NIH study: cutting dietary fat more effective than cutting carbs for body fat loss
Caitwn
Posts: 1,215 Member
Here's a link to a brief summary of results from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study just published today in Cell Metabolism indicating that cutting dietary fat may reduce body fat more effectively than cutting carbs. You'll see in the link that the study results weren't bad for carb reduction, though. Reducing carbs was "particularly effective in lowering insulin secretion and increasing fat burning, resulting in significant body fat loss".
I think a good take-home point here may be that the 'low carb versus low fat' wars are pretty pointless, and that the decision to focus on reducing carbs, reducing fats, or balancing both depends on multiple factors. Hopefully more research like this in future will help us make better determinations of what's most effective for a given individual.
nih.gov/news/health/aug2015/niddk-13.htm
I frankly haven't had time yet this morning to do more than skim the actual research. I'll give it a closer look later, but wanted to post the summary link for those interested.
Here's a nice little video intro to the study, presented by the Principal Investigator:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8TrjAGMhASw&feature=player_embedded
I think a good take-home point here may be that the 'low carb versus low fat' wars are pretty pointless, and that the decision to focus on reducing carbs, reducing fats, or balancing both depends on multiple factors. Hopefully more research like this in future will help us make better determinations of what's most effective for a given individual.
nih.gov/news/health/aug2015/niddk-13.htm
I frankly haven't had time yet this morning to do more than skim the actual research. I'll give it a closer look later, but wanted to post the summary link for those interested.
Here's a nice little video intro to the study, presented by the Principal Investigator:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8TrjAGMhASw&feature=player_embedded 0
Replies
-
I didn't go low-fat for the heck of it, but do eat a low-fat, high-carb diet. So, I know it's possible to lose weight this way.
It's also possible to lose on a high-fat diet.
There are so many roads that lead to weight loss. We all find the way that works for us.
0 -
I agree that with evidence supporting both "sides", there doesn't seem to be one true way or one way that is better than another. It's all going to be personal.
That said, people tend to jump on a bandwagon due to advertising, media reports and whatnot. It takes a little more effort, but finding what works for each individual is so much easier for sticking to a long term deficit. Instead of trying x because it worked for some celebrity, people should be analyzing their diet for pitfalls and what causes them to consistently fail to stay within their deficit and then work to address that issue.0 -
I'm still trying to figure out my macro percentage0
-
I agree that with evidence supporting both "sides", there doesn't seem to be one true way or one way that is better than another. It's all going to be personal.
That said, people tend to jump on a bandwagon due to advertising, media reports and whatnot. It takes a little more effort, but finding what works for each individual is so much easier for sticking to a long term deficit. Instead of trying x because it worked for some celebrity, people should be analyzing their diet for pitfalls and what causes them to consistently fail to stay within their deficit and then work to address that issue.
Exactly this.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My favorite take away, " ...it may be more important to consider which type of diet you’ll be most likely to stick to over time.” While cutting fat seems to give a boast in the beginning, over time our marvelous bodies adapt and it really makes little difference if you cut fat or carbs as long as you cut calories.0
-
In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%0 -
Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.0
-
Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.
For me satiety is a major issue. When I tried to be low fat I didn't feel full and was miserable. It's much easier for me to stay compliant with a deficit if carbs are what I reduce.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.
For me satiety is a major issue. When I tried to be low fat I didn't feel full and was miserable. It's much easier for me to stay compliant with a deficit if carbs are what I reduce.
It probably depends on the makeup of your diet, as well as just personal factors.
I've always tended more toward fat than carbs as a source of extra calories, so although I cut both, and went lower carb (like 100 g) for a while, I also most certainly had to cut fat as I probably ate about 40% carbs before deciding to lose weight. Now that back to a higher level of carbs (40%, which feels natural to me), although lower calories than before I lost/was losing weight, I find I still tend to cut both fat and carbs to make sure I cut the calories in a meal if I need to.
It's driven by preference for me--a little cheese or olive oil or a cut of meat with some fat will add more to my overall enjoyment of my diet than more pasta or a larger serving of potatoes or (usually) bread. So I tend to cut the carbs first (and did so somewhat even before I was losing weight, again, although more often I just didn't eat mindfully enough). But experimentation has shown that while I'd be sadder on a low fat diet (I'm at 30%), I would not be hungrier, and increasing fat would not fill me up more.
That said, I don't do low fat because satisfaction to me includes enjoyment and a balanced diet is more enjoyable to me.0 -
Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.
Actually, we know it contains 2.25 more calories per gram.
We also know that it will take the body 2.25 times more energy to process the fat than it will the carbs, mass being equal.
All weight loss trials are just a battle of energy vs hunger. For me, if I have fat macros over 70% for breakfast, I can sustain 8-12 hours comfortably without eating anything and drinking sufficient water.
This way of eating also allows me to workout however long or hard I want while fasted.0 -
Here's a link to a brief summary of results from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study just published today in Cell Metabolism indicating that cutting dietary fat may reduce body fat more effectively than cutting carbs. You'll see in the link that the study results weren't bad for carb reduction, though. Reducing carbs was "particularly effective in lowering insulin secretion and increasing fat burning, resulting in significant body fat loss".
I think a good take-home point here may be that the 'low carb versus low fat' wars are pretty pointless, and that the decision to focus on reducing carbs, reducing fats, or balancing both depends on multiple factors. Hopefully more research like this in future will help us make better determinations of what's most effective for a given individual.
Eating LCHF is more about health than weight loss. It's a way of eating that works particularly well for those with IR because it lowers insulin output. It think the low-fat and low-carb wars are really only relevant for people with IR or other issues related to IR like heart disease - one diet usually works better to improve their overall health than the other.
For the majority of the population without those problems, I would agree that the LC vs LF war is pointless.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
NuSi has done similar long term studies which we should be hearing about soon. But considering they announced a new study on soda and NAFLD (low hanging fruit, IMO) I wouldn't expect the results from NuSi's longer studies to be particularly low carb friendly.
Carson C. Chow (collaborator on this study with Kevin Hall who's also one of the scientists on the NuSi studies):
"Now this was only for a diet of 6 days but experiments, funded by Gary Taubes’s organization, for longer time scales comparing the two diets have been completed and will be published in the near future. I’ll summarize the results when they come out. I can’t say what the preliminary results are except to remind you that the model has held up pretty well in past."
It should make for some interesting reading in the coming months that's for sure!
0 -
I have this objection to this study, as well. Ask anyone who's ever gone low carb about how they felt during the first week or so. Sluggishness, headaches, etc. are the physical symptoms of the changeover. If the study doesn't even go beyond this period to the point where one is actually burning fat for fuel then it's invalid.RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
0 -
I have this objection to this study, as well. Ask anyone who's ever gone low carb about how they felt during the first week or so. Sluggishness, headaches, etc. are the physical symptoms of the changeover. If the study doesn't even go beyond this period to the point where one is actually burning only fat then it's invalid.RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
At 140g of carbs this study wasn't actually low carb (130g and under being the usual low carb cut off point) so there would not have been any low carb adjustment period to contend with.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.
For me satiety is a major issue. When I tried to be low fat I didn't feel full and was miserable. It's much easier for me to stay compliant with a deficit if carbs are what I reduce.
For me, proteins satiate. So I try to up those. Carbs pack a surprisingly (to me) big calorie punch.. Plus I do believe that the whole nonfat fruit newtons and baked potato chips movement led lots of us astray -- they never satisfied! -- and im fairly convinced by what I've read that we overdo it on sugars and starch. Still, I don't exclude them though I do limit them -- possibly also in part because I am a big starch addict and it is easier for me to just decide to not go near the pasta and spuds than have just a bit.
That said, one of the biggest behaviour shifts for me since i joined this site is in retraining myself to have 'just a little'--and if that sounds all over the map it's because I'm busy trying to figure out the best solution for myself. I was one of those who when young could eat whatever I liked and stay skinny. I am 56 now and um it does not work any more.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I have this objection to this study, as well. Ask anyone who's ever gone low carb about how they felt during the first week or so. Sluggishness, headaches, etc. are the physical symptoms of the changeover. If the study doesn't even go beyond this period to the point where one is actually burning only fat then it's invalid.RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
At 140g of carbs this study wasn't actually low carb (130g and under being the usual low carb cut off point) so there would not have been any low carb adjustment period to contend with.
Good point. I didn't experience any adjustment period when I was keeping to just under 100 g.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »In analyzing higher fat studies, it is important to note the longevity of the study. They say that high fat diet was only studied for 5 days. In that period, the body is still looking to consume carbs that trigger the insulin response.
It seems almost every study out there wont study high fat diets over a period of, say, a month or two, or longer. Part of that could be funding, but it just seems so many of these studies are quick to judge.
Since it takes about a week for the body to adapt to not consuming carbs anymore, I consider this study moot. Do it for two more weeks, then compare results. By then, it would be legit.
We all must find our path. It is different for everyone. That I agree with 100%
In trying to criticize the length of the study, you're misinterpreting the purpose of the study, and I'd put forward that it isn't reasonable for you to throw in the assumption that "so many of these studies are quick to judge". The study authors themselves discuss how their early mathematical models suggest that over the longer term, it looks like the early differences noted may diminish, but they can't conclude that yet because they need to conduct more studies on people.
If you skim even the summary of the conclusions you'll see that results were presented in a very balanced fashion. I'm struggling to see how this could be interpreted as even mildly judgmental:
"Our data tell us that when it comes to body fat loss, not all diet calories are exactly equal,” Hall said. “But the real world is more complicated than a research lab, and if you have obesity and want to lose weight, it may be more important to consider which type of diet you’ll be most likely to stick to over time.”
This is core/basic science asking how the body metabolizes specific dietary changes. It's preliminary work. And it is valuable work.
Agreed. Any work that microanalyzes dietary processes is work worth doing.
If one reads the entire article, yes, the information is presented in a fair way. I read through it again, and did notice that:
1. Mathematical models show results even out over time
2. People are all different in how their bodies use calories
3. The author said more studies are needed
If that is the case, why present an absolute title that is incomplete?0 -
Sounds good. So long as the roads are paved with CICO, they'll get built to go to the right way.I didn't go low-fat for the heck of it, but do eat a low-fat, high-carb diet. So, I know it's possible to lose weight this way.
It's also possible to lose on a high-fat diet.
There are so many roads that lead to weight loss. We all find the way that works for us. 0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Because we know that fat contains nearly twice the calories per gram that carbs do, I would imagine cutting fat is an easier way to cut calories than trying to cut carbs.
Actually, we know it contains 2.25 more calories per gram.
We also know that it will take the body 2.25 times more energy to process the fat than it will the carbs, mass being equal.
All weight loss trials are just a battle of energy vs hunger. For me, if I have fat macros over 70% for breakfast, I can sustain 8-12 hours comfortably without eating anything and drinking sufficient water.
This way of eating also allows me to workout however long or hard I want while fasted.
Do you have links to support these statements?
I was always under the impression that carbs delivered roughly 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories.
I have also never seen anything suggesting fat takes more energy to process than carbs.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I like how the study implicitly calls Taubes crazy.0
-
Sounds good. So long as the roads are paved with CICO, they'll get built to go to the right way.I didn't go low-fat for the heck of it, but do eat a low-fat, high-carb diet. So, I know it's possible to lose weight this way.
It's also possible to lose on a high-fat diet.
There are so many roads that lead to weight loss. We all find the way that works for us.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It covers weight loss, weight gain and weight maintenance. It's just an extremely basic way of saying that calories are related to weight and is not a WOE.
CICO can also help you gain.
That road goes in more than one direction and has a turning lane.0 -
Was this study about eating strategies? I guess missed something. Thanks for explaining.
Sounds good. So long as the roads are paved with CICO, they'll get built to go to the right way.I didn't go low-fat for the heck of it, but do eat a low-fat, high-carb diet. So, I know it's possible to lose weight this way.
It's also possible to lose on a high-fat diet.
There are so many roads that lead to weight loss. We all find the way that works for us.
CICO is not a weight loss strategy. It covers weight loss, weight gain and weight maintenance. It's just an extremely basic way of saying that calories are related to weight and is not a WOE.
CICO can also help you gain.
That road goes in more than one direction and has a turning lane.
0 -
I've always been a pretty big fan of the balanced diet approach...old fashioned I know...and not nearly enough zealotry for most. I mean what fun is there in moderate carbs, moderate fat, and moderate protein? Nothing to really fight too much about there.0
-
Fair enough to call the results preliminary but important; less sure about using mathematical models to predict biological processes ( presumably some assumptions are made based on previous work, but only time & studying it all over time will tell) - overall though very cool0
-
Working through the study. This seems important to note.The model predicted that weight loss increased with decreasing carbohydrate. However, body fat loss was relatively insensitive to isocaloric substitutions of dietary fat and carbohydrate, suggesting that the body acts to minimize differences in fat loss when the diet calories and protein are held constant. In fact, the experimental RC and RF diets resulted in close to the maximum predicted differences in body fat loss. In other words, the modest differences in body fat loss achieved by the diets used in our experiment are probably greater than would be observed with other ratios of carbohydrate and fat.0
-
This is music to my earsFurthermore, we can definitively reject the claim that carbohydrate restriction is required for body fat loss (Taubes, 2011).0 -
I take this with a grain of salt. Not all bodies work the same way. Some people, due to body chemistry, do better with more fat, less fat, more carbs, less carbs, more protein, less protein. I know I feel awful if I don't have enough meat. This doesn't mean I can't eat vegetarian sometimes. But over the long term my energy levels end up really low. The wrong ratio of carbs leaves me too hungry.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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