New Diet study on the Today show this morning

This depresses me. I can't eat low carbs without experiencing hypoglycemia. Anytime I try low carb, I get the shakes and when I check my blood sugar it is at 40 or something like that. Not pretty. I am best with 50% carbs 30% protein and 20% fat, to feel best. This weight is taking forever to leave my body.

There's another thread about this going on. A lot of news sites are reporting the results, but there are some problems with the methodology:

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

(hat tip to CallMeCupcakeDammit for the link)

They said low carb with high protein diets tends to do better than low fat diets.

Duh.

Fat and protein tend to be more filling than carbs so its only natural that people that eat more protein and fat and will experience a higher level of fullness and less likely to binge.

Calories in < Calories out is all that matters for weight loss. The plan to get there is up to the individual.

I'm not a dietician or a scientist, but I interpreted the study as not just about calories in calories out. Meaning, if you have a diet that is 1200 calories and high protein, low carb this is more effective in weight loss than a 1200 calorie diet of high carb, low fat. No?

No, it isn't. The calorie intakes for the participants in the study were not kept at a constant. Additionally, the baseline reported for carb intake was 240g - the study reduced the low carb group to 40g or less per day - a 75% reduction in carb intake. Meanwhile, the baseline intake for fat was just over 35% for participants - the study reduced the low fat group to less than 30% of their calories, which is around a 5% reduction. One was a drastic dietary change that forced people to entirely change their food choices, while the other was barely a blip.

Additionally, the low carb group had a greater calorie deficit than the low fat group throughout the study by several hundred calories, which also needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

In general, I think you should ignore all diet advice on news shows and in magazines. They confuse the issues by trying to make "news" out of stuff we've always known. Even when the science is good, they report it wrong, but mostly they report on junk science.

They said low carb with high protein diets tends to do better than low fat diets.

Duh.

Fat and protein tend to be more filling than carbs so its only natural that people that eat more protein and fat and will experience a higher level of fullness and less likely to binge.

Calories in < Calories out is all that matters for weight loss. The plan to get there is up to the individual.

I'm not a dietician or a scientist, but I interpreted the study as not just about calories in calories out. Meaning, if you have a diet that is 1200 calories and high protein, low carb this is more effective in weight loss than a 1200 calorie diet of high carb, low fat. No?

No, it is not about calories being held constant between the groups and therefore testing the validity of CICO.

Essentially if people are told not to track calories consciously but rather choose between a low carb regime or a low fat regime then the low carb regime generates more favourable results in a "free living" scenario.

This is interesting as, in reality, I doubt the day will come to pass where the majority or overweight people or anywhere near the majority are tracking calories on sites such as MFP. So, when generating public health recommendations easily applicable strategies (such as lowering carbs, particularly in highly refined / processed foods) are bound to be of interest.

In...

...for the Today show giving us a magic diet bullet.

I heard calorie deficit was the new wave success to weight loss. But I'm also insane. I'll keep my carbs AND fats high.


Ya'll laughed at me. Ya'll laughed at me. Well, I'll be over here being crazy. *spoon in mouth, gelato in hand*

*grabs a spoon and sits next to you*

There's another thread about this going on. A lot of news sites are reporting the results, but there are some problems with the methodology:

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

(hat tip to CallMeCupcakeDammit for the link)

Thanks for the link. This summed it up nicely...

"Over the first several months of the study, when everyone was probably on their best behavior, the low-carb group took in about 200 fewer calories per day. All the way out at the 12-month mark, when folks were falling off the wagon, the low-carb assignees were still taking in nearly 100 fewer calories per day."

The study is in effect a confirmation of CICO.

This depresses me. I can't eat low carbs without experiencing hypoglycemia. Anytime I try low carb, I get the shakes and when I check my blood sugar it is at 40 or something like that. Not pretty. I am best with 50% carbs 30% protein and 20% fat, to feel best. This weight is taking forever to leave my body.

This is intriguing. My blood sugar always improves (I tend toward low blood sugar) when I cut back on simple carbs.

Of course low-carb is more effective; you're losing way more water weight. Unless you choose to stay low-carb as a lifestyle though, or low-fat, or low-whatever, don't use a fad method for fat loss. Just eat your macros and calories and get a good variety of nutrients.

So if you stay low carb for, say 10 years, you just keep losing water?

Of course low-carb is more effective; you're losing way more water weight. Unless you choose to stay low-carb as a lifestyle though, or low-fat, or low-whatever, don't use a fad method for fat loss. Just eat your macros and calories and get a good variety of nutrients.

That's not what it said at all. They ate less calories than those in "low fat" group (well 30% of their calories from fat).

Of course low-carb is more effective; you're losing way more water weight. Unless you choose to stay low-carb as a lifestyle though, or low-fat, or low-whatever, don't use a fad method for fat loss. Just eat your macros and calories and get a good variety of nutrients.

That's not what it said at all. They ate less calories than those in "low fat" group (well 30% of their calories from fat).

According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.

That said, I'm not even sure WHAT the post you're quoting is trying to say. Other than the oft quoted "it's just water weight", which, well, doesn't hold water in this context.