New study out of Harvard -- TYPE of calories matters more
Replies
-
It has always been my experience that if I eat real whole foods, I can consume about 200-300 more calories per day and still lose weight compared to a highly processed fake food diet.
This is why "low calorie" and "diet" foods simply do not work.
You can lose weight for a time eating fake foods but you will feel like garbage.
Eat real foods as close to nature as possible and live!! Plus, the pounds then come off on their own.
D0 -
The results? Researchers found the low-glycemic diet actually speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories.
From Abstract: Conclusion Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.
So, no, basically OP. Low GI is in the middle and the low carb diet comes out best re reduction in T(D)EE due to weight loss. And they all decreased, so none of them 'speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories' as you claim.
Also in Comment section of 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.
I think the key word is 'possibly'. Which means that it is a hypothesis with no conclusive evidence.
Also, I think the percentage statistics for the low carb diet 15% carb, 60% fat and 30% protein are rarely followed even by low carb diet advocates. From what I've seen the most common one is 25% carb 25% fat 50% protein or 30% carb 30% fat 40% protein.
The only thing I have taken from this study is that the worst idea is to try and have a severely restricted fat intake. It would also be interesting to discover out of the 11 dropouts (a third of all participants) which ones dropped out of which diet to get an idea of sustainability of each diet.0 -
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.
if the fat is burning for you then you shouldn't change your approach or your lifestyle just because a new research says so... but you have to take to consideration the fact that we all have different metabolism and goals.
if you are blessed with genetic wonders, wherein you burn crap calories, then by all means, keep doing what you are doing, but if you wish to really see that abs of your, then I bet a million dollars that you will have to throw those crap calories out the window.
again, it all boils down to your goal and your physiological gifts or disadvantages. the research only suggest.0 -
I didn't read the study, but did find the posts interesting. Just as no one medication works for everyone, no one diet will likely work for everyone either, or even over a long period of time. I would suspect a huge variable is how individuals digest food, as well as the type of food(and as someone pointed out, how that food is prepared). It is my understanding that a calorie is measure of heat. So in one sense a calorie is a calorie, but it would be dependent on how well our body can burn the fuel. Some fuels, such as alcohol burn easily and readily, where others such a wood take a lot of energy just to start burning and rarely burn efficiently (simple vs. complex card). I would think that our digestion of food operates similarly, so it does make sense to me that we need to monitor what we eat as well as the raw calories. Also, our body tend to change and adjust over time making it difficult to state things in absolute terms.
So in general, keep good track of your calories, the type of calories(some things might work better for you) , how much you THINK you burn, and not to be grotesque, but what's coming out the other end (unused calories) -- then adjust things accordingly. Stay positive, stay balanced, and provide support to others.0 -
What are "crap calories", and how is one genetically disposed to burn them?
if the fat is burning for you then you shouldn't change your approach or your lifestyle just because a new research says so... but you have to take to consideration the fact that we all have different metabolism and goals.
if you are blessed with genetic wonders, wherein you burn crap calories, then by all means, keep doing what you are doing, but if you wish to really see that abs of your, then I bet a million dollars that you will have to throw those crap calories out the window.
again, it all boils down to your goal and your physiological gifts or disadvantages. the research only suggest.0 -
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I'll throw out a totally unscienific observation about why eating healthy helps you to lose weight. It's really easy for me to pass up a lot of the crap (white bread, fried food, processed food) because I know it just won't taste good. It will have less texture, less flavor, more salt and leave a greasy film and/or a chemical aftertaste in my mouth.
Last night (well. early this AM) we were hustled off an American Airlines flight that was supposed to go to London and they handed out food vouchers to the only places at O'Hare that were open: Starbucks, McD's and Dunkin' Donuts. I actually turned them down. I had brought a decent sandwich on board and had a couple of packs of pistachios with me and plenty of water. I also turned down the granola bars they handed out- it was a brand I know had high-fructose corn syrup. LOTS of calories saved.
My eating habits are not always virtuous, but I choose my high-calorie splurges and passing up a lot of the crap really helps keep down my intake.0 -
Who cares eat however the **** you wanna eat0
-
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.
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-iii-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/
This is a great article with many sources of studies. I am currently on a cyclic ketogenic diet. I consume approximately 2000cals a day. I'm sure if most of my calories came from carbs, I would not be getting the results I am getting. I only spike my insulin once a week to up-regulate my leptin and thyroid levels. Cutting calories can lead to muscle loss, but switching the energy source your body uses to burn fat for energy can help you maintain your muscle, as your body is constantly being fed fat (from food and your adipose tissue).0 -
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?0 -
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.
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-iii-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/
This is a great article with many sources of studies. I am currently on a cyclic ketogenic diet. I consume approximately 2000cals a day. I'm sure if most of my calories came from carbs, I would not be getting the results I am getting. I only spike my insulin once a week to up-regulate my leptin and thyroid levels. Cutting calories can lead to muscle loss, but switching the energy source your body uses to burn fat for energy can help you maintain your muscle, as your body is constantly being fed fat (from food and your adipose tissue).
Interestingly enough holding cals and protein constant, there is no significat difference in fat loss between a high carb or low carb diet0 -
bump0
-
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.0 -
...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.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...
If you're inferring that one can lose weight while eating a ketogenic diet while in a caloric surplus....no.0 -
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 advantages0 -
Bump0
-
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.0 -
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 though0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
bump for later reading0
-
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.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?0 -
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.0 -
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...0 -
bump to read later0
-
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!0 -
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.pdf0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions