caloric intake may have significantly confounded the findings.
Interestingly, the authors admit that “total physical activity, and moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity, were marginally higher in the group assigned to the low carbohydrate diet,” but do not report the exercise in detail. The difference in exercise may well explain, at least partially, the difference in energy expenditure between the diet groups...."
"Finally, the practical implications of the study’s findings are questionable. Long-term adherence to low-carbohydrate diets has been shown to be fairly low (3), plus these diets do not provide any benefits for weight management compared with other diets, particularly in studies with a duration of at least 12 months (4)...."
Note: This was something that struck me too, based on prior studies I've seen.
I'll also note that Ludwig has a big dog in this hunt, so I'm skeptical unless it's shown that the results can be replicated, and over a truly long-term period. The claims are certainly contrary to my own experiences.
Cited references:
3. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43–53.
4. Snorgaard O, Poulsen GM, Andersen HK, Astrup A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary carbohydrate restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1):e000354.
I think it's really irresponsible for Ludwig to specifically spin this as somehow showing low carbohydrate diets are better for keeping weight off long-term. A twenty week study isn't sufficient to conclude that.
Not that I'm surprised . . .
I've read a lot of Ludwig's studies. They seem to suffer from similar design flaws.11 -
Irresponsible - yet so totally in character for him.janejellyroll wrote: »I think it's really irresponsible for Ludwig to specifically spin this as somehow showing low carbohydrate diets are better for keeping weight off long-term...
16 -
Thanks for all your amazing and insightful comments to this post! All these studies really confuse the hell out of me!!8
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Apparently the study was only 20 weeks, which doesn't say much about long-term maintenance.
One comment on the study that I thought raised some good points (from Hana Kahleova):
"...Unfortunately, several methodological issues make the interpretation of the results problematic and the conclusions not well justified.
First of all, the main study objective was to find out if carbohydrate quantity had any significant effect on energy expenditure. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to keep the carbohydrate quality constant across the diets. This may be easily accomplished by standardizing the relative contribution of dietary fiber to total carbohydrates. However, the authors were not only changing carbohydrate quantity, but also carbohydrate quality. More specifically, glycemic index was increasing with the increasing carbohydrate content (GI=30 for low, GI=46 for moderate, and GI=49 for high carbohydrate content). In other words, the higher the carbohydrate quantity, the poorer the carbohydrate quality. This was also mirrored by an increase in serum triglycerides in the high-carbohydrate group, which is another marker of poor carbohydrate quality. Changing carbohydrate quality together with carbohydrate quantity has introduced a serious confounder into the pursuit of the stated research objective."
My note: this is significant because if the carbs in the lower carb diets were more from fiber, calories were not constant.
"Another significant confounding factor was the repeated manipulation of caloric intake when the researchers were adjusting the participants’ energy intake periodically to maintain weight loss within 2 kg of the level achieved before randomization. Even though this study is claiming to have looked explicitly at the metabolic effects of carbohydrates, the changes in caloric intake may have significantly confounded the findings.
Interestingly, the authors admit that “total physical activity, and moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity, were marginally higher in the group assigned to the low carbohydrate diet,” but do not report the exercise in detail. The difference in exercise may well explain, at least partially, the difference in energy expenditure between the diet groups...."
"Finally, the practical implications of the study’s findings are questionable. Long-term adherence to low-carbohydrate diets has been shown to be fairly low (3), plus these diets do not provide any benefits for weight management compared with other diets, particularly in studies with a duration of at least 12 months (4)...."
Note: This was something that struck me too, based on prior studies I've seen.
I'll also note that Ludwig has a big dog in this hunt, so I'm skeptical unless it's shown that the results can be replicated, and over a truly long-term period. The claims are certainly contrary to my own experiences.
Cited references:
3. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43–53.
4. Snorgaard O, Poulsen GM, Andersen HK, Astrup A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary carbohydrate restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2017;5(1):e000354.
I think it's really irresponsible for Ludwig to specifically spin this as somehow showing low carbohydrate diets are better for keeping weight off long-term. A twenty week study isn't sufficient to conclude that.
Not that I'm surprised . . .
I've read a lot of Ludwig's studies. They seem to suffer from similar design flaws.
What are the odds? So unlucky for him that these flaws keep turning up!8 -
I also think in the study the participants were eating mostly processed manufactured carbs and not the good carbs that come from nature like oats and fruit.14
-
cartersmom06 wrote: »I also think in the study the participants were eating mostly processed manufactured carbs and not the good carbs that come from nature like oats and fruit.
Where are you seeing that? I don't see any specific details about the foods provided or limiting foods like oats or fruit in favor of "processed" carbohydrates.
Here is a link to the specific diets proposed for the study -- there are no details about the "type" of carbohydrates provided, so I don't know if we can draw conclusions about that right now.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT020688859 -
Then there was this one today too!! 😂
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-11-low-protein-high-carb-diet-healthy-brain.html8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »I also think in the study the participants were eating mostly processed manufactured carbs and not the good carbs that come from nature like oats and fruit.
Where are you seeing that? I don't see any specific details about the foods provided or limiting foods like oats or fruit in favor of "processed" carbohydrates.
In the study I read it said processed carbs.1 -
I have found, by happy accident, that as long as I consume my bread/oatmeal carbs before noon and eat meat and veggies for dinner (and that must be before 6) I can more easily lose weight. I have cut my sugar intake down most days. I have a slight binge every now and then. I use swerve and stevia sweet drops if I want something sweet. I work at a desk all day and I do not get as much exercise as I should.22
-
cartersmom06 wrote: »I also think in the study the participants were eating mostly processed manufactured carbs and not the good carbs that come from nature like oats and fruit.
There was one study I read by him that was so blatantly designed to give the desired result that even I with a serious lack of science background could see what he was doing.
After that, I really felt free to ignore him.
The idea was to compare the later day hunger response in individuals based on the GI of their breakfasts.
So one group got quick cooking oats and milk that had a high lactose content.
The next group got regular oats and milk that had been treated to be lower GI.
Well, I'm thinking for sure, the third group is going to get steel cut oats, because that's next lowest on the GI hierarchy when it comes to oats.
But nope.
The third group got bacon and eggs.
Yes, I, with my high school education on how to design a study, could design a more neutral study than David Ludwig.17 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »I also think in the study the participants were eating mostly processed manufactured carbs and not the good carbs that come from nature like oats and fruit.
Where are you seeing that? I don't see any specific details about the foods provided or limiting foods like oats or fruit in favor of "processed" carbohydrates.
In the study I read it said processed carbs.
What section of the study covers that? I've read the "Dietary Interventions" (where the specific diet plan is talked about) twice now and I don't see anything about "processed" carbohydrates. I think I'm missing what section of the study you're referring to.
I only see "processed" carbohydrates mentioned in the article, where Ludwig appears to be misrepresenting what his own study is showing.10 -
https://www.thestar.com/amp/life/health_wellness/2018/02/21/counting-calories-is-not-the-key-to-weight-loss-new-study-finds.html
This is the link to the study I was talking about.6 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »Then there was this one today too!! 😂
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-11-low-protein-high-carb-diet-healthy-brain.html
This study used mice and found some physical and biochemical changes that might be beneficial for the brain. It does not say anything at all about what happens to the rest of the body if one is on a low protein diet (i.e., the study does not encompass things like muscle mass). We don't know if the results would also apply to humans, or if they do, whether the possible benefits would outweigh the potential risk of eating a low protein diet when it is not otherwise medically necessary.
I wouldn't have any interest in changing my diet based on this study. If I knew that I was at increased risk of developing dementia, then I would probably keep looking for additional evidence regarding potential dietary changes.8 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.7 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.
The study itself doesn't mention anything about that.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.
The study itself doesn't mention anything about that.
So the media editorialized and twisted facts to create a more clickbait-y headline?
Huh. First time I’ve ever heard of that happening. 18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.
The study itself doesn't mention anything about that.
Yes it does
It found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year.
Why are you on me about this? Im only commenting on what I read.22 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.
The study itself doesn't mention anything about that.
Yes it does
It found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year.
Why are you on me about this? Im only commenting on what I read.
That's a quote from an article, not a study. And it's a completely different study than the one referenced in your OP. I don't think I'm "on you" as much as I'm confused as to what point you're making. For the Ludwig study, the one referenced in your OP, there is no indication that the "type" of carbohydrate played a role. If I misunderstood what you're trying to communicate, then I apologize.18 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.
The study itself doesn't mention anything about that.
Yes it does
It found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year.
Why are you on me about this? Im only commenting on what I read.
Maybe she's only commenting on what she's read. Why are you on her about being on you about this?16 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »
Have you looked at the study itself or just the article summarizing it?
Just the article summarizing it.
The study itself doesn't mention anything about that.
Yes it does
It found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year.
Why are you on me about this? Im only commenting on what I read.
Maybe she's only commenting on what she's read. Why are you on her about being on you about this?
I think I'm just confused because I didn't realize when the OP began talking about a second study, one that has nothing to do with the one initially referenced. When OP was talking about the "type" of carbohydrate, I thought she was referring to the first study (where that doesn't seem to be a factor), not the second study.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions