Interesting Study on NPR

Cutting Back On C̶a̶r̶b̶s̶,̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶F̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶ Calories May Lead To More Weight Loss.

Fixed it for you.

Thank you for posting the link, very interesting and helpful indeed.

Hi Radmac-There have been quite a few studies from the Medical & research establishments on this lately, but they seem to be saying what most of us here already know. Refined flours, sugars etc are not the kind of calories your body really needs for day to day living. They tend to be high in calories and low in nutrition, but if you noticed, they also do not suggest we eat the fats in a chocolate chip cookie, but are advocating olive oil, nut butters etc,. Those of us who watch macros along with calories have kind of figured this out by trial and error, but it is nice that the research community is finally catching up. Of course, there are always days when a chocolate chip cookie or two simply MUST fit my calories & macros! :laugh:

Love NPR.

I know for me, cutting carbs definitely accelerates weight loss. Its important though to keep a balance (something like south beach vs Atkins) because its nearly impossible to keep a super low carb diet up for life without yo yoing.

Here's are just a few of MANY scientific studies done in the past 10 years that low carb diets (without reduction of calories) work better:

New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207

Journal of Pediatrics:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

Archives of Internal Medicine
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=217514

Nutrition & Metabolism (London)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

Journal of the American Dietetic Association
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

There's been some extensive and interesting (IMO) discussion of that NPR-reported study around here lately. The study did not control for calories consumed and indeed it does seem (although it's hard to tell, since the error in self-reported calories is huge) that the low carb people ate less. Also it wasn't actually low carb vs. low fat (although I think low fat diets don't work well, so low fat might have done worse), but low carb vs. a fat level pretty close to what people already had. So in essence it's comparing a diet where people have to pay attention to and change what they are eating to remove some higher calorie, less filling foods to one in which little change was required. Based on that, it's not surprising the first group reported eating fewer calories and lost more weight (although neither lost much weight at all compared to what calorie counting has done for me, and both lost less over time).

I do think that for many people reducing carbs and eating a better balance of fat and protein makes it easier to eat less without thinking much about it--I naturally do when I eat that way, and I don't need to be anywhere near "low carb" to do it, but between 100-150 g or so, which is how I've found I enjoy eating. But this study by no means determines that carbs matter rather than calories or that people in general are better off doing low carb or "carbs make you fat" or any of the inflated claims some have made.

I was thinking along the same lines as _Waffle_. As there was no mention of actual calorie counting in the study, just a percentage of calories, one has to wonder how valid it is. Low carb can be a good way to lose weight quickly but in many cases it's just not sustainable long term so you end up regaining. IMHO, it's much better to eat a balance of all foods within a reasonable calorie goal.

P.S. I will say though, eating more protein and healthy fats can actually help folks on a diet as these foods tend to be more filling. If you're going low fat and eating a lot of processed foods, they may not keep you as full as long. That's what I've found anyway...

Low carb and other restrictions generally work because they force you to have a lower calorie intake. They work for the exact same reason that a calorie restriction works. In fact there's only one way to lose weight. Calorie restriction. I suppose if skipping all fast food or having no carbs helps then try it out but my main gripe is that these aren't sustainable plans that you can do long term.

Sorry I respectfully disagree.

JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.

Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.

Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men.This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

You should read the fine print. It clearly states that:

Dietary energy was restricted,

In short it's a calorie restriction that made them lose weight. There is apparently a slight advantage over restricting carbs vs. restricting fat in that you could consume slightly more calories with the low carb and still lose but the work is still done by calorie restriction.

I think you missed the conclusions of the study. "The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group."


See also:

Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.

Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.

Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.

Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X




Volek JS, et al. Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic syndrome than a low fat diet. Lipids, 2009.

Details: 40 subjects with elevated risk factors for cardiovascular disease were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 12 weeks. Both groups were calorie restricted.

Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 10.1 kg (22.3), while the low-fat group lost 5.2 kg (11.5 lbs).

Conclusion: The low-carb group lost almost twice the amount of weight as the low-fat group, despite eating the same amount of calories.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2



http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

Guldbrand, et al. In type 2 diabetes, randomization to advice to follow a low-carbohydrate diet transiently improves glycaemic control compared with advice to follow a low-fat diet producing a similar weight loss. Diabetologia, 2012.

Details: 61 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 2 years. Both diets were calorie restricted.

Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 3.1 kg (6.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 3.6 kg (7.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: There was no difference in weight loss or common risk factors between groups. There was significant improvement in glycemic control at 6 months for the low-carb group, but compliance was poor and the effects diminished at 24 months as individuals had increased their carb intake.

Weight Loss
The majority of studies achieved statistically significant differences in weight loss (always in favor of low-carb). There are several other factors that are worth noting:

The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference.

In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted.
When both groups restricted calories, the low-carb dieters still lost more weight (7, 13, 19), although it was not always significant (8, 18, 20).



See also Harvard University:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/

Yes it's low-carb vs low-fat but both are still calorie restricted diets.

Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men.

I do think it's interesting that the low carb group had 1800 calories and lost more than the 1500 calorie low fat group. I just didn't want the reader to assume that simply restricting a food group was what caused fat loss. It's clearly the calorie restriction that matters most. Neither group would have been losing at 2500 calories a day.

I like bread, pasta, and rice too much to try this out myself.

I know what you mean. Bread and pasta are my absolute weakness!

I found this on the NPR site. I have always sort of blown off the low carb diets, but this seems contradict that.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/01/344315405/cutting-back-on-carbs-not-fat-may-lead-to-more-weight-loss

I read the study itself and the crazy thing is that the diets were supposedly followed for 12 months but, overall, weight was GAINED in the last 9 months on both plans. The only time weight was lost was in the first 3 months, on either plan. Since it was self-reported intake and people didn't lose weight for 9 whole months, it's all a little fishy to me.

And I'm not against low carb or anything, either. I was excited to hear the results and bummed it was so flawed.

Sadly probably speaks to how few people really stick with any diet for 12 months solid. :P Boo.

Yes it's low-carb vs low-fat but both are still calorie restricted diets.

Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men.

I do think it's interesting that the low carb group had 1800 calories and lost more than the 1500 calorie low fat group. I just didn't want the reader to assume that simply restricting a food group was what caused fat loss. It's clearly the calorie restriction that matters most. Neither group would have been losing at 2500 calories a day.

I like bread, pasta, and rice too much to try this out myself.

However I'm on this with you.

Cutting Back On C̶a̶r̶b̶s̶,̶ ̶N̶o̶t̶ ̶F̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶ Calories May Lead To More Weight Loss.

Fixed it for you.

For some people cutting back on Carbs does work. Really Really Really works.

I cannot say that about you and you cannot say that about what works for my body.

Our bodies and our genes are not one size fits all glove Made in China.

I'm pretty sure science says that he can say that a calorie deficit results in weight loss. That you misinterpret something that *may* lead to a calorie deficit which results in weight loss as being primarily responsible for the weight loss doesn't change this basic truth.

And once adjusted for a margin of error (which is absolutely huge when self-reporting calories), perhaps a little bit for TEF, and a few other confounding factors, I suspect even these low-carb studies that are being touted in this thread will still not invalidate this basic truth.