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

mikek333

I'm not buying the conclusion drawn by the headline writer. It's still # of calories in and # out. Glycemic loads matter in feeling full longer, but you could lose weight on a junk food diet as long as you ate at a deficit.

JeninBelgium

Thanks to ACG for the full study link

While this seems like common sense, it is interesting and important to note that there were only 21 participants in the study - thus the n value was not very significant - but it does serve as an interesting trial study to be repeated on a larger scale

Also for those criticizing the study for not doing atkins right, the description of the diet in the abstract does not mention Atkins (at least not in the part I read) perhaps Atkins is referred to in one of the press articles or similar what the abstract says is:

Intervention After achieving 10% to 15% weight loss while consuming a run-in diet, participants consumed an isocaloric low-fat diet (60% of energy from carbohydrate, 20% from fat, 20% from protein; high glycemic load), low–glycemic index diet (40% from carbohydrate, 40% from fat, and 20% from protein; moderate glycemic load), and very low-carbohydrate diet (10% from carbohydrate, 60% from fat, and 30% from protein; low glycemic load) in random order, each for 4 weeks.

note that each participant tried each diet for 4 weeks only - thus it does not tell about long term effects however, the take home message of eating a well balanced diet of whole foods is a happy compromise in results - and I think most of us can agree to that (and of course you are going to eat crap sometimes, the point is to eat crap sometimes and not most or all of the ime- is it not?)

LexyDB

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

/sigh
/rolls eyes

Predictable answer from the masses who do disregard the OPs post. Knew it would happen.

historygirldd

bump til I have time to read through

Acg67

These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.

As laughable as garbage such as this spouted by the good doctor?

"weight will be lost even when the calories taken in far exceed the calories expended"

DrMAvDPhD

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

Burger is not considered "crap" by this article. The white bread bun on the burger is, but you can replace that with whole wheat and be fine :-)

AllTehBeers

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

How I feel as well.

+2

Obviously you will be healthier if you eat better foods, but its about what is sustainable for the rest of my life. Would I lose faster if all I ate was salad, chicken and vegetables? Absolutely. Could I do it for more then a week? Hell no.

Acg67

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

Burger is not considered "crap" by this article. The white bread bun on the burger is, but you can replace that with whole wheat and be fine :-)

That makes the assumption that whole wheat bread is better then evil white bread

gwenmf

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

lol I'm ready. I think any information is good to "digest"..........it's all good!

bcattoes

I'm not buying the conclusion drawn by the headline writer. It's still # of calories in and # out. Glycemic loads matter in feeling full longer, but you could lose weight on a junk food diet as long as you ate at a deficit.

If calories in and calories out didn't matter the study would have no relevance, since the results suggest the number of calories out may be greater with a low GI diet without increasing disease-causing stress markers.

LoraF83

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

Burger is not considered "crap" by this article. The white bread bun on the burger is, but you can replace that with whole wheat and be fine :-)

That makes the assumption that whole wheat bread is better then evil white bread

^This. Processed food is processed food. Mostly devoid of nutrition and not nearly as good for you as home-made.

I agree with some of this study....the better you eat, the better you will feel and the better health you will have (long term especially). But to suggest that a person can't lose weight by simply counting calories is wrong. And, people will tend to be more successful if they try to eat healthy most of the time, and indulge in their favorite "non-healthy" foods sometimes.

As far as pasta and things like that go....I think you only have to look at Italy to see that carbs aren't necessarily bad. The difference there is: they don't buy boxed, dry pasta that has a bunch of additives and ingredients. They make their own. Also, people have been eating bread and potatoes for thousands of years without weight problems. The difference again is that they didn't buy it in the supermarket. The potatoes didn't come in a box. Home made bread and potatoes from the garden does not equal Sara Lee and potato flakes.

amy1612

The study tried to answer why so few of us are able to lose weight, and keep it off. The answer? It's not enough to simply count calories. It matters what kinds of food those calories come from.

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

You know what, Over the past week or so Ive been annoyed at your 'healthier than thou' brash attitude to others, but,

I COMPLETELY agree with you. Personally, I do not want to fill my body with processed crap. Even bloody weight watchers has sat up and ackowledged that all calories are not equal. Eating a chocolate bar for lunch is NOT the same as eating a chicken salad and baked sweet potato, though the two have 'similar calories'. If people want to eat crappy, processed food thats their perogative, and yes, you'll lose weight at a deficit. But you wont create healthy eating habits.

There seems to be a divide on here between the people who just want to be thinner, and the people who want to be healthy. Yeah, enjoy an ice cream once in a while. Dont pretend its the same as eating an egg white omelette with veg and ham and some fruit. Its not.

chocl8girl

Darn them for using their common sense and getting paid to make a study out of it!

bcattoes

Burger is not considered "crap" by this article. The white bread bun on the burger is, but you can replace that with whole wheat and be fine :-)

That makes the assumption that whole wheat bread is better then evil white bread

For the topic at hand "better" would mean a lower GI. Between traditional white bread and traditional whole wheat bread, the whole wheat will have a lower GI.

Burgers are only "crap" if you use crap ingredients.

Dave198lbs

Burgers are only "crap" if you use crap ingredients.

agreed....I dont know why some folks think a cheeseburger is a cheat food or a junk food. a good cheeseburger (not Mcdonalds type) is actually a great protein and fat meal.

Jhs1987

Bump

emuhawk

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

/sigh
/rolls eyes

Predictable answer from the masses who do disregard the OPs post. Knew it would happen.

I wasn't responding to the OP, I was responding to the comment I quoted (yours, I believe). Which is why I quoted it. If you disagree with what I was saying, please, let's discuss.

adam1885282

Dr. Ornish was saying mostly the same thing (at least) 2 years ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/a-high-protein-diet-wont_b_492203.html

wendangi

um, this study isn't new.

bcattoes

Dr. Ornish was saying mostly the same thing (at least) 2 years ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/a-high-protein-diet-wont_b_492203.html

Not exactly. Dr. Ornish promotes a good carb/low fat diet. The diet rated best by this study was not low fat. The low fat diet used in the study actually performed the worst.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Clearly they did not do this study right as Atkins IS A LOW GLYCEMIC eating plan and the way you add back in your carbs is in line with the Glycemic index.

These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.

Any low carb diet is going to be by nature low GI. But that is not the same thing as a Low GI Diet, which is not low carb. It is the amount of carbohydrates eaten that differentiates these diets.

Not necesarily.

I see many many people that eat what is considered to be a Low (controlled carb) way of eating and still eat a lot of high GI foods such as sweet potatoes and bananas in particular.

bcattoes

Clearly they did not do this study right as Atkins IS A LOW GLYCEMIC eating plan and the way you add back in your carbs is in line with the Glycemic index.

These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.

Any low carb diet is going to be by nature low GI. But that is not the same thing as a Low GI Diet, which is not low carb. It is the amount of carbohydrates eaten that differentiates these diets.

Not necesarily.

I see many many people that eat what is considered to be a Low (controlled carb) way of eating and still eat a lot of high GI foods such as sweet potatoes and bananas in particular.

Well yes, I suppose if you only eat a few high GI carbs then you could be low carb and not low GI, though that doesn't really change my point which was that the low GI diet referred to in the study was not low carb.

carld256

I aim to eat both low-fat and low GI. I find that works very well, even if I don't hit the mark exactly every day.

shanntan

thanks for posting this. i've been wondering a lot about this.

icimani

huh, they actually pay people to study these things, it just sounds like plain common sense to me. :laugh:

I agree - years from now we'll still be paying lots of taxpayers dollars for research to find out that the best way to lose weight is to eat right, eat less, and move more.

Polluxi

But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

That's because no matter what you MUST to have a calorie deficit to lose weight.

Not true. Well, not in the way that most people think it is. You have to consider not only the calories that go into your mouth, but how much USABLE energy your body is able to extract through digestion. You mentioned TEF which is another part of this equation. As one example I recall reading about, study patients were divided into two groups: one was a calorie-restricted, low-fat group (cut by 300 kcal/day), and another was a high-fat diet where participants ate 300 kcal MORE than their BMR+daily routine required. Guess which group lost more weight over a 6-month period? The ones who ate more calories than they required. The bottom line is, it's never as simple as "calories in < calories out."

erinsueburns

Harvard has for some time been very anti-low fat, which personally I think is a pretty good thing. Previous research studies have indicated that replacing carbs with unsaturated fat is good for your health, particularly heart heath too. And while alot of what this study suggests makes sense, especially since the relative nutritional values of the foods on each of the diets was not controlled for. However, with such a small sample size and no long term study, this is essentially a pilot study and no real conclusions can be drawn. It is just barely enough to say hey, this is something we should take a longer look at.

Acg67

But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

That's because no matter what you MUST to have a calorie deficit to lose weight.

Not true. Well, not in the way that most people think it is. You have to consider not only the calories that go into your mouth, but how much USABLE energy your body is able to extract through digestion. You mentioned TEF which is another part of this equation. As one example I recall reading about, study patients were divided into two groups: one was a calorie-restricted, low-fat group (cut by 300 kcal/day), and another was a high-fat diet where participants ate 300 kcal MORE than their BMR+daily routine required. Guess which group lost more weight over a 6-month period? The ones who ate more calories than they required. The bottom line is, it's never as simple as "calories in < calories out."

I'd love to see that study, however I think your memory is betraying you or it is a reading comprehension fail vs special snowflakes that lost in a surplus

bcattoes

Ok but we cut processed carbs out of our home months ago. I haven't had pasta in a really long time. We have whole wheat bread in the house but I don't eat that very often. Most of my carbs come from brown rice, which when we have it I mix with lentils. But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

The study does not suggest that calories don't matter. If you want more information, go to the source rather than a media article

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/

Riemersma4

Ok but we cut processed carbs out of our home months ago. I haven't had pasta in a really long time. We have whole wheat bread in the house but I don't eat that very often. Most of my carbs come from brown rice, which when we have it I mix with lentils. But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

It never said NOT to count calories. The point is that we have to do BOTH. Control for quantity AND quality.

Not relaly a surprise, I suspect, for anyone who is serious about fitness and nutrition?

Good luck!