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

Siege_Tank

ETA: loved the article, and love the OP, I just have an issue with ABC "news" if that's what the definition of news is these days.

THIS is why articles like this are dangerous and stupid.

The low-carb diet seemed to help participants burn the most calories. But it also increased certain markers of stress and inflammation in the body, such as the stress hormone cortisol, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease and other health problems.

In the end, the researchers found that the low-glycemic index diet struck the right balance for the participants. It helped the dieters burn more calories, though not as many as the low-carb diet, but didn't seem to increase disease-causing stress markers in the body.

I wonder by how much a low carb, high protein diet increased those "markers" for stress and inflammation... because I'm willing to bet that you can't raise cortisol by statistically significant amounts by changing the macro ratios of your diet.

If I had to wager, I'd BET that the markers fall within the range of error ratios for cortisol and other "markers" for those 7 out of 21 people who were on the low carb side of the study.

The study did not follow patients for the long term, and the authors note that it's difficult to say whether the dieters would have maintained their weight loss outside of the study's highly controlled setting.

And another thing, taking overweight individuals, and changing up their diets from a calorie cut to a maintenance level - and then studying what these diets did...

WHERE'S the control group? Where's the 7 lean individuals fed this diet, and the 7 overweight individuals who HADN'T just lost 12.5% of their body weight????????????????

Timehope

"The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" by Volek & Phinney, Ph. Ds, says low-carb IS healthy. Their long-term studies report most people on such a diet drop total cholesterol and fasting blood glucose; triglycerides typically drop by half. LDL usually
goes down a bit, then rises a bit at about the 30-lb. weight loss point -- the body's fat cells apparently release stored LDL fat molecules at that point -- and after a few months the LDL goes down again. Also the ratios of these various blood components approach ideals, and the ratios indicate that LDL particle size shifts to a much healthier range. (Not all LDL is equally bad.)
Inflammation markers also drop. All these are the most-used indicators of the cardiovascular health of a diet.
--
The one marker that is not so positive is cortisol, which tends to go up on a low-carb diet. But it isn't clear if that has any significance.
--
Volek and Phinney argue that it takes four to six weeks for the body to fully adjust to a low-carbohydrate diet; various enzymes have to be constructed to take better advantage of fat in the absence of carbs. Once adapted, the body soon shows the advantages listed above. They say that most of the popularly reported studies such as the one you cite tend to be too short-term
to compare accurately.
--
Also, it is a bit ironic that a slice of whole wheat bread causes a higher rise in blood glucose (a bad thing for those who are insulin resistant) than a piece of candy with the same caloric content.

Acg67

"The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" by Volek & Phinney, Ph. Ds, says low-carb IS healthy. Their long-term studies report most people on such a diet drop total cholesterol and fasting blood glucose; triglycerides typically drop by half. LDL usually
goes down a bit, then rises a bit at about the 30-lb. weight loss point -- the body's fat cells apparently release stored LDL fat molecules at that point -- and after a few months the LDL goes down again. Also the ratios of these various blood components approach ideals, and the ratios indicate that LDL particle size shifts to a much healthier range. (Not all LDL is equally bad.)
Inflammation markers also drop. All these are the most-used indicators of the cardiovascular health of a diet.
--
The one marker that is not so positive is cortisol, which tends to go up on a low-carb diet. But it isn't clear if that has any significance.
--
Volek and Phinney argue that it takes four to six weeks for the body to fully adjust to a low-carbohydrate diet; various enzymes have to be constructed to take better advantage of fat in the absence of carbs. Once adapted, the body soon shows the advantages listed above. They say that most of the popularly reported studies such as the one you cite tend to be too short-term
to compare accurately.
--
Also, it is a bit ironic that a slice of whole wheat bread causes a higher rise in blood glucose (a bad thing for those who are insulin resistant) than a piece of candy with the same caloric content.

Lol Volek and Phinney, pay attention to study design, results and their conclusions

etoiles_argentees

Siege guy - Oh you know, the outliers always get kicked out of the studies, unfortunately.

Volek and Phinney? Please.

You'd like to talk about cortisol?

Siege_Tank

Lol Volek and Phinney, pay attention to study design, results and their conclusions

Fine, but every study should be reviewed and scrutinized by peers for errors, omissions, and misinformation... and I'd have to contend that ANY information from a study is better than NO data - or parenthetical suppositions or deductions based on logic, intuition, or inference - (which is to say.. guesses without any data behind it)

rm7161

Oh holy mother of God....doesn't it really come down to eat as many clean, whole foods as you can.

No, that's not what the study was about at all. It is called "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance" and never mentions whole foods at all. If you have metabolic syndrome or something related to it, it might be very interesting for you, as it goes into a lot of detail about markers for that. I learned from reading the fine print that a low glycemic index diet also reduced the amount of TSH excreted, which is a factor for someone with thyroid disorders. (also something I have)

So all in all, if you aren't dealing with high levels of cardiovascular risk or a disease that has high markers of inflammation and is treatable by losing weight, it is probably not that interesting for you.

Siege_Tank

Siege guy - Oh you know, the outliers always get kicked out of the studies, unfortunately.

Volek and Phinney? Please.

You'd like to talk about cortisol?

LOL YES!! the outliers get kicked out of my real estate appraisals too!! But there is always a range in any of the data sets when you compare different individuals, whether it is different individual people or different individual farm land sales..

and I'm betting that compared the the other 14 people in the study, the rise in cortisol was statistical noise, the kind associated with a rise in higher protein assimilation from their higher protein consumption...

ETA: I LOVE any chance I get to use the word assimilate. =D

rm7161

Siege guy - Oh you know, the outliers always get kicked out of the studies, unfortunately.

Volek and Phinney? Please.

You'd like to talk about cortisol?

LOL YES!! the outliers get kicked out of my real estate appraisals too!! But there is always a range in any of the data sets when you compare different individuals, whether it is different individual people or different individual farm land sales..

and I'm betting that compared the the other 14 people in the study, the rise in cortisol was statistical noise, the kind associated with a rise in higher protein assimilation from their higher protein consumption...

you could read it, you know.


Hormones and Components
of the Metabolic Syndrome


Serum leptin was highest with the lowfat
diet (mean [95% CI], 14.9 [12.1-
18.4] ng/mL), intermediate with the
low–glycemic index diet (12.7 [10.3-
15.6] ng/mL), and lowest with the very
low-carbohydrate diet (11.2 [9.1-
13.8] ng/mL; overall P.001)
(Table 3). For the 3 diets, cortisol excretion
measured with a 24-hour urine
collection (mean [95% CI], 50 [41-
60] μg/d for low fat; 60 [49-73] μg/d
for low glycemic index; and 71 [58-
86] μg/d for very low carbohydrate;
overall P=.005) and serum thyroidstimulating
hormone (mean [95% CI],
1.27 [1.01-1.60] μIU/mL for low fat;
1.22 [0.97-1.54] μIU/mL for low glycemic
index; and 1.11 [0.88-1.40]
μIU/mL for very low carbohydrate;
overall P=.04) also differed in a linear
fashion by glycemic load. Serum triiodothyronine
was lower with the very
low-carbohydrate diet compared with
the other 2 diets (mean [95% CI], 121
[108-135] ng/dL for low-fat diet and
123 [110-137 ng/dL for low–glycemic
index diet vs 108 [96-120] ng/dL for
very low-carbohydrate diet; overall
P=.006).
Regarding components of the metabolic
syndrome, indexes of peripheral
(P=.02) and hepatic (P=.03) insulin
sensitivity were lowest with the lowfat
diet. Comparing the low-fat, low–
glycemic index, and very lowcarbohydrate
diets, serum HDL
cholesterol (mean [95% CI], 40 [35-
45] mg/dL; 45 [41-50] mg/dL; and 48
[44-53] mg/dL, respectively; overall
P.001), triglycerides (107 [87-131]
mg/dL; 87 [71-106] mg/dL; and 66 [54-
81] mg/dL, respectively; overall
P.001), and plasminogen activator inhibitor
1 (mean [95% CI], 1.39 [0.94-
2.05] ng/mL; 1.15 [0.78-1.71] ng/mL;
and 1.01 [0.68-1.49] ng/mL, respectively;
P for trend by glycemic load=.04)
were most favorable with the very lowcarbohydrate
diet and least favorable
with the low-fat diet. However, CRP
tended to be higher with the very lowcarbohydrate
diet (median [95% CI],
0.78 [0.38-1.92] mg/L for low-fat diet;
0.76 [0.50-2.20] mg/L for low–
glycemic index diet; and 0.87 [0.57-
2.69] mg/L for very low-carbohydrate
diet; P for trend by glycemic load=.05).
Blood pressure did not differ among the
3 diets.

sdumma

Great info thanks!

Siege_Tank

For the 3 diets, cortisol excretion measured with a 24-hour urine collection (mean [95% CI],

50 [41-60] μg/d for low fat;
60 [49-73] μg/d for low glycemic index;
71 [58-86] μg/d for very low carbohydrate;

overall P=.005)

Thank you so much!! I didn't really care enough to look through the study, but seeing the data set here - it still means NOTHING without a control group... however the differences between 41-60 micrograms (millionths of a gram) to 58-86 micrograms of cortisol fall within the normal range of urinary measured cortisol for human beings, or 11μg to 176μg.

hrubyk1804

Oh holy mother of God....doesn't it really come down to eat as many clean, whole foods as you can.

No, that's not what the study was about at all. It is called "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance" and never mentions whole foods at all. If you have metabolic syndrome or something related to it, it might be very interesting for you, as it goes into a lot of detail about markers for that. I learned from reading the fine print that a low glycemic index diet also reduced the amount of TSH excreted, which is a factor for someone with thyroid disorders. (also something I have)

So all in all, if you aren't dealing with high levels of cardiovascular risk or a disease that has high markers of inflammation and is treatable by losing weight, it is probably not that interesting for you.

Thank you...I wasn't referring to the study itself.

19kat55

bump

etoiles_argentees

What would you like to know about cortisol? You already know that in the short term it relieves stress and is sensitive to one's psycological state. In addition to being needed for repeated muscle contraction it also redirects glucose to the brain.....breaks down protein into amino acids and so on. And yeah, at too high of a concentration cortisol turns off the release of CRF from the hypothalamus and ACTH from the pituitary and so on. Chronic stress is no good, we know that.

I'm way off topic here, I apologize, back to the study.

Polluxi

Self reported intake based on dietary recall and no where does it show that any of the groups ate in a surplus and lost more weight than subjects eating in a deficit. So once again I think your misremember what you read in the past

I never said it was the same study. I said this one had slightly different conditions, in that the high-fat group was simply not calorie-restricted, rather than deliberately consuming surplus calories. I will try to find the study, it was interesting, and I'll post it on here if I do.
But you realize I was originally making a pretty basic point, right? Not all of the calories that go into your mouth go into building bodily tissues; some macronutrients are not as readily stored as fat. Perhaps you'd like to research this yourself, since you believe my reading comprehension is lacking (which I find funny, since this is at least partially my field -- I'm a biophysicist).

You mean like proteins and carbs? And since this is your field, you'd know ad lib doesn't necessarily mean they eat in a surplus, which is what you stated in your original post. What happened to the surplus cals that the subjects you mentioned were able to lose fat?

Yes, like proteins, carbs and fat. They have different rates of absorption and respond differently to the major hormone controlling fat storage. I can only speculate on what happened to the surplus cals in the study - as it was a population study, it didn't go into mechanisms. But I could guess that, first, the calorie-deficit group had a gradual reduction in metabolism. Second, insulin response is mitigated in the high-fat group. Third, higher protein consumption (I think the figure was ~25% as opposed to the WHO's ~15% recommendation) can increase lean muscle mass, gradually increasing metabolism. Last, some of them can essentially be wasted - only partially digested and used by the body. This can be a larger effect than you think, particularly depending on the combination of foods/quality of foods consumed at each meal. Of course calories have their context...if you go about eating a thousand extra every day, then regardless of the source of those calories, you're going to gain weight. But we're talking about a mere 300 here.

rm7161

Thank you so much!! I didn't really care enough to look through the study, but seeing the data set here - it still means NOTHING without a control group... however the differences between 41-60 micrograms (millionths of a gram) to 58-86 micrograms of cortisol fall within the normal range of urinary measured cortisol for human beings, or 11μg to 176μg.

Yes, its not significant for someone who is healthy. It's interesting for someone who might not be though. It may be useful information for someone who is dealing with metabolic disorders, which is why I provided that big clue in the title of the passage. It needs more work, I agree. I don't think it is particularly useful to someone who has 20 lbs to lose.

darlilama

I don't eat "clean", low-fat, low-carb, or low-glycemic, at least not by intention. I try to eat a reasonable diet. On occasion, by golly, I eat fast food... although I'm sort of picky about it. And while most of the time I eat whole grain (because I LIKE them), I also eat white rice and mashed potatoes if I feel like it. Sometimes I make my lunch and sometimes I have a Lean Cuisine. I also exercise vigorously and consistently, although I'm certainly not an athlete. I just do my best to keep it all in balance and not make myself miserable trying to do so.

For the first year I joined MFP, my macro ratios were 60C 15P 25F. (Currently, I'm doing 50C 25P 25F.)

Year 1 results:
lost 30+ lbs
Blood sugar down 12%
Triglycerides down 59%
LDL down 28%
HDL up 14%!

My point is... if you feel and are healthy, does all the nit-picky science really matter? Don't get me wrong. I love science. It's amazing. But, it's the big picture that motivate me!

etoiles_argentees

For the 3 diets, cortisol excretion
measured with a 24-hour urine
collection (mean [95% CI], 50 [41-
60] μg/d for low fat; 60 [49-73] μg/d
for low glycemic index; and 71 [58-
86] μg/d for very low carbohydrate;
overall P=.005)

Well, when mine was studied I didn't fit. It also didn't rise and fall at the predicted times. Out of the study! I guess I'm a snowflake.

etoiles_argentees

I don't eat "clean", low-fat, low-carb, or low-glycemic, at least not by intention. I try to eat a reasonable diet. On occasion, by golly, I eat fast food... although I'm sort of picky about it. And while most of the time I eat whole grain (because I LIKE them), I also eat white rice and mashed potatoes if I feel like it. Sometimes I make my lunch and sometimes I have a Lean Cuisine. I also exercise vigorously and consistently, although I'm certainly not an athlete. I just do my best to keep it all in balance and not make myself miserable trying to do so.

For the first year I joined MFP, my macro ratios were 60C 15P 25F. (Currently, I'm doing 50C 25P 25F.)

Year 1 results:
lost 30+ lbs
Blood sugar down 12%
Triglycerides down 59%
LDL down 28%
HDL up 14%!

My point is... if you feel and are healthy, does all the nit-picky science really matter? Don't get me wrong. I love science. It's amazing. But, it's the big picture that motivate me!

Nice! Sometimes people miss this. Eat less and move more.

rm7161

My point is... if you feel and are healthy, does all the nit-picky science really matter? Don't get me wrong. I love science. It's amazing. But, it's the big picture that motivate me!

No it doesn't... but to be fair, the study wasn't trying to help healthy people either. It was trying to help overweight and obese people who fail at maintaining their weight loss.

In their words, To examine the effects of 3 diets differing widely in macronutrient composition and glycemic load on energy expenditure following weight loss.

Incidentally, this is the reason they were measuring leptin.

etoiles_argentees

following weight loss?

when you are not overweight the calories don't matter, what with the leptin now?
It's very small overall. Forget leptin, please......

darlilama

My point is... if you feel and are healthy, does all the nit-picky science really matter? Don't get me wrong. I love science. It's amazing. But, it's the big picture that motivate me!

No it doesn't... but to be fair, the study wasn't trying to help healthy people either. It was trying to help overweight and obese people who fail at maintaining their weight loss.

In their words, To examine the effects of 3 diets differing widely in macronutrient composition and glycemic load on energy expenditure following weight loss.

Incidentally, this is the reason they were measuring leptin.

Well, I'll definitely be looking forward to seeing my next annual physical results (not til July) after maintaining my weight loss. I have to maintain my weight loss in basically the same way that I attained my weight loss. So, explain to me (seriously, I'm curious) the difference between helping overweight/obsese people who are beginning a weight loss "program" vs overweight/obsese people who failed to maintain a prior weight loss. How does the principal of diet and exercise change?

rm7161

following weight loss?

when you are not overweight the calories don't matter, what with the leptin now?
It's very small overall. Forget leptin, please......

I am obese, so I am curious about these things. Maybe you aren't ... anyways, I'm the messenger. People were talking without actually reading the study, I read it and pasted it out of the PDF here. Apologies in advance if this annoys you. I have to go work out now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin#Leptin_and_weight_regain

for folks who may be curious. I didn't know about its connection to TSH until today, so I learned something today, and glad to ignore your advice to forget about it. Not everyone is interested in these things for the same reasons. I have my own personal reasons for being interested that I probably don't share with you, that are related to my medical problems... and what may be good for me may not be good for you, so please, stop right now if you think that's what I am arguing. What's good for me is good for me... full stop

etoiles_argentees

Ohhhhh.. tired of this.

Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2010 Mar 25;316(2):165-71. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jun 18.
Obesity and thyroid function.
Reinehr T.
Source
Department of Paediatric Nutrition Medicine, Vestische Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Witten/Herdecke, Datteln, Germany. T.Reinehr@kinderklinik-datteln.de
Abstract
A moderate elevation of thyrotropin (TSH) concentrations, which is associated with triiodothyronine (T3) values in or slightly above the upper normal range, is frequently found in obese humans. These alterations seem rather a consequence than a cause of obesity since weight loss leads to a normalization of elevated thyroid hormone levels. Elevated thyroid hormone concentrations increase the resting energy expenditure (REE). The underlying pathways are not fully understood. As a consequence of the increased REE, the availability of accumulated energy for conversion into fat is diminished. In conclusion, the alterations of thyroid hormones in obesity suggest an adaptation process. Since rapid weight loss is associated with a decrease of TSH and T3, the resulting decrease in REE may contribute towards the difficulties maintaining weight loss. Leptin seems to be a promising link between obesity and alterations of thyroid hormones since leptin concentrations influence TSH release.

For you. Tired.

rm7161

Ohhhhh.. tired of this.

Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2010 Mar 25;316(2):165-71. doi: 10.1016/j.mce.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jun 18.
Obesity and thyroid function.
Reinehr T.
Source
Department of Paediatric Nutrition Medicine, Vestische Hospital for Children and Adolescents, University of Witten/Herdecke, Datteln, Germany. T.Reinehr@kinderklinik-datteln.de
Abstract
A moderate elevation of thyrotropin (TSH) concentrations, which is associated with triiodothyronine (T3) values in or slightly above the upper normal range, is frequently found in obese humans. These alterations seem rather a consequence than a cause of obesity since weight loss leads to a normalization of elevated thyroid hormone levels. Elevated thyroid hormone concentrations increase the resting energy expenditure (REE). The underlying pathways are not fully understood. As a consequence of the increased REE, the availability of accumulated energy for conversion into fat is diminished. In conclusion, the alterations of thyroid hormones in obesity suggest an adaptation process. Since rapid weight loss is associated with a decrease of TSH and T3, the resulting decrease in REE may contribute towards the difficulties maintaining weight loss. Leptin seems to be a promising link between obesity and alterations of thyroid hormones since leptin concentrations influence TSH release.

For you. Tired.

Some of us have thyroid problems. I take medication for it.

Thank you though. There could be multiple reasons for my thyroid issues, however. Until I get a full battery of antibody tests done, I simply do not know if its related to being overweight, or if my body is attacking it until then. It's an interconnected system and the more I know about how it works, the better.

Acg67

Self reported intake based on dietary recall and no where does it show that any of the groups ate in a surplus and lost more weight than subjects eating in a deficit. So once again I think your misremember what you read in the past

I never said it was the same study. I said this one had slightly different conditions, in that the high-fat group was simply not calorie-restricted, rather than deliberately consuming surplus calories. I will try to find the study, it was interesting, and I'll post it on here if I do.
But you realize I was originally making a pretty basic point, right? Not all of the calories that go into your mouth go into building bodily tissues; some macronutrients are not as readily stored as fat. Perhaps you'd like to research this yourself, since you believe my reading comprehension is lacking (which I find funny, since this is at least partially my field -- I'm a biophysicist).

You mean like proteins and carbs? And since this is your field, you'd know ad lib doesn't necessarily mean they eat in a surplus, which is what you stated in your original post. What happened to the surplus cals that the subjects you mentioned were able to lose fat?

Yes, like proteins, carbs and fat. They have different rates of absorption and respond differently to the major hormone controlling fat storage. I can only speculate on what happened to the surplus cals in the study - as it was a population study, it didn't go into mechanisms. But I could guess that, first, the calorie-deficit group had a gradual reduction in metabolism. Second, insulin response is mitigated in the high-fat group. Third, higher protein consumption (I think the figure was ~25% as opposed to the WHO's ~15% recommendation) can increase lean muscle mass, gradually increasing metabolism. Last, some of them can essentially be wasted - only partially digested and used by the body. This can be a larger effect than you think, particularly depending on the combination of foods/quality of foods consumed at each meal. Of course calories have their context...if you go about eating a thousand extra every day, then regardless of the source of those calories, you're going to gain weight. But we're talking about a mere 300 here.

Oooooooh, it was a population study that you used to base your point off of? What was the avg BMI of the subjects? AS I'd guess it was based again off self reported intake and the that is notoriously inaccurate, esp among the obese.

Ah and you're throwing in some food combining nonsense for good measure? Bravo!

Food combining, losing weight in a surplus and what other goodies do you have in store? I of course am just a lay person and not an expert like you.

Would you consider DNL rare or common in the avg person?

Topher1978

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"

what was he smokin'? :smokin:

rm7161

AS I'd guess it was based again off self reported intake and the that is notoriously inaccurate, esp among the obese.

I've noticed this on this site, I'd blame it for most of the problems that people have losing weight, is not logging every bite and underestimating total calories. I am quite anal retentive about logging my food, and I credit it for why I have lost weight. I do low GI for different reasons. Low GI is not unhealthy, btw.

Ah and you're throwing in some food combining nonsense for good measure? Bravo!

Not always nonsense, sometimes it is. But combining a high protein food with a high GI food will bring down the total glycemic response of a meal. That's just physics, really...and it lets me have my potato and eat it, too. There's no change in total calories, and for someone who doesn't have health problems related to blood sugars, its probably unnecessary.

Oishii

I am very confused as to how this discussion became related to 'clean eating' when the study wasn't about that. It was about three different diets, which could be approached with or without a 'clean-eating' bias, although it may well be harder to eat 'dirty' on a low GI diet.

It also wasn't comparing low GI to high GI, but to two non GI-controlled diets, so it isn't about that either.

Also, it does not say that only 7 people tried each of the diets. It says that they were broken into three groups who cycled through the three types of diet for 4 weeks at a time, so all of the subjects tried all of the diets and the data was therefore about the diets, not differences between subjects, so differences in energy expenditure and cortisol can't be blamed on 'special snowflakes'.

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.

Please. Correct me if I have misunderstood the study.

geebusuk

If you're not obese/overweight, you may find this interesting:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html

It entirely agrees with the study, but goes on to say that if you are NOT overweight/obese and are reasonable healthy that a carb calorie IS a carb calorie.

appletonirvinea

I can relate to this see it in myself, if I really want to loose weight and keep it off I need to stay away from bread etc