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

Idka81

And in other news: The Earth is round.

I really don't find it that difficult. Adjust your diet to eating a good balance of nutritious foods closest to their natural state to avoid overindulging on processed food, watch your intake and exercise. I don't think it's some magic formula, but it does require commitment.

CoachReddy

This is amazing. Thanks for posting OP. Pretty much exactly what I've been saying from day one.

CoachReddy

i'm curious as to the reactions from the "eat whatever you want" crowd...

taso? davpul? joylia? sarauk? mmapags? thoughts?

Acg67

i'm curious as to the reactions from the "eat whatever you want" crowd...

taso? davpul? joylia? sarauk? mmapags? thoughts?

I'm takign it you did not actually read the full study and paid particular attention to the results of the subjects

neanderthin

i'm curious as to the reactions from the "eat whatever you want" crowd...

taso? davpul? joylia? sarauk? mmapags? thoughts?

I'm takign it you did not actually read the full study and paid particular attention to the results of the subjects

I'll take away what conforms with what I want to tell everyone, which is, I was right? Sounds legit.

vashnic

Full study

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

But also see;

Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006)

http://www.captura.uchile.cl/jspui/bitstream/2250/5614/1/Diaz_EO.pdf

Ty for the link!

There's...a lot of overlap between the diets in terms of energy expenditure, regardless of their reported trends, though you could make a case for the total energy expended. It's also not clear regarding levels of exercise between groups nor how well their daily caloric intake was monitored? Maybe I am missing something...

Resting Energy Used Compared to Pre-diet at 95% CI:

Low Fat: –205 [–265 to –144] kcal/d
Low Glycemic: –166 [–227 to –106] kcal/d
Very Low Carb: −138 [–198 to –77] kcal/d

Total Energy Used Compared to Pre-diet at 95%CI:

Low Fat: −423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d
Low Glycemic: −297 [–479 to –115] kcal/d
Very Low Carb: −97 [–281 to 86] kcal/d
−423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d

mmapags

i'm curious as to the reactions from the "eat whatever you want" crowd...

taso? davpul? joylia? sarauk? mmapags? thoughts?

I'm takign it you did not actually read the full study and paid particular attention to the results of the subjects

I'll take away what conforms with what I want to tell everyone, which is, I was right? Sounds legit.

Lolz!!

trojanbb

This is amazing. Thanks for posting OP. Pretty much exactly what I've been saying from day one.

lmao! No this is not. The fact remains, only macro's matter. clean vs dirty does not matter.

professorRAT

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

huh, of course they do. Just because something is plausible or seems like it would be true does not actually make it true. That is what scientific method is for. I thought THAT was just common sense.

Not to mention, meta-analysis matters. I am stunned by how few people seem to understand how science and the advancement of knowledge works.

bcattoes

This is amazing. Thanks for posting OP. Pretty much exactly what I've been saying from day one.

lmao! No this is not. The fact remains, only macro's matter. clean vs dirty does not matter.

It's hard to determine when someone is joking or being serious, but micronutrients matter. Calories matter.

FitGuyWillDoIt

So a 100 calorie apple made by God, Mother Nature, Earth, Sun, whoever, whatever you believe in is better than a 100 calorie snack pack made on a factory assembly line? Who knew?

professorRAT

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.

wow

trojanbb

This is amazing. Thanks for posting OP. Pretty much exactly what I've been saying from day one.

lmao! No this is not. The fact remains, only macro's matter. clean vs dirty does not matter.

It's hard to determine when someone is joking or being serious, but micronutrients matter. Calories matter.

micronutrients and sources of calories have never mattered for weight loss. The hormonal response is the same and the energy contained is the same. Macros matter, calories matter. That's it.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html

the above link is hormonal only. For body composition over time studies, there are thousands of other links showing clean vs dirty is irrelevant .

professorRAT

So a 100 calorie apple made by God, Mother Nature, Earth, Sun, whoever, whatever you believe in is better than a 100 calorie snack pack made on a factory assembly line? Who knew?

One would need to study this scientifically to know the answer. (not to mention qualify "better")

bcattoes

So a 100 calorie apple made by God, Mother Nature, Earth, Sun, whoever, whatever you believe in is better than a 100 calorie snack pack made on a factory assembly line? Who knew?

apples are on the dirty dozen list.

carrieliz81

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.

Why do people get mad at the ones who choose to eat crap? It's not your life... it doesn't affect you if a stranger 5 states away decides to eat regular spaghetti instead of steel cut oats... I'm not saying you're not right. Eating healthier foods results in healthier people! Great! And, according to this, better results with weight loss. But damn it, if I choose to be unhealthy, just let me be unhealthy! Calm down about my bad choices! Stop acting all exasperated that you were right all along and everyone else is completely stupid for not giving up sugar and hamburgers. Those of us who still eat simple carbs have no one to blame for the end result but ourselves. And trust me, I blame me and nothing else. Not calorie counting, not health nuts, not marketing, not my friends...... just me. My sins are ever present and plentiful... I am just trying to cope with it the best way I can make it work for me. I'm working out... I'm eating less..... they're only baby steps in the right-ish direction, sure... but they're still steps. And I'm okay with celebrating that.

carrieliz81

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.

Why do people get mad at the ones who choose to eat crap? It's not your life... it doesn't affect you if a stranger 5 states away decides to eat regular spaghetti instead of steel cut oats... I'm not saying you're not right. Eating healthier foods results in healthier people! Great! And, according to this, better results with weight loss. But damn it, if I choose to be unhealthy, just let me be unhealthy! Calm down about my bad choices! Stop acting all exasperated that you were right all along and everyone else is completely stupid for not giving up sugar and hamburgers. Those of us who still eat simple carbs have no one to blame for the end result but ourselves. And trust me, I blame me and nothing else. Not calorie counting, not health nuts, not marketing, not my friends...... just me. My sins are ever present and plentiful... I am just trying to cope with it the best way I can make it work for me. I'm working out... I'm eating less..... they're only baby steps in the right-ish direction, sure... but they're still steps. And I'm okay with celebrating that.

OH -- and PS -- do you know that it is in FACT that person's goal to "eat correctly"? Perhaps their goal is just what they said it was..... to eat under their calorie allowance for the day. You don't get to make other people's goals for them. That's personal to each individual.

DawnieB1977

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.

This! I totally agree. I always think what you eat matters, as well as how many calories.

Acg67

43% of caloric intake as sucrose (table sugar) in this study, wonder what happened?

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.

www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

rm7161

The study compared three basic diets with the same number of calories, but in different forms: A low-fat diet, a low carbohydrate diet-high protein diet, like Atkins, and what's called a low-glycemic diet. The low-glycemic diet includes normal amounts of protein, fat and carbs, but avoids processed carbohydrates like white rice, white bread and sugar.

I eat a low glycemic diet. I have moderately high protein but I make sure I get in healthy sources of carbs too.

Lifting_Knitter

Bump

bcattoes

43% of caloric intake as sucrose (table sugar) in this study, wonder what happened?

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.

www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

Ugh! That had a lot of big nerdy words. Can you provide a link to the USA Today or Dr. Oz article on it?

carlsoda

Thank you for this post and the reminder that we should all be eating clean healthy whole foods. I do a pretty good job most of the time, but I need to tigher things up! If it's man-made and the ingredient statement is long...DON'T EAT IT!

professorRAT

43% of caloric intake as sucrose (table sugar) in this study, wonder what happened?

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.

www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

You and your crazy meta-analysis.

Espressocycle

Is this just because refined carbs are more available? If you eat 100 calories of, I dunno, spelt nuggets, do you get 100 calories of energy or is some lost breaking it down compared to 100 calories of table sugar shot directly into your vein?

Confuzzled4ever

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A new study out of Harvard University about dieting that could change the way we think about keeping weight off. When it comes to counting calories, what kind we take in may matter as much as how many we take in, according to the study.

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.

The study compared three basic diets with the same number of calories, but in different forms: A low-fat diet, a low carbohydrate diet-high protein diet, like Atkins, and what's called a low-glycemic diet. The low-glycemic diet includes normal amounts of protein, fat and carbs, but avoids processed carbohydrates like white rice, white bread and sugar.

The results? Researchers found the low-glycemic diet actually speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories.

The low-glycemic diet trades out white breads for stone ground whole wheat breads and steel cut, old fashioned oatmeal, instead of the instant variety.

Click here to learn more about the study or go to abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506 .




Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/health/healthy_living/Study-Type-of-calories-matter-more-than-how-many#ixzz1yzilqses

So.. your saying to eat fresh foods that are not processsed and are not a victom of GMO of is the way to keep the weight off?? huh.. and I wondered why McDonalds maks you fat.. LOL

Why did this require a study???? (Kinda common sense dontcha think?)

bcattoes

Thank you for this post and the reminder that we should all be eating clean healthy whole foods. I do a pretty good job most of the time, but I need to tigher things up! If it's man-made and the ingredient statement is long...DON'T EAT IT!

That's actually not what the study said at all.

aapluvr1

One word: MODERATION.

Confuzzled4ever

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.

Why do people get mad at the ones who choose to eat crap? It's not your life... it doesn't affect you if a stranger 5 states away decides to eat regular spaghetti instead of steel cut oats... I'm not saying you're not right. Eating healthier foods results in healthier people! Great! And, according to this, better results with weight loss. But damn it, if I choose to be unhealthy, just let me be unhealthy! Calm down about my bad choices! Stop acting all exasperated that you were right all along and everyone else is completely stupid for not giving up sugar and hamburgers. Those of us who still eat simple carbs have no one to blame for the end result but ourselves. And trust me, I blame me and nothing else. Not calorie counting, not health nuts, not marketing, not my friends...... just me. My sins are ever present and plentiful... I am just trying to cope with it the best way I can make it work for me. I'm working out... I'm eating less..... they're only baby steps in the right-ish direction, sure... but they're still steps. And I'm okay with celebrating that.

OH -- and PS -- do you know that it is in FACT that person's goal to "eat correctly"? Perhaps their goal is just what they said it was..... to eat under their calorie allowance for the day. You don't get to make other people's goals for them. That's personal to each individual.

I think you need wine and chocolate.. and a rather large chill pill..


and people speak up *because* people who make unhealthy choices are those who are most likely to come on a site like this whining about thier diet not working.. and then when you tell them why.. you get the above type of answer.

You don't want to hear that your food choicse are really not all that healthy? Then don't come on here complaining that you feel like crap. Easy :~)

emtjmac

WhAt AbOuT 3o BaNaNaS a DaHY???//////oneone