New Diet study on the Today show this morning

Options
2

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.
  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    Options
    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*

    Sea salt caramel or chocolate peanut butter cup?
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    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?
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    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.

    I'd consider either trying to drink more water (and ensure you are getting enough salt) because maybe you are holding onto more excess water weight, or you might just not be at enough of a deficit if you've set your goals up to be reasonable (1lb/week). If you exercise and eat back all the cals, maybe eat only half.
  • MelRC117
    MelRC117 Posts: 911 Member
    Options
    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).
  • MissHolidayGolightly
    MissHolidayGolightly Posts: 857 Member
    Options
    All I know is LeBron James is cutting carbs so so am I.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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, that is not what was tested.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.

    The study by no means suggests that someone counting calories must do low carb to be successful or even that an individual would be under those circumstances. It compared people who were told to maintain a low carb and low fat (but not really low fat, below 30%) diet, without controlling for deficit. The low carb people reported a higher deficit also, which doesn't surprise me, as that's what would happen for me under those requirements.
  • Artionis
    Artionis Posts: 105 Member
    Options
    Another day, another study. How did anyone EVER lose weight before all these studies? Maybe they just burned more calories than they consumed, all while getting all the nutrients their body needs. What a concept.
  • parkscs
    parkscs Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    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?

    Correct. It's impossible to lose fat on a low carb diet. Rather, you will just continue dumping water week by week until you shrivel up into a sad (and still fat) little raisin. Unless you continue eating the exact same macros that you're eating today for the next 10 years, you will never see any success. Nothing can ever change or you will fail. Macros can never be adjusted. Low carb today? Low carb for 10 years! Else you will fail. Fail I said! This is broscience.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.

    It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.

    CICO, FTW.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    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.

    It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.

    CICO, FTW.
    Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    The study is in effect a confirmation of CICO.

    Not really, most of the weight loss was in the first 3 months and after that both groups put some back on. The calorie deficit was over 500 at 12 months in both groups, compared to baseline intake.

    At 3 months the low fat group intake was 616 less than baseline for a weight loss of 5.7 lbs

    At 3 months the low carb group intake was 740 less than baseline for a weight loss of 12.6 lbs

    Whatever the study tells us, it is not that weight loss is poportional to reported calorie deficit.

    Fat reduction (g/day) was 44% at month 3 in the low fat group, carb reduction was 60% in the low carb group. At 3 months the "low carb" group were eating average 97 g/day of carbs.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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.

    It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.

    CICO, FTW.
    Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?

    If the eating data is self-reported, then we may as well throw the entire study away as it is useless.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    The article debunking the study is very amusing. I love when scientific studies use less than sound research methodologies, fail to use controlled environments, don't have a consistent hypothesis, etc.

    Basically the study can be summed up as - people who made significant changes in their carb intake had better results than people who made less significant changes in their fat intake. Shocking.

    Ahh Today show. I used to love you, but when Star Jones became the legal expert, and Carson Daly the "Orange Room" anchor - I really can't watch anymore.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    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.

    It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.

    CICO, FTW.
    Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?

    If the eating data is self-reported, then we may as well throw the entire study away as it is useless.
    And yet on and on we argue. :-)

    PS: have I ever told you how much I love that avatar?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    It was around 100 less calories/day

    Even at 1 sd the variation in each group is +/- 400 calories per day, so that difference is "not significant"

Categories