Interesting article about carb cutting vs calories
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Where's that visual chart? I know I have it stashed somewhere.
ETA: Found it!
21 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I didnt say it was the ludwig study. Somebody else did. My study is from JAMA!8 -
jseams1234 wrote: »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...
This study isnt done by Ludwig.4 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I didnt say it was the ludwig study. Somebody else did. My study is from JAMA!
As I said, I was confused. I missed that you were now talking about a completely different study, I'm not sure what relevance it has to the first. Apologies for my misunderstanding, it wasn't me being "on you," as much as it was me trying to understand.12 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I didnt say it was the ludwig study. Somebody else did. My study is from JAMA!
This is a response to your OP, that study is Ludwig and it is published by the BMJ.
The study you brought up on the second page is the non-Ludwig one and it was published by JAMA.
When people are talking about Ludwig, they're talking about your OP. If you want to discuss a completely different study by different people with different findings, you may want to start a different thread.
18 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Yeah, I can see how you got there. I would expect subsequent posts to be follow-ups on the original post, too, instead of changing the subject to a new study.
Takes all kinds, I guess.
Theres always one that has to put her 2 cents in... please get a life! This has nothing to do with u.
Someone posting in a public forum has nothing to do with me? OK. Good to know. I'll tuck that in my back pocket for later.
Anyway, do you have a link to the actual study you're talking about? Because this https://www.thestar.com/amp/life/health_wellness/2018/02/21/counting-calories-is-not-the-key-to-weight-loss-new-study-finds.html isn't a study.
If you read the article it does say it is from a study...yawn...ok Im done.
It's often more productive to consider the study itself than the media coverage of it. First, the media often don't accurately represent the findings -- either due to journalists not understanding the science or due to desire for more "clicks." Second, it's not unusual for people involved with the study to misrepresent what is actually demonstrated (as we see here with Ludwig telling the journalist that this shows low carbohydrate is a better choice for long-term weight control even though this study just lasted for 20 weeks).18 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »cartersmom06 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Yeah, I can see how you got there. I would expect subsequent posts to be follow-ups on the original post, too, instead of changing the subject to a new study.
Takes all kinds, I guess.
Theres always one that has to put her 2 cents in... please get a life! This has nothing to do with u.
Someone posting in a public forum has nothing to do with me? OK. Good to know. I'll tuck that in my back pocket for later.
Anyway, do you have a link to the actual study you're talking about? Because this https://www.thestar.com/amp/life/health_wellness/2018/02/21/counting-calories-is-not-the-key-to-weight-loss-new-study-finds.html isn't a study.
If you read the article it does say it is from a study...yawn...ok Im done.
But the article writers do not accurately report what the study actually says. That's what we're trying to tell you.17 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »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.
This is the actual study referenced in that article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150?resultClick=1
Again, the study does not actually find what the news article claims it finds. The study finds that there is not a difference in weight change for those following a low fat diet vs. a low carb diet. From the journal article (not the news article):
"Total energy intake was not different between diet groups at baseline or at any subsequent time point (P ≥ .10 for all; Table 2). Despite not being instructed to follow a specific energy (kilocalorie) intake restriction, the mean reported energy intake reduction relative to baseline was approximately 500 to 600 kcal/d for both groups at each time point after randomization."
This means that the researchers didn't tell study participants to cut calories, but on average the study participants did wind up eating 500-600 calories less per day than they had before starting the diets in the study. This does not mean that all study participants were in a calorie deficit--it just means that on average they were reducing their calories by that much. We do not know how many participants were actually in a deficit or how large their deficit was.
Nothing about this study tells me that "counting calories is not the key to weight loss," as the news article's headline claims.20 -
cartersmom06 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »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...
This study isnt done by Ludwig.
My response was the 4th or 5th one to your original OP... which is about an article in the Chicago Tribune. Ludwig is quoted in that story. I'm referencing Ludwig from your OP.
A quote from the story you quoted in your OP:
“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.
So.... what are you on about?
15 -
I found a good discussion of the Ludwig study with details, and think I see where the comments about carb type is coming from (although to be honest I'm getting confused about which one is being referred to).
The Ludwig one compares diets with protein kept at 25% and carbs varying from 105 g at the lowest (which is interesting, because when the results came out differently than desired, I recall lots of low carb proponents claiming similar numbers weren't really "low carb" because not keto) to 205 g for the middle, and 305 g for the high.
The most fiber-rich and nutrient dense carbs tended to be eaten by all participants, for example grapes, spinach, orange, toasted lentil salad, blueberries.
The additional carbs the higher carb people ate included multigrain English muffin, strawberry fruit spread, orange juice, whole wheat sourdough bread, vanilla lowfat yogurt, rice, more bread, more vanilla yogurt, dried cranberries, macaroni.
Interestingly, the low carb group was given additional veg that the other groups were not given, specifically a salad at lunch.
This is all from the supplemental material in the study (a sample menu).7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions