Comparison of Weight Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat Protein and Carbohydrates

mmapags

This is a 2 year study of over 800 participants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/?fbclid=IwAR1DFikPeiksul4Px_xeejVyrzqg-fyxUC-BlOm7GpJdlvj04JCl4fiJXo8

CONCLUSIONS
Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

There are always so many questions on this site about the "best" macronutrient composition for weight loss and health. According to this lengthy and well designed study, it is the one that you prefer and will keep you on track with your calorie goals.

The key element for improving health markers is not dietary composition but the reduction body weight/ fat. Health markers improved for all groups regardless of dietary composition based on the results in this study. The improvement in health markers in participants was pretty consistent.

kshama2001

Thanks! No doubt I will have an opportunity to point to this thread.

mmapags

Saturday morning bump for some interesting info.

deannalfisher

now don't bring science to the discussion cause we all know carbz are ebil!

pierinifitness

My experiences align with the study’s conclusions so serve the bacon.

Maxxitt

Here's the confounding part of this study, for me at least: "Despite the intensive behavioral counseling in our study, participants had difficulty achieving the goals for macronutrient intake of their assigned group" This may explain, for example, why the people who achieved greater weight loss in the "high protein" group met their macro goal more consistently than people in that group who did not. Also, I was interested in the definition of "high protein" as 25% of total calories, considering that participants were aiming for a 750 calorie daily deficit. For the more overweight, 25% might indeed be "high." For the participants whose BMI was at 25 (just barely overweight), 25% would not be considered "high" at all.

Another confounding part is that 60% of each group was female. Men & women respond differently to diets (if you want to go down this particular rabbit hole, I recommend Lyle McDonald's Women's Book in which he breaks down the research in a most delightfully wonky way).

An interesting part also was that for carbohydrate choices, all participants were counseled to eat carbs that were lower on the glycemic index. "All the diets except the one with the highest carbohydrate content decreased fasting serum insulin levels by 6 to 12%; the decrease was larger with the high-protein diet than with the average-protein diet (10% vs. 4%, P = 0.07)"

So the take away from this study for me is that while CICO "works" pretty much regardless, different macronutrient ratios may lead to more desired health status results for individuals.

VictoryGarden

deannalfisher wrote: »

now don't bring science to the discussion cause we all know carbz are ebil!

Not all of us think that "Low-Carb" is some sort of magic pill that means you can eat 3000kcals a day in bacon and lose weight. HOWEVER, low-carb is the only diet where I actually feel full. After 2-3 months of finishing a meal and being hungry, and then going to bed hungry, and waking up hungry, I could never do the portion or low-fat options for long. But this WOE, this I can do, b/c I don't spend all day thinking about food and listening to a growling stomach. For me, the low carb works b/c it drastically limits my kcal intake without making me feel hungry all the time.

Yes, I know for some people this won't work, and for others, they don't have to go that extreme and can just do portion control. But for others, we just can't, we're wired differently. It's all about finding what works for each individual.

psuLemon

Pretty much is what other studies confirm. Its nice to see some long term studies.

estherdragonbat

Maxxitt wrote: »

Here's the confounding part of this study, for me at least: "Despite the intensive behavioral counseling in our study, participants had difficulty achieving the goals for macronutrient intake of their assigned group" This may explain, for example, why the people who achieved greater weight loss in the "high protein" group met their macro goal more consistently than people in that group who did not. Also, I was interested in the definition of "high protein" as 25% of total calories, considering that participants were aiming for a 750 calorie daily deficit. For the more overweight, 25% might indeed be "high." For the participants whose BMI was at 25 (just barely overweight), 25% would not be considered "high" at all.

Another confounding part is that 60% of each group was female. Men & women respond differently to diets (if you want to go down this particular rabbit hole, I recommend Lyle McDonald's Women's Book in which he breaks down the research in a most delightfully wonky way).

An interesting part also was that for carbohydrate choices, all participants were counseled to eat carbs that were lower on the glycemic index. "All the diets except the one with the highest carbohydrate content decreased fasting serum insulin levels by 6 to 12%; the decrease was larger with the high-protein diet than with the average-protein diet (10% vs. 4%, P = 0.07)"

So the take away from this study for me is that while CICO "works" pretty much regardless, different macronutrient ratios may lead to more desired health status results for individuals.

I think it partly comes down to different macro ratios lead to different satiety levels, which has a definite impact on adherence. My N=1: I'm a kosher ovo-lacto vegetarian.

On Passover, I have certain restrictions based on religion/ethno-cultural background. In other words, being of Eastern European Jewish origin, I have certain dietary restriction for eight days that don't necessarily hold up for Jews of North Africa, Turkey, etc. In my case:

Very limited wheat/rye/oats/barley/spelt (as in, must be first baked into matzo crackers. Those crackers can then be ground down to fine crumbs and used as flour, but I can't use plain wheat flour.)

No other grains but quinoa
No legumes including no peanuts

So, basically, my main protein sources are eggs, dairy, nuts and quinoa.

Factor in that the major festive meals are normally meat-based and I can't have meat and dairy on the same table without complicating things even more, and that the meal is generally cooked in advance and reheated, which means that egg-based dishes (omelets, fritattas) aren't good choices, the high calories in nuts...

Well, let's just say that try as I may to stay within a calorie deficit—eat higher-protein the rest of the day, up my veggies and fruits, look for higher-protein options—for eight days, my protein and fiber levels go far below what I have during the rest of the year. And after four days? I'm slathering butter on matzo and eating it by the board, snacking on anything I can get my hands on, constantly hungry even if I've decided to take a maintenance break during the holidays... I just can't stick with it. So I typically do my best, manage reasonably well for the first half and don't beat myself up for the last. I mean, it's eight days a year; I can deal. But knowing my personal experience, I can see how high-carb/low-fiber/low-protein can be difficult for certain people to adhere to.

Dilvish

People who take the time to understand weight loss don't consider themselves dieting although we all tend to use that label. Most commercial diets fail in the end because upwards of 85% of participants regain the weight because diet is all they focus on.

Dieting is only a portion of weight loss. Exercise, plenty of hydration, sleep and a positive attitude are all cornerstones of successful weight loss. And when I say successful, I mean weight loss that endures and does not return.

I think we should all drop the dieting label in favor of "lifestyle change".

SVZee

Dilvish wrote: »

People who take the time to understand weight loss don't consider themselves dieting although we all tend to use that label. Most commercial diets fail in the end because upwards of 85% of participants regain the weight because diet is all they focus on.

Dieting is only a portion of weight loss. Exercise, plenty of hydration, sleep and a positive attitude are all cornerstones of successful weight loss. And when I say successful, I mean weight loss that endures and does not return.

I think we should all drop the dieting label in favor of "lifestyle change".

As someone who's several years into maintaining a large weight loss/better health markers, I have to say that the term 'lifestyle change' makes my eye twitch I didn't make any drastic changes to my life when I began losing weight (and I didn't exercise, add water or increase sleep during my weight loss phase either...). What I did do though was learn how CICO actually works and then learn how to apply that to my meal times.

I've kept things simple and that's worked well for me.

psuLemon

SVZee wrote: »

Dilvish wrote: »

People who take the time to understand weight loss don't consider themselves dieting although we all tend to use that label. Most commercial diets fail in the end because upwards of 85% of participants regain the weight because diet is all they focus on.

Dieting is only a portion of weight loss. Exercise, plenty of hydration, sleep and a positive attitude are all cornerstones of successful weight loss. And when I say successful, I mean weight loss that endures and does not return.

I think we should all drop the dieting label in favor of "lifestyle change".

As someone who's several years into maintaining a large weight loss/better health markers, I have to say that the term 'lifestyle change' makes my eye twitch I didn't make any drastic changes to my life when I began losing weight (and I didn't exercise, add water or increase sleep during my weight loss phase either...). What I did do though was learn how CICO actually works and then learn how to apply that to my meal times.

I've kept things simple and that's worked well for me.

Same here. I dieted and learned what foods to eat to allow me to maintain.

Tacklewasher

Dilvish wrote: »

I think we should all drop the dieting label in favor of "lifestyle change".

I get this, but having a deficit of 500-650 cals a day is still dieting to me regardless of if I'm restricting or not.

lemurcat2

Exactly -- to me dieting = eating less than maintenance with the intent to lose weight.

Right now I've been eating at maintenance and maintaining my loss for a while. I'd like to lose a little more, so I am dieting. I haven't actually adjusted my lifestyle at all (I was happy with my lifestyle).

When I lost significant weight, I went back to some past habits (exercise, became more active, trained for some events), but also just did a number of small things to reduce calories (became more mindful of added fat and other sources of calories, eliminated snacking, realized that if I go to a nice restaurant for dinner at least once a week it's not an excuse to eat without bounds). I already ate pretty healthfully at meals and cooked a lot and loved shopping at the green market and so on, and my basic lifestyle (other activities, work, when I ate meals) didn't change.