Interesting Study on NPR

brower47

Love NPR.

I know for me, cutting carbs definitely accelerates weight loss. Its important though to keep a balance (something like south beach vs Atkins) because its nearly impossible to keep a super low carb diet up for life without yo yoing.

Here's are just a few of MANY scientific studies done in the past 10 years that low carb diets (without reduction of calories) work better:

New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207

Journal of Pediatrics:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

Archives of Internal Medicine
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514

Nutrition & Metabolism (London)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

Journal of the American Dietetic Association
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

Well, let's look at one of your studies......

"Abstract

The impact of a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet compared with a high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet on ratings of hunger and cognitive eating restraint were examined. Overweight premenopausal women consumed a low-carbohydrate/high-protein (n=13) or high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet (n=15) for 6 weeks. Fasting body weight (BW) was measured and the Eating Inventory was completed at baseline, weeks 1 to 4, and week 6. All women experienced a reduction in BW (P<.01), although relative BW loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat group at week 6 (P<.05). Based on Eating Inventory scores, self-rated hunger decreased (P<.03) in women in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein but not in the high-carbohydrate/low-fat group from baseline to week 6. In both groups, self-rated cognitive eating restraint increased (P<.01) from baseline to week 1 and remained constant to week 6. Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss.

Address correspondence to Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson, PhD, RD, Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, 225 Wallace Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0430."

This is somewhat of an interesting study, though there were not many people in it and hunger is very difficult to quantize. Not looking at the details, I think the change in hunger perception and weight loss could well be due to the high protein content of the one group, and not necessarily the low carbohydrate.

It takes the body almost four hours to fully digest a protein-laden meal, and it burns more calories in digesting it. For carbohydrates, in a little over an hour they are digested, and the energy expenditure in doing so is a lot less.

So it is not surprising that the one group felt less hunger with a high-protein diet. We need more research into this.

This study would tend to validate the Atkins approach more than anything else.

Atkins does work, or course, but the question is can you stay on it for the rest of your life?

And that is the question with all diet-restriction approaches. By definition, restriction means doing something that you otherwise would want to do.

Who wants to live a restricted life?

Like breakfast?

independant2406

Love NPR.

I know for me, cutting carbs definitely accelerates weight loss. Its important though to keep a balance (something like south beach vs Atkins) because its nearly impossible to keep a super low carb diet up for life without yo yoing.

Here's are just a few of MANY scientific studies done in the past 10 years that low carb diets (without reduction of calories) work better:

New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207

Journal of Pediatrics:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

Archives of Internal Medicine
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514

Nutrition & Metabolism (London)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

Journal of the American Dietetic Association
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

Well, let's look at one of your studies......

"Abstract

The impact of a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet compared with a high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet on ratings of hunger and cognitive eating restraint were examined. Overweight premenopausal women consumed a low-carbohydrate/high-protein (n=13) or high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet (n=15) for 6 weeks. Fasting body weight (BW) was measured and the Eating Inventory was completed at baseline, weeks 1 to 4, and week 6. All women experienced a reduction in BW (P<.01), although relative BW loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat group at week 6 (P<.05). Based on Eating Inventory scores, self-rated hunger decreased (P<.03) in women in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein but not in the high-carbohydrate/low-fat group from baseline to week 6. In both groups, self-rated cognitive eating restraint increased (P<.01) from baseline to week 1 and remained constant to week 6. Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss.

Address correspondence to Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson, PhD, RD, Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, 225 Wallace Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0430."

This is somewhat of an interesting study, though there were not many people in it and hunger is very difficult to quantize. Not looking at the details, I think the change in hunger perception and weight loss could well be due to the high protein content of the one group, and not necessarily the low carbohydrate.

It takes the body almost four hours to fully digest a protein-laden meal, and it burns more calories in digesting it. For carbohydrates, in a little over an hour they are digested, and the energy expenditure in doing so is a lot less.

So it is not surprising that the one group felt less hunger with a high-protein diet. We need more research into this.

This study would tend to validate the Atkins approach more than anything else.

Atkins does work, or course, but the question is can you stay on it for the rest of your life?

And that is the question with all diet-restriction approaches. By definition, restriction means doing something that you otherwise would want to do.

Who wants to live a restricted life?

I 100% agree about restriction. Eliminating any particular food group to a drastic level isn't a good idea. And I do agree also the high protein accounts for the reduced hunger and greater weight loss in the studies.

I'm not arguing that SUPER low carb is the way to go (I don't think it is and I really don't think any of the studies prove or promote that). Rather I'm promoting that carbs play a more important role in weight loss than was previously known and should be more carefully considered in a person's daily intake.

All of the studies I cited provide evidence that reducing carb intake (and presumably increasing protein consumption) while leaving calories stagnant or even increasing calorie intake can result in faster or equal weight loss with less hunger

I think there's a mindset that reducing carbs automatically = reducing calories and that just isn't true. Weight loss (like most things in life) is more complex than was previously known and really should include consideration of more than just a simple calorie deficit.

My conclusion is if I eat a balanced diet with a slightly lower carb % and higher protein % than most people following the "traditional route" I'll probably feel fuller longer and maybe be more successful than those who are using starches to fill their calories.

SueInAz

Cutting Back On C̶a̶r̶b̶s̶,̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶F̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶ Calories May Lead To More Weight Loss.

Fixed it for you.

For some people cutting back on Carbs does work. Really Really Really works.

I cannot say that about you and you cannot say that about what works for my body.

Our bodies and our genes are not one size fits all glove Made in China.

But...if you cut back on carbs you cut back on calories so....how does this make one a special snowflake again?

Less carbs =/= less calories

I can eat 2000 calories per day and < 60 grams of carbs -OR- I can eat 1200 calories and 150+ grams of carbs. I've done it both ways. For me, like some of the other "special snowflakes", the former works better.

radmack

I 100% agree about restriction. Eliminating any particular food group to a drastic level isn't a good idea. And I do agree also the high protein accounts for the reduced hunger and greater weight loss in the studies.

The study showed that modest reductions in carbohydrate consumption, down to about 28 to 30 percent of diet, could help tip the scales to weight loss.

The makeup of the low-carb group's diet was:

28 percent carbs

40 to 43 percent fat (twice as much poly and monounsaturated compared to saturated)

about 28 percent protein

The makeup of the low-fat group's diet was:

28 percent fat

40 to 45 percent carbs

28 to 32 percent protein

PikaKnight

Cutting Back On C̶a̶r̶b̶s̶,̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶F̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶ Calories May Lead To More Weight Loss.

Fixed it for you.

For some people cutting back on Carbs does work. Really Really Really works.

I cannot say that about you and you cannot say that about what works for my body.

Our bodies and our genes are not one size fits all glove Made in China.

But...if you cut back on carbs you cut back on calories so....how does this make one a special snowflake again?

Less carbs =/= less calories

I can eat 2000 calories per day and < 60 grams of carbs -OR- I can eat 1200 calories and 150+ grams of carbs. I've done it both ways. For me, like some of the other "special snowflakes", the former works better.

Why are the calorie amounts so varied? Or are you going purely by the glycogen depletion you experience when you cut carbs?

heybales

I was thinking along the same lines as _Waffle_. As there was no mention of actual calorie counting in the study, just a percentage of calories, one has to wonder how valid it is. Low carb can be a good way to lose weight quickly but in many cases it's just not sustainable long term so you end up regaining. IMHO, it's much better to eat a balance of all foods within a reasonable calorie goal.

P.S. I will say though, eating more protein and healthy fats can actually help folks on a diet as these foods tend to be more filling. If you're going low fat and eating a lot of processed foods, they may not keep you as full as long. That's what I've found anyway...

Low carb and other restrictions generally work because they force you to have a lower calorie intake. They work for the exact same reason that a calorie restriction works. In fact there's only one way to lose weight. Calorie restriction. I suppose if skipping all fast food or having no carbs helps then try it out but my main gripe is that these aren't sustainable plans that you can do long term.

Sorry I respectfully disagree.

JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.

Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.

Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men.This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

You should read the fine print. It clearly states that:

Dietary energy was restricted,

In short it's a calorie restriction that made them lose weight. There is apparently a slight advantage over restricting carbs vs. restricting fat in that you could consume slightly more calories with the low carb and still lose but the work is still done by calorie restriction.

And that would be water weight from storing less carbs with attached water as the added reason for more weight.

Take the 1st week or two out of the data as that fast initial water weight drop, now what is the difference. Oh wait, only 30 days for women, whose BMR literally changes through the month.

Badly setup study.

independant2406

And that would be water weight from storing less carbs with attached water as the added reason for more weight.

Take the 1st week or two out of the data as that fast initial water weight drop, now what is the difference. Oh wait, only 30 days for women, whose BMR literally changes through the month.

Badly setup study.

You are correct. Some studies do show that the weight loss acceleration with low carb diets is short term and the results are equal after 1 years time. Like this study shows no difference at 1 year marker:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12761365

But please consider these other two studies that do support long term weight loss with low carb diets:

2 year study - Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. New England Journal of Medicine, 2008.
Details: 322 obese individuals were randomized to three diets: a low-carb diet, a calorie restricted low-fat diet and a calorie restricted Mediterranean diet. Study went on for 2 years.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 4.7 kg (10.4 lbs), the low-fat group lost 2.9 kg (6.4 lbs) and the Mediterranean diet group lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight than the low-fat group and had greater improvements in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681


And this additional 1 year study:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
Conclusion: At 12 months, participants on the low-carbohydrate diet had greater decreases in weight, fat mass, ratio of total–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triglyceride level than those on the low-fat diet.

SueInAz

Cutting Back On C̶a̶r̶b̶s̶,̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶F̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶ Calories May Lead To More Weight Loss.

Fixed it for you.

For some people cutting back on Carbs does work. Really Really Really works.

I cannot say that about you and you cannot say that about what works for my body.

Our bodies and our genes are not one size fits all glove Made in China.

But...if you cut back on carbs you cut back on calories so....how does this make one a special snowflake again?

Less carbs =/= less calories

I can eat 2000 calories per day and < 60 grams of carbs -OR- I can eat 1200 calories and 150+ grams of carbs. I've done it both ways. For me, like some of the other "special snowflakes", the former works better.

Why are the calorie amounts so varied? Or are you going purely by the glycogen depletion you experience when you cut carbs?

I was just making a point that less carbs doesn't equal less calories, actually, not using real numbers.

However, since you've asked, I've done low carb for long periods of time in the past and I find that I can lose weight while eating several hundred more calories than I can on a low fat, low calorie diet as long as I keep my net carbs low (< 50 grams) on a daily basis. If it were just me, I'd probably stick to a low carb lifestyle for the rest of my life because I do find it sustainable but it drives my husband crazy. Instead, I limit carbs during the day while I'm at work and eat "normally" when I'm at home and just aim for about 100 grams per day.

StacyReneO

Cutting back on carbs is what works for me. I can eat 1200 calories and not lose weight. I can eat 1200-1400 calories and cut back on carbs and I lose weight.

Mr_Knight

Isn't this the same study we had 813,409 comments on a couple of weeks back?

If so, those are self-reported intakes that showed the low carb side ate fewer calories - in fact the exact number fewer calories that you'd need to explain the weight loss difference.

So....no.

Oh, and all the food was self-reported, so hang giant error bars off all the numbers, too.

So...yeah.

lemurcat12

I'm just confused by the calorie/carb dabate. Its hard to imagine someone on an Atkins diet consisting of full fat cheese,bacon, heavy whipping cream, steaks, eggs and sausage (high calorie and high fat foods) who has no restrictions on the volume of food they can consume in many of these studies would be eating the same number of calories as the dieters who are consuming fruit, veggies, lean meats and fish and set to a calorie limit?

First of all, they all got dietary counseling, so I doubt they were eating lots of butter and bacon. I can't tell whether they were also trying to cut calories, but have you tried it? I do tend to eat less naturally at about 30% carbs/30-40% fat, so that a 28% carb/40% or so fat diet would result in fewer calories being consumed wouldn't surprise me. I'd probably predict it. I'm now doing (and losing just about as much, especially controlling for my much lower weight) on the 40% carbs/28% fat (okay, my fat is usually a bit higher) something more like the "low fat" diet, but that's because I attempt to eat more and exercise a lot more.

Anyway, for me I know that I would eat fewer calories on the "low carb" diet, all else equal, so I hardly think this is so surprising or uncommon. Since I'm not currently after a lower calorie level (I like what I'm eating now) I see no reason to change, but I do suspect that lowering carbs/increasing fat can help some with satiation problems.

lemurcat12

Isn't this the same study we had 813,409 comments on a couple of weeks back?

I thought so at first, but it seems to be a different study comparing 28% carbs, 40% fat (or some such) with 28% fat, 40% carbs. Neither being especially low carb or low fat.

The other was <30% fat vs. <40 g carbs.

WalkingAlong

Isn't this the same study we had 813,409 comments on a couple of weeks back?

I thought so at first, but it seems to be a different study comparing 28% carbs, 40% fat (or some such) with 28% fat, 40% carbs. Neither being especially low carb or low fat.

The other was <30% fat vs. <40 g carbs.

We did discuss this same one on 9/3, in the General forum. I didn't see one with <40g carbs. This one is much higher carbs.

It's kind of funny how the media latches onto that '4 lbs vs. 12 lbs. lost' thing. If I'm reading it right, the study was 2/3 females, with a mean weight of like 218 lbs. It sounds to me like the low carb dieters lost a lot of water and glycogen in the first 3 months. In the following 9 months, everything evened out between the two groups.

They did some electrical impedence body fat tests but the losses were (at 3 months) -.3% low fat and -1.1% low carb. For 3 months with obese dieters, I don't know if that's even meaningful, even if it is accurate. Plus it says they gained more lean mass than they lost in fat. I don't know how that's possible without a net weight gain.

Mr_Knight

Sorry I respectfully disagree.

JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.

That study doesn't say anything. Two-thirds of the men had weight loss changes that were smaller than the margin of error. Body fat estimates were based on DEXA 3-compartment model, and most of the changes were inside the hydration error envelope.

Conclusion: studies based on self-reported food diaries are useless.

lemurcat12

Isn't this the same study we had 813,409 comments on a couple of weeks back?

I thought so at first, but it seems to be a different study comparing 28% carbs, 40% fat (or some such) with 28% fat, 40% carbs. Neither being especially low carb or low fat.

The other was <30% fat vs. <40 g carbs.

We did discuss this same one on 9/3, in the General forum. I didn't see one with <40g carbs. This one is much higher carbs.

The one I recall discussing at incredible length in the other forum (especially in a thread called something like "why everything people say at MFP is wrong" was this one: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694). But, yeah, the one in this thread isn't actually low carb IMO.

WalkingAlong

Isn't this the same study we had 813,409 comments on a couple of weeks back?

I thought so at first, but it seems to be a different study comparing 28% carbs, 40% fat (or some such) with 28% fat, 40% carbs. Neither being especially low carb or low fat.

The other was <30% fat vs. <40 g carbs.

We did discuss this same one on 9/3, in the General forum. I didn't see one with <40g carbs. This one is much higher carbs.

The one I recall discussing at incredible length in the other forum (especially in a thread called something like "why everything people say at MFP is wrong" was this one: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694). But, yeah, the one in this thread isn't actually low carb IMO.

I think that one IS this one.

lemurcat12

That one says the low carb group has under 40 grams, unless I'm misinterpreting the explanation somehow.

Sarauk2sf

That one says the low carb group has under 40 grams, unless I'm misinterpreting the explanation somehow.

They did not stick to it - maybe that is where the confusion is coming from. Most ended up at double or even triple that. Adherence was pretty bad re the carb target.

WalkingAlong

That one says the low carb group has under 40 grams, unless I'm misinterpreting the explanation somehow.

They did not stick to it - maybe that is where the confusion is coming from. Most ended up at double or even triple that. Adherence was pretty bad re the carb target.

Sorry, lemurcat, I didn't realize the study set out to be <40g carbs. You're right. And Sara's right, they never accomplished anywhere near that. It was all 90+.