low carb diet has been debunked

Gene_Lean
Gene_Lean Posts: 18 Member
edited November 23 in Health and Weight Loss
A new, thorough study shows a low fat diet is 80% more efficient. Finally, an end to the fad.
«1345678

Replies

  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    edited August 2015
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif
  • mommyvudu
    mommyvudu Posts: 99 Member
    End the fad with another played out fad...yes...just what desperate people need...
  • Azexas
    Azexas Posts: 4,334 Member
    edited August 2015
    Serah87 wrote: »
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif

    I don't think popcorn is considered low carb ;)

    Also: IN
  • mommyvudu
    mommyvudu Posts: 99 Member
    Serah87 wrote: »
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif

    No sources no nothing just blatant trolling but I know people are about to freak out over it! I hope this doesn't blow up my notifications into the 1000's like the last carb posting.

  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    edited August 2015
    mommydie wrote: »
    Serah87 wrote: »
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif

    No sources no nothing just blatant trolling but I know people are about to freak out over it! I hope this doesn't blow up my notifications into the 1000's like the last carb posting.

    Ohh it will, just wait until the low carbers see this. :D
  • strong_curves
    strong_curves Posts: 2,229 Member
    wanna-be-startin-somethin-o.gif
  • mommyvudu
    mommyvudu Posts: 99 Member
    Serah87 wrote: »
    mommydie wrote: »
    Serah87 wrote: »
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif

    No sources no nothing just blatant trolling but I know people are about to freak out over it! I hope this doesn't blow up my notifications into the 1000's like the last carb posting.

    Ohh it will, just wait until the low carbers see this. :D

    :D
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.

    It did show promise as a study design and as a model for further, longer-term and wider sample-size research.
  • Gene_Lean
    Gene_Lean Posts: 18 Member
    mommydie wrote: »
    Serah87 wrote: »
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif

    No sources no nothing just blatant trolling but I know people are about to freak out over it! I hope this doesn't blow up my notifications into the 1000's like the last carb posting.

    Trolling? Science don't be up tricking like that. I read it on BBC. Please, look for yourself before you promote this low carb, nonsense.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Pretty sure this is referencing the study just published that looked at lowish carbs (140g per day) vs low fat for five days.

    Everyone seemed to decide it was interesting and needs to be followed by further research like stated in the conclusion. It doesn't debunk anything. It is food for thought, but not definitive.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Here's a link to the study:

    http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2015/niddk-13.htm
  • mommyvudu
    mommyvudu Posts: 99 Member
    Gene_Lean wrote: »
    mommydie wrote: »
    Serah87 wrote: »
    IN.

    This is going be good.

    tumblr_noys8mkgT11s0my1wo1_250.gif

    No sources no nothing just blatant trolling but I know people are about to freak out over it! I hope this doesn't blow up my notifications into the 1000's like the last carb posting.

    Trolling? Science don't be up tricking like that. I read it on BBC. Please, look for yourself before you promote this low carb, nonsense.

    Listen up, I don't even promote low carb diets or any other "diets" for that matter so as long as we're checking into things before speaking, maybe do your own research buddy.

    And how the hell are people supposed to know where you read something if you don't tell them?

    AND OMG the media posted something about dieting?! IT MUST BE TRUE. *eye roll* Whatever. I'm done.
  • mommyvudu
    mommyvudu Posts: 99 Member
    OH and by the way I went to college for both biology and chemistry and know a little something about science and legit studies. "I read it on BBC...." smh.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Um, yeah... you're late. We went through that yesterday. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10233201/nih-study-cutting-dietary-fat-more-effective-than-cutting-carbs-for-body-fat-loss/p1

    The study had some problmes. It wasn't actually low carb, which is usually 100g of carbs or less per day, it was only on 19 healthy people (keeping in mind that an actual LCHF diet is most beneficial to those with health problems like IR, heart disease, PCOS, etc), it was only done for a very short time period a week or so, and they dropped the low fat group's diet down to 8% fat - that can't be healthy long term.

    LCHF is mostly about improved health for those who need it.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.

    It did show promise as a study design and as a model for further, longer-term and wider sample-size research.

    This.

    Also, some people (like Taubes) promote low carb as some kind of way around calories in calories out (or simply claim that you gain weight regardless of calories because carbs), but many sensible low carbers simply say that for them it's an easier way to maintain a deficit. That second reasoning would not be affected by the study at all.
  • Debmal77
    Debmal77 Posts: 4,770 Member
    strong_curves wrote: »
    wanna-be-startin-somethin-o.gif

    2 threads for Michael today!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    edited August 2015
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.

    You are a low carber, and in this study the "restricted carb" phase involved more carbs than you eat :-)

    There was no statistically significant fat loss in women on either diet, as measured by DEXA.

    Biggest problem with it is the limited 6 day period during which glycogen reserves continued to provide calories in the restricted carb phase, so it was not a steady state study. Shame they didn't do the run-in on the diet to be tested so the glycogen etc was stable.

    5fmahamcssdb.jpg

  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    12caypfb0ixy.jpg
  • Gene_Lean
    Gene_Lean Posts: 18 Member
    mommydie wrote: »
    End the fad with another played out fad...yes...just what desperate people need...

    The research recommends the
    mommydie wrote: »
    OH and by the way I went to college for both biology and chemistry and know a little something about science and legit studies. "I read it on BBC...." smh.

    Then i see we have simething in common. They measured the calories, carbs, fats and kept them on that diet as they slowly reduced. They monitored breathing and the nitrogen in the subjects urine. Timed the amount and length of training. Seems legit. They wrapped it up nicely in their conclusions in the paper and their personal statements.

    Wow, some people are hot about this.
  • mantium999
    mantium999 Posts: 1,490 Member
    Here's a novel idea.....post the research? You know, so we all can see it. You are not well versed on how to present information are you?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Full text etc at http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.

    You are a low carber, and in this study the "restricted carb" phase involved more carbs than you eat :-)

    There was no statistically significant fat loss in women on either diet, as measured by DEXA.

    Biggest problem with it is the limited 6 day period during which glycogen reserves continued to provide calories in the restricted carb phase, so it was not a steady state study. Shame they didn't do the run-in on the diet to be tested so the glycogen etc was stable.

    5fmahamcssdb.jpg

    No low carber I know would eat cookies and ice cream. My carb macro is lower than SAD, I'll give you that.

    When I'm on maintenance, they'll likely go up.

  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    mommydie wrote: »
    OH and by the way I went to college for both biology and chemistry and know a little something about science and legit studies. "I read it on BBC...." smh.
    Are you saying you took a Bio and Chem class or that you have degrees in both fields?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • sheldonklein
    sheldonklein Posts: 854 Member
    6 days, 19 people, fat loss and statistically significant should never be in the same sentence. Except mine.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    No low carber I know would eat cookies and ice cream. My carb macro is lower than SAD, I'll give you that.

    Lower than the ADA's minimum too.

  • daniwilford
    daniwilford Posts: 1,030 Member
    "Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    daniwilford wrote: »
    "Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?

    Might be that the body tries to retain fat stores for future need by preferentially using up carbohydrate ? The restricted carb phase was consuming glucose reserves.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories