New study out of Harvard -- TYPE of calories matters more

Carpediem117

bump

Bakkasan

Still waiting for that absolute controlled study, till then I know low carb works better for me and that's all I care about.

30 days in a complex, all food provided and accounted for, and all exercise. Untill that day comes, neither opinion has a leg to stand on. Otherwise, both sides look just as stupid defending their OPINION. After a fully controlled study, then, and only then will it be a fact.

After that, you can establish why.

AnvilHead

A calorie is NOT a calorie. Which is why people definitely can lose weight on a low carb, high fat, moderate protein diet (ketogenic) while eating the same amount of calories as someone on a high carb, low fat diet...

...which says that a calorie IS, in fact, a calorie. If weight loss is equal holding calories equal and varying macro composition, that means a calorie is a calorie whether it comes from fat, protein or carbohydrates.

If you're inferring that one can lose weight while eating a ketogenic diet while in a caloric surplus....no.

Acg67

Still waiting for that absolute controlled study, till then I know low carb works better for me and that's all I care about.

30 days in a complex, all food provided and accounted for, and all exercise. Untill that day comes, neither opinion has a leg to stand on. Otherwise, both sides look just as stupid defending their OPINION. After a fully controlled study, then, and only then will it be a fact.

After that, you can establish why.

There are already numerous metabolic ward studies showing no metabolic advantage to low carb diets holding cals and protein constant, i've already posted them mult times. So the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is true that low carb offers no fat loss advantages

SanteMulberry

Bump

SanteMulberry

Still waiting for that absolute controlled study, till then I know low carb works better for me and that's all I care about.

30 days in a complex, all food provided and accounted for, and all exercise. Untill that day comes, neither opinion has a leg to stand on. Otherwise, both sides look just as stupid defending their OPINION. After a fully controlled study, then, and only then will it be a fact.

After that, you can establish why.

There are already numerous metabolic ward studies showing no metabolic advantage to low carb diets holding cals and protein constant, i've already posted them mult times. So the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is true that low carb offers no fat loss advantages

I think the advantage is likely appetite control on the lower carb diet. It seems to be very difficult for many obese people to control their appetite enough to stay in calorie deficit when they are eating lots of carbs. In addition, there is the matter of keeping it off--not just getting it off. The empty calories represented by sugar and simple carbohydrates (processed food is heavy in both) will likely lead to many more nutritional deficits and regain. Low fat (or worse very low fat) diets, quickly lead to a number of nutrient deficits. With "no-fat" foods, the processors take out the fat and insert the inferior nutrition of sugar and starch. Eating empty calories on a calorie-reduced diet abuses one's body---and the body will wreak its revenge through the inevitable overeating that follows.

Acg67

Still waiting for that absolute controlled study, till then I know low carb works better for me and that's all I care about.

30 days in a complex, all food provided and accounted for, and all exercise. Untill that day comes, neither opinion has a leg to stand on. Otherwise, both sides look just as stupid defending their OPINION. After a fully controlled study, then, and only then will it be a fact.

After that, you can establish why.

There are already numerous metabolic ward studies showing no metabolic advantage to low carb diets holding cals and protein constant, i've already posted them mult times. So the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is true that low carb offers no fat loss advantages

I think the advantage is likely appetite control on the lower carb diet. It seems to be very difficult for many obese people to control their appetite enough to stay in calorie deficit when they are eating lots of carbs.

Satiety is more closely tied to the increased protein intake when protein isn't matched in the diets, that's not saying for some individuals, increasing fats and lowering carbs isn't more satiating though

Bakkasan

I think the advantage is likely appetite control on the lower carb diet. It seems to be very difficult for many obese people to control their appetite enough to stay in calorie deficit when they are eating lots of carbs.

This is the only argument I bother with. It allows great appetite control for me. Therefore adherence to protocol is followed. That's the point right?

LavenderBouquet

The "Findings, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association: Participants burned about 300 calories more a day on a low-carb diet than they did on a low-fat diet. "That's the amount you'd burn off in an hour of moderate intensity physical activity without lifting a finger," says senior author David Ludwig, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital.

"Participants burned 150 calories more on the low-glycemic index diet than the low-fat diet. That's about an hour of light physical activity," he says"


"The authors note a downside to the low-carb diet: It appears to raise some risk factors for heart disease.

Ludwig says that restricting carbohydrates over the long term may be hard for many people. If you're trying to lose weight, "you can get a jump start with a low-carb diet, but over the long term, a low-glycemic index diet may be better than severely restricting carbohydrates."

"The low-glycemic index diet seems to be the happy medium," says Cara Ebbeling, associate director of the Obesity Prevention Center. "It didn't slow metabolism as much as the low-fat diet, and it didn't seem to have some of the negative effects on cardiovascular disease risk."

Sorry if this was addressed already in here, I tried looking through the entire thread. What is it exactly that causes the increased risk of heart disease when on a low carb - high fat diet as mentioned in the above quote from one of the previous posts? Low carb is also pretty generic, there's the extremely low carb diets in the 20g range, and others that are up to 150g.

dangerxbadger

This is fascinating research, showing that different diets lead to different levels of energy expenditure, and that while this expenditure is nearly the same between the low GI and the low carb, there are some other indicators, eg cortisol, which might suggest low GI has better all-round health implications.

Low GI foods would have all-around better health implications because a low GI diet generally means you can't eat processed crap, you have to eat more vegetables and stay away from refined sugar. It's really a no brainer, but I'm glad there is a reputable study with evidence for it. That said, I'm a believer in calories in versus calories out, because even WITH low carbing (due to medical necessity) and sticking with a net 1200 calories and training 6 days a week, my weight is CREEPING off, and I'm still in the obese range.

Bakkasan

Sorry if this was addressed already in here, I tried looking through the entire thread. What is it exactly that causes the increased risk of heart disease when on a low carb - high fat diet as mentioned in the above quote from one of the previous posts? Low carb is also pretty generic, there's the extremely low carb diets in the 20g range, and others that are up to 150g.

My numbers are in the high range on the "US standard" bs diet and goes into ridiculously great ranges on bacon/eggs/steak/veg for 30 days. Did this with my doc, and it was drastic. 280 down to 120 with no meds.

LavenderBouquet

Sorry if this was addressed already in here, I tried looking through the entire thread. What is it exactly that causes the increased risk of heart disease when on a low carb - high fat diet as mentioned in the above quote from one of the previous posts? Low carb is also pretty generic, there's the extremely low carb diets in the 20g range, and others that are up to 150g.

My numbers are in the high range on the "US standard" bs diet and goes into ridiculously great ranges on bacon/eggs/steak/veg for 30 days. Did this with my doc, and it was drastic. 280 down to 120 with no meds.

Well, I understand how an unhealthy low carb diet with lots of saturated fat could be harmful, but what about lower carb diets that focus on lean meats, veggies, fruits, and nuts?

geebusuk

A lot of questions over how bad 'sat fat' really is these days.
Haven't looked into it enough.

Also nuts often have high saturated fat?
If your diet is as suggested, where are the calories coming from? Loads of said lean meat?

blu_meanie_ca

bump for later reading

AnvilHead

I think the advantage is likely appetite control on the lower carb diet. It seems to be very difficult for many obese people to control their appetite enough to stay in calorie deficit when they are eating lots of carbs.

This is the only argument I bother with. It allows great appetite control for me. Therefore adherence to protocol is followed. That's the point right?

I can fully buy that argument without reservation. If it creates satiety and adherence, it's a good thing. What I don't buy is when people make miraculous claims such as being able to eat at a caloric surplus and still lose weight.

jerber160

get ready for the "I eat crap and still lost 50 pound crowd"

well, it's true, I lost about 30 pounds without giving up any particular food including ho hos, pizza, cakes and pies or cereal. (and without exercise-stupid I know and am now working out) I mean, I learned to stay at my calorie level, but I didn't give up any specific food, just quantities. true, I've plateaued, but i didn't see anything in the article addressing that.

13suzie

I'm proof that you can bust the plateau with cutting simple (stupid) sugars! My weight loss goal is really close and the closer I get the more the quality of the calories matters. Scale wouldn't budge at all until I stopped eating simple sugars. I ate 1200 calories and barely any crap. I would have an occasional chocolate snack or sweet of some sort and no loss. Now that I went cold turkey with the junk sugar, I am losing fast! Same calories, but the scale is singing now!

I know I am a sample of 1, but hey, there's loads of info about all the benefits of going anti-inflammatory...

mlm821

bump to read later

Siege_Tank

Wed 06/27/12 07:04 AM

Wow, this topic died on page 3 seven months ago. Who the heck resurrected it and then went on to post 6 more pages about it?

Wow.. this DID die back in June... and a couple of the same posters are still posting after it was rezzed..

HOLY **** IT'S AN UNDEAD THREAD! KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

EvgeniZyntx

What's wrong, Siege? Don't like the study?

For those interested in the detailed data of the study method - it can be found here:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/24277/JPC120005_supp.pdf