Interesting Study on NPR

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+.