Interesting Study on NPR

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.

I'm just confused by the calorie/carb dabate. Its hard to imagine someone on an Atkins diet consisting of full fat cheese,bacon, heavy whipping cream, steaks, eggs and sausage (high calorie and high fat foods) who has no restrictions on the volume of food they can consume in many of these studies would be eating the same number of calories as the dieters who are consuming fruit, veggies, lean meats and fish and set to a calorie limit?

In this particular study, they focused on eating healthy fats, I believe mostly plant based. They definitely were not eating bacon, sausage, heavy whipping creams etc. Though it did mention that they ate eggs.

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

Well, let's look at one of your studies......

"Abstract

The impact of a low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet compared with a high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet on ratings of hunger and cognitive eating restraint were examined. Overweight premenopausal women consumed a low-carbohydrate/high-protein (n=13) or high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet (n=15) for 6 weeks. Fasting body weight (BW) was measured and the Eating Inventory was completed at baseline, weeks 1 to 4, and week 6. All women experienced a reduction in BW (P<.01), although relative BW loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat group at week 6 (P<.05). Based on Eating Inventory scores, self-rated hunger decreased (P<.03) in women in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein but not in the high-carbohydrate/low-fat group from baseline to week 6. In both groups, self-rated cognitive eating restraint increased (P<.01) from baseline to week 1 and remained constant to week 6. Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss.

Address correspondence to Sharon M. Nickols-Richardson, PhD, RD, Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, 225 Wallace Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0430."

This is somewhat of an interesting study, though there were not many people in it and hunger is very difficult to quantize. Not looking at the details, I think the change in hunger perception and weight loss could well be due to the high protein content of the one group, and not necessarily the low carbohydrate.

It takes the body almost four hours to fully digest a protein-laden meal, and it burns more calories in digesting it. For carbohydrates, in a little over an hour they are digested, and the energy expenditure in doing so is a lot less.

So it is not surprising that the one group felt less hunger with a high-protein diet. We need more research into this.

This study would tend to validate the Atkins approach more than anything else.

Atkins does work, or course, but the question is can you stay on it for the rest of your life?

And that is the question with all diet-restriction approaches. By definition, restriction means doing something that you otherwise would want to do.

Who wants to live a restricted life?

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.

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.

But...if you cut back on carbs you cut back on calories so....how does this make one a special snowflake again?

Less carbs =/= less calories

I can eat 2000 calories per day and < 60 grams of carbs -OR- I can eat 1200 calories and 150+ grams of carbs. I've done it both ways. For me, like some of the other "special snowflakes", the former works better.

Why are the calorie amounts so varied? Or are you going purely by the glycogen depletion you experience when you cut carbs?