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

bcattoes

when the heck are you people going to realize that weight loss =/= healthy?

you can lose weight eating well. you can lose weight eating crap. are those people equally healthy? nope. that's where the KINDS of calories come into play.

Losing weight, in and of itself, regardless of blood work or other health markers, reduces risk of disease. But you are correct in saying that losing weight is no guarantee of health. Neither is eating a healthy diet. There are no guarantees.

But the study was not about what was healthier. It purported that the type of calorie affected weight loss, not health.

etoiles_argentees

Ohhhhh, Lustig's study again? Must stop eating my candy necklace. sigh.....

lustig

Definition: funny

Pronunciation: [ˈlʊstɪç] listen

Examples: Dieser Clown ist gar nicht lustig - This clown is not at all funny.

Antonym: traurig - sad

ArroganceInStep

Losing weight will make you healthIER than if you didn't lose it. Obviously. But it won't make you AS HEALTHY as someone who did it with whole foods. (given identical test subjects and other variables controlled)

fact.

Prove it.

QED.

That's latin for 'I speak latin and you don't, so I win'

WinnerVictorious

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!

^ this is just thinly disguised food snobbery.

the typical person can eat ANYTHING they want and be perfectly healthy so long as you they meet their nutritional needs in the process.

nataliescalories

Thanks for posting this OP. I think aside from just thinking in terms of where a particular food lands on the glycemic index, it's also important to consider the overall glycemic load in a meal. If you eat a ton of low GI foods in one sitting, it could have the same results as one food higher on the glycemic index.

And as far as sweet potatoes go (but this does include other foods as well), "The way you prepare sweet potatoes makes a difference in their GI. The GI of a 150-g sweet potato, boiled with its skin for 30 minutes, is 46. That number rises to 94 if the same sweet potato is baked for 45 minutes. These dramatic differences come from the way the starches in sweet potatoes gelatinize during cooking. Foods that turn viscous, or jelly-like, in your digestive tract have a lower GI because the gelatinous substance slows the release of the nutrients in the food. Baking your sweet potatoes instead of boiling them changes the quality of their starches and transforms this root vegetable from a moderate-GI food to a high GI-food." ( http://www.livestrong.com/article/295025-the-glycemic-index-for-sweet-potatoes/#ixzz2JgArBrQs)

Acg67

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 .

when the heck are you people going to realize that weight loss =/= healthy?

you can lose weight eating well. you can lose weight eating crap. are those people equally healthy? nope. that's where the KINDS of calories come into play.

If you are obese and lose weight do blood markers of health generally improve, worsen or stay the same regardless of what foods they ate during weight loss?

Losing weight will make you healthIER than if you didn't lose it. Obviously. But it won't make you AS HEALTHY as someone who did it with whole foods. (given identical test subjects and other variables controlled)

fact.

I'm sure there are multitude of evidence and studies to back this up since it is a "fact", or is this more of a wishful thinking/fantasy world thing?

jenj1313

interesting... bumping to read later.

CoachReddy

when the heck are you people going to realize that weight loss =/= healthy?

you can lose weight eating well. you can lose weight eating crap. are those people equally healthy? nope. that's where the KINDS of calories come into play.

Losing weight, in and of itself, regardless of blood work or other health markers, reduces risk of disease. But you are correct in saying that losing weight is no guarantee of health. Neither is eating a healthy diet. There are no guarantees.

But the study was not about what was healthier. It purported that the type of calorie affected weight loss, not health.

good point - which i'd gotten away from. yes, i definitely agree that eating a whole food diet will get you better results weight-loss-wise as well, and it's cool to see that supported in this study.

bcattoes

Losing weight will make you healthIER than if you didn't lose it. Obviously. But it won't make you AS HEALTHY as someone who did it with whole foods. (given identical test subjects and other variables controlled)

fact.

Not fact. If all factors other than weight were the same (assuming that is what you mean by "controlled") then the overweight subject would have one extra risk factor for future disease, but both subjects would be equally healthy as of the moment.

Acg67

Thanks for posting this OP. I think aside from just thinking in terms of where a particular food lands on the glycemic index, it's also important to consider the overall glycemic load in a meal. If you eat a ton of low GI foods in one sitting, it could have the same results as one food higher on the glycemic index.

And as far as sweet potatoes go (but this does include other foods as well), "The way you prepare sweet potatoes makes a difference in their GI. The GI of a 150-g sweet potato, boiled with its skin for 30 minutes, is 46. That number rises to 94 if the same sweet potato is baked for 45 minutes. These dramatic differences come from the way the starches in sweet potatoes gelatinize during cooking. Foods that turn viscous, or jelly-like, in your digestive tract have a lower GI because the gelatinous substance slows the release of the nutrients in the food. Baking your sweet potatoes instead of boiling them changes the quality of their starches and transforms this root vegetable from a moderate-GI food to a high GI-food." ( http://www.livestrong.com/article/295025-the-glycemic-index-for-sweet-potatoes/#ixzz2JgArBrQs)

Lol GI (unless you're a a diabetic)

rm7161

from the study:

The low–glycemic index diet appears to have qualitatively similar, although smaller, metabolic benefits to the very low-carbohydrate diet, possibly without the deleterious effects on physiological stress and chronic inflammation. These findings suggest that a strategy to reduce glycemic load rather than dietary fat may be advantageous for weight-loss maintenance and cardiovascular disease prevention.

This is fascinating, because inflammation has always been a problem for me and it has improved since I have changed my diet to low glycemic index.

Celiacs often end up gaining weight by eating bread replacements which are much higher GI than their wheat counterparts, so I suspect I did myself a turn of good by cutting out bread and replacing it with traditional soft corn tortillas from the Latin American aisle made with masa (and not eating many at that) and whole grain rice. (which I nabbed from the kosher aisle of all places, some interesting stuff you can find over there, I found a lovely mix of brown, red and black Thai rices that are super tasty and not as expensive as the whole foods stores)

Dani76babi

I appreciate this information, along with the fact that you provided a source for the information you were sharing. (: Thankyou for that, Sources always give what people say a lot more credibility and gives us readers a chance to look at where the information came from so we can base our own opinions from that research and possibly look into it more.

Not enough people do this. So again, Thankyou. Sources are always appreciated!

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.

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 :~)

I don't whine about my diet not working.
I know that my food choices are not really all that healthy.
I don't come on here complaining that I feel like crap.
I don't need wine and chocolate, but thank you for suggesting that I cope with stress through alcohol, food, and medication. Great ideas.

CoachReddy

*sigh* are you guys really arguing that the typical american diet (but just eating less of it) is as good for you, and gets you just as many nutrients, as a fruit/veggie/whole grain heavy diet?

this is the argument? just trying to clarify for myself.

bcattoes

*sigh* are you guys really arguing that the typical american diet (but just eating less of it) is as good for you, and gets you just as many nutrients, as a fruit/veggie/whole grain heavy diet?

this is the argument? just trying to clarify for myself.

I don't know who you mean, but I doubt anyone was. The study was not about nutrients or what was good for you. It was about weight loss.

dangerxbadger

Thanks for posting this OP. I think aside from just thinking in terms of where a particular food lands on the glycemic index, it's also important to consider the overall glycemic load in a meal. If you eat a ton of low GI foods in one sitting, it could have the same results as one food higher on the glycemic index.

And as far as sweet potatoes go (but this does include other foods as well), "The way you prepare sweet potatoes makes a difference in their GI. The GI of a 150-g sweet potato, boiled with its skin for 30 minutes, is 46. That number rises to 94 if the same sweet potato is baked for 45 minutes. These dramatic differences come from the way the starches in sweet potatoes gelatinize during cooking. Foods that turn viscous, or jelly-like, in your digestive tract have a lower GI because the gelatinous substance slows the release of the nutrients in the food. Baking your sweet potatoes instead of boiling them changes the quality of their starches and transforms this root vegetable from a moderate-GI food to a high GI-food." ( http://www.livestrong.com/article/295025-the-glycemic-index-for-sweet-potatoes/#ixzz2JgArBrQs)

Lol GI (unless you're a a diabetic)

Diabetes isn't the only chronic illness that benefits from monitoring GI foods... just sayin.

ArroganceInStep

*sigh* are you guys really arguing that the typical american diet (but just eating less of it) is as good for you, and gets you just as many nutrients, as a fruit/veggie/whole grain heavy diet?

this is the argument? just trying to clarify for myself.

I'm actually arguing against making vague claims with no scientific backing, but that it's ok because you tacked 'fact' onto the end of it.

The typical american diet is problematic because that average daily intake of the typical american exceeds their TDEE, hence the obesity epidemic in this country.

You claimed a person who lost weight a specific way would be healthier than someone who lost weight in a different way. I said prove it.

You're changing the subject because you can't.

nataliescalories

Thanks for posting this OP. I think aside from just thinking in terms of where a particular food lands on the glycemic index, it's also important to consider the overall glycemic load in a meal. If you eat a ton of low GI foods in one sitting, it could have the same results as one food higher on the glycemic index.

And as far as sweet potatoes go (but this does include other foods as well), "The way you prepare sweet potatoes makes a difference in their GI. The GI of a 150-g sweet potato, boiled with its skin for 30 minutes, is 46. That number rises to 94 if the same sweet potato is baked for 45 minutes. These dramatic differences come from the way the starches in sweet potatoes gelatinize during cooking. Foods that turn viscous, or jelly-like, in your digestive tract have a lower GI because the gelatinous substance slows the release of the nutrients in the food. Baking your sweet potatoes instead of boiling them changes the quality of their starches and transforms this root vegetable from a moderate-GI food to a high GI-food." ( http://www.livestrong.com/article/295025-the-glycemic-index-for-sweet-potatoes/#ixzz2JgArBrQs)

Lol GI (unless you're a a diabetic)

There are a multitude of reasons (several diseases/disorders) why one should consider the GI/GL aside from diabetes.

rm7161

Lol GI (unless you're a a diabetic)

Diabetes isn't the only chronic illness that benefits from monitoring GI foods... just sayin.

This. Not everyone goes low GI to lose weight... the study was also talking about inflammation and a lot of diseases can stand to benefit from lowering it.

Elzecat

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.

Hahaha. "Eat whatever you want" doesn't necessarily mean "eat only junk food or fast food." I am not against eating healthy...but I am against the "all or nothing" attitude because I've failed too many times trying to be so restrictive with everything I eat. and I've seen too many people fail because of that mentality as well. You (@coachreddy) think that because I'm okay with people eating what they want...that I'm advocating an all fast food/junk food meal plan. *rolls eyes* Which is completely false. I'm for do what works for you. Period.

If people are reaching their fitness plans having that fast food meal every other day or every other month - great.

If they are reaching their goals having that nightly scoop of ice cream, eating white rice, or some other processed food...cool.

If boxed foods, frozen veggies, or whatever processed foods you like to wag a finger at fits better into someone's budget and they are still reaching their fitness goals and being healthy, then I say go for it.

As I've said in this post and many times before, I'm just against the extreme all or nothing attitude (both with food and exercise). Most of people that end up quitting/failing in their goals, do so because they feel if they can't do it all right now right away, then what's the point.

Edited for punctuation

^I'm with ya here.