New Diet study on the Today show this morning
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
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.0 -
According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.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).
It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.
CICO, FTW.0 -
Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?
According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.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).
It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.
CICO, FTW.0 -
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.0 -
Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?
According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.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).
It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.
CICO, FTW.
If the eating data is self-reported, then we may as well throw the entire study away as it is useless.0 -
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.0 -
And yet on and on we argue. :-)
Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?
According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.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).
It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.
CICO, FTW.
If the eating data is self-reported, then we may as well throw the entire study away as it is useless.
PS: have I ever told you how much I love that avatar?0 -
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"0 -
And yet on and on we argue. :-)
Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?
According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.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).
It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.
CICO, FTW.
If the eating data is self-reported, then we may as well throw the entire study away as it is useless.
:drinker:PS: have I ever told you how much I love that avatar?
Nope. Lay it on me.
0 -
They can say whatever they want, I know what works for me. *pokes counter*0
-
All I know is LeBron James is cutting carbs so so am I.
LOL!!!0 -
The article debunking the study is very amusing.
Yes, not true or scientific but an amusing piece on LinkedIn0 -
I love your avatar!!!!!!!!!
And yet on and on we argue. :-)
Self reported. With an error factor of, what, 400?
According to the actual study, no, they didn't really eat significantly fewer calories.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).
It was around 100 less calories/day -> 10 lbs/year -> almost exactly the difference in weight loss between the two groups.
CICO, FTW.
If the eating data is self-reported, then we may as well throw the entire study away as it is useless.
:drinker:PS: have I ever told you how much I love that avatar?
Nope. Lay it on me.
:drinker: 0 -
Yup. That's what I assumed, about a 400 calorie error range.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"0 -
PS: have I ever told you how much I love that avatar?
Nope. Lay it on me.
I love your avatar!!!!!!!!!:drinker:
On an unrelated note, looks like they're trying again to make a "Griffin & Sabine" movie...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions