Does Diet Type Matter as to Weight Loss
Options
SLLRunner
Posts: 12,942 Member
0
Replies
-
Initial Response: No, only CICO matters for weight loss, no matter what you choose to eat
After reading the article: No, only CICO matters for weight loss, no matter what you choose to eat. Although it could be argued diet type matters for health.0 -
For me, diet type does matter only as far as being sustainable for me. Otherwise, it's preference only.0
-
Weight loss, no. A diabetic can adapt a diet to reduce their need for insulin. Similarly, people hoping to lower blood pressure or cholesterol may adopt a special diet. There are food allergies (seafood or nut free), and ethical considerations (i.e. vegan).
After these many months, I am convinced that diets that try and "trick" the body in to losing weight by abstaining or mixing up the macros, don't make much difference at all. I am reacquainting my love affair with fat (in moderation of course). A vinaigrette for instance, that has sufficient oil, is far more satiating. It has transformed salads for me.0 -
I think diet type matters if it helps the person achieves the goals they want. Some people find eating moderate carbs more sustainable, some low carb, and some high carb. (substitute carb for another macro and it still applies for the most part)
It boils down to burning more calories than someone is taking in, but there are different ways to achieve it.0 -
What that report covered by CNN said is that, in studies, people on a low-fat diet lose an average of 5 kg.s in a year. But when they follow a low-carb diet they lose an average 6.5 kg.s. The message was taken to be that you don't have to avoid fats while on a diet, and that maybe a diet low in carbs and high in fats is better for losing weight.
But the authors of that study themselves acknowledged that the only thing that really matters, it is clear, is calories in/calories out. For weight loss, doesn't matter much what type.
I think, however, that maybe high fat is a bit of a help. For example, studies have shown that people who eat bacon and eggs for breakfast consume less calories throughout the rest of the day than people who eat oatmeal or other cereal. Presumably, the reason is because the fats and proteins take a bit longer to digest and produce a greater, longer-lasting feeling of satiety.
Fats and protein put your hunger off longer.
For some people, that could be good.0 -
The problem with most dietary research touting that low fat compares poorly is that most low fat interventions never control for protein in comparison to the other group being tested.
So until some research starts being done where protein gets controlled, and carbs and fat make the difference in the interventions, it's silly to take any one way over the other seriously.
In fact, in the one very short term study done to refute the insulin hypothesis, protein was controlled, and guess who lost more weight? It was not the high fat group. Of course, the study was too short-term to be meaningful beyond what it hoped to do, but it did open the door for further studies where protein is controlled between groups.
I'm glad to see the CNN article put forth an idea that I'm fond of putting forth on the boards simply because it makes logical sense to me, that of adopting a plan that you find sustainable for the long haul while you're eating at deficit. It doesn't matter what "diet" it is, it's like the saying about exercise, you know the one: "the best exercise is the one you'll do"? Well, to me, the best diet is the one you'll stick to.
What each person will be able to stick to will vary and might take little adjustments over time, and that's okay. As long as some plan is being adhered to and you're not sliding back into the patterns of eating that made you gain weight, you're good to go.
I will always say that adherence trumps all. It's not a race, it doesn't matter which way is faster. Everyone will lose the weight given enough time and determination. If you're eating in a way that you find it easy to adhere to? You'll have success.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The problem with most dietary research touting that low fat compares poorly is that most low fat interventions never control for protein in comparison to the other group being tested.
So until some research starts being done where protein gets controlled, and carbs and fat make the difference in the interventions, it's silly to take any one way over the other seriously.
In fact, in the one very short term study done to refute the insulin hypothesis, protein was controlled, and guess who lost more weight? It was not the high fat group. Of course, the study was too short-term to be meaningful beyond what it hoped to do, but it did open the door for further studies where protein is controlled between groups.
I'm glad to see the CNN article put forth an idea that I'm fond of putting forth on the boards simply because it makes logical sense to me, that of adopting a plan that you find sustainable for the long haul while you're eating at deficit. It doesn't matter what "diet" it is, it's like the saying about exercise, you know the one: "the best exercise is the one you'll do"? Well, to me, the best diet is the one you'll stick to.
What each person will be able to stick to will vary and might take little adjustments over time, and that's okay. As long as some plan is being adhered to and you're not sliding back into the patterns of eating that made you gain weight, you're good to go.
I will always say that adherence trumps all. It's not a race, it doesn't matter which way is faster. Everyone will lose the weight given enough time and determination. If you're eating in a way that you find it easy to adhere to? You'll have success.
That right there is the crux
CICO via a diet that you'll adhere to0 -
The article could have been reduced to this one quote contained within "Long-term adherence is going to be what drives (weight loss), so identifying which of all the health foods you enjoy, which patterns you can stick to on a daily or weekly basis, will be what gives the best weight loss."0
-
Actually, I thought the researchers were suggesting what counts is the ability to adhere to whatever WOE over the long haul. No method was better or worse or tried and true. Yes weight loss requires a deficit, but that deficit is meaningless if it isn't sustainable - how sustainable is an individual approach, low carb, low fat whatever because none of them are actually that much better than the other apart from being one person's nirvana yet another person's aversion.
I find the whole debate over WOE tiresome TBH. I'm more interested in the individuals investment in that way of eating. Why they choose what they choose only interests me in so far as it being their sustainable and if it becomes apparent that it's no longer sustainable, how comfortable they feel adjusting the parameters. I enjoy seeing fluidity, ease and a sense if a greater picture at play; the multifaceted reasons why we choose to do and the ability to interchange what we do in order to adhere to a deficit is the sustainable.
People can hang their coat on one method quite comfortably; others need to play around and find their best centre. Thank goodness there's a variety of options. I'm not going to hold anyone to their chosen method - I'm going to celebrate their ability to to move the boundaries with ease if they recognise that's what is now required for renewed adherence. Likewise if someone enjoys a method's parameters and says I feel good here, this is my sustainable. Whether or not I'd find it so for myself is very irrelevant.0 -
Actually, I thought the researchers were suggesting what counts is the ability to adhere to whatever WOE over the long haul. No method was better or worse or tried and true. Yes weight loss requires a deficit, but that deficit is meaningless if it isn't sustainable - how sustainable is an individual approach, low carb, low fat whatever because none of them are actually that much better than the other apart from being one person's nirvana yet another person's aversion.
I find the whole debate over WOE tiresome TBH. I'm more interested in the individuals investment in that way of eating. Why they choose what they choose only interests me in so far as it being their sustainable and if it becomes apparent that it's no longer sustainable, how comfortable they feel adjusting the parameters. I enjoy seeing fluidity, ease and a sense if a greater picture at play; the multifaceted reasons why we choose to do and the ability to interchange what we do in order to adhere to a deficit is the sustainable.
People can hang their coat on one method quite comfortably; others need to play around and find their best centre. Thank goodness there's a variety of options. I'm not going to hold anyone to their chosen method - I'm going to celebrate their ability to to move the boundaries with ease if they recognise that's what is now required for renewed adherence. Likewise if someone enjoys a method's parameters and says I feel good here, this is my sustainable. Whether or not I'd find it so for myself is very irrelevant.
Did you read the article? Because I believe that was the point. That it doesn't matter as long as people choose something they can sustain. See the part of Carol's post that rabbit bolded. Crux of it all.0 -
What I've misread actually was tufel not the article I realise. And rereading tufel I see their reply is essentially same thing I've said. It took me a while to type so I've not seen other replies till after.0
-
I guess it depends on the goal of the person. If someone wants to drop fast and fit into a bikini for the big trip, then perhaps one diet or another might accomplish that goal. I don't really know much about the various food fads these days. I am mostly annoyed by the gluten-free fad, simply because it's made finding gluten for my breadmaker machine a bear!
I've never really understood diets. It's always been obvious to me.......move more, eat less. Only thing that works. The hard part to me was getting started, since I really do prefer to just eat what I like and not think about it much. Alas, I like fattening stuff.
0 -
Weight loss, no. A diabetic can adapt a diet to reduce their need for insulin. Similarly, people hoping to lower blood pressure or cholesterol may adopt a special diet. There are food allergies (seafood or nut free), and ethical considerations (i.e. vegan).
After these many months, I am convinced that diets that try and "trick" the body in to losing weight by abstaining or mixing up the macros, don't make much difference at all. I am reacquainting my love affair with fat (in moderation of course). A vinaigrette for instance, that has sufficient oil, is far more satiating. It has transformed salads for me.
This is exactly what I was thinking too, that diet matters a whole lot when it comes to medical conditions. For example, a diabetic almost always uses carbohydrate management to help manage blood sugar levels. Another friend's doctor advised her to do paleo in an attempt to manage her pain and inflamation, and it worked. Those with heart conditions are advised to eat a heart healthy diet in low salt.
For me, anytime I tried to a fad diet, I failed because I could not stand the deprivation and would end up bingeing and going back to old eating habits, which were enough. The only time I could stick to a diet was this last time, when I decided to include anything I want but to stick to the calorie deficit, and this is the only time I've been able to keep the weight off for almost two years. I believe that is because nothing is different now than when I was losing weight, except for how much I eat.
0 -
clgaram720 wrote: »Initial Response: No, only CICO matters for weight loss, no matter what you choose to eat
After reading the article: No, only CICO matters for weight loss, no matter what you choose to eat. Although it could be argued diet type matters for health.
Thumbs up!0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The problem with most dietary research touting that low fat compares poorly is that most low fat interventions never control for protein in comparison to the other group being tested.
So until some research starts being done where protein gets controlled, and carbs and fat make the difference in the interventions, it's silly to take any one way over the other seriously.
In fact, in the one very short term study done to refute the insulin hypothesis, protein was controlled, and guess who lost more weight? It was not the high fat group. Of course, the study was too short-term to be meaningful beyond what it hoped to do, but it did open the door for further studies where protein is controlled between groups.
I'm glad to see the CNN article put forth an idea that I'm fond of putting forth on the boards simply because it makes logical sense to me, that of adopting a plan that you find sustainable for the long haul while you're eating at deficit. It doesn't matter what "diet" it is, it's like the saying about exercise, you know the one: "the best exercise is the one you'll do"? Well, to me, the best diet is the one you'll stick to.
What each person will be able to stick to will vary and might take little adjustments over time, and that's okay. As long as some plan is being adhered to and you're not sliding back into the patterns of eating that made you gain weight, you're good to go.
I will always say that adherence trumps all. It's not a race, it doesn't matter which way is faster. Everyone will lose the weight given enough time and determination. If you're eating in a way that you find it easy to adhere to? You'll have success.
That right there is the crux
CICO via a diet that you'll adhere to
Such great responses. Any fancy footwork around CICO is just that....fancy footwork. It doesn't matter what food you eat for weight loss, what matters is if it's food you like and whether or not the plan is sustainable.
I can't imagine ever sticking to any diet that requires me to severely restrict any macro, or any food type for that matter. If I'm within my calorie goals for weight loss, maintenance, or gain, I'm successful for weight management.0 -
The article could have been reduced to this one quote contained within "Long-term adherence is going to be what drives (weight loss), so identifying which of all the health foods you enjoy, which patterns you can stick to on a daily or weekly basis, will be what gives the best weight loss."
Love it!0 -
I don't know... If you have a WOE that works for you and improves your overall health beyond weight loss, you would be foolish not to stick with it. I think as some others said, it's a matter of finding a WOE that works for you.
As the article said, it can be easier to follow a LCHF diet (for some i would add) but then people go back to SAD like they are "fixed" after a few months of eating that way, or any way that makes them healthy. People get lazy or don't understand how their diet will affect their health.
And the article mentioned that saturated fat causes heart disease and should be kept low.... I wish they would let that old belief go already.0 -
What that report covered by CNN said is that, in studies, people on a low-fat diet lose an average of 5 kg.s in a year. But when they follow a low-carb diet they lose an average 6.5 kg.s. The message was taken to be that you don't have to avoid fats while on a diet, and that maybe a diet low in carbs and high in fats is better for losing weight.
But the authors of that study themselves acknowledged that the only thing that really matters, it is clear, is calories in/calories out. For weight loss, doesn't matter much what type.
I think, however, that maybe high fat is a bit of a help. For example, studies have shown that people who eat bacon and eggs for breakfast consume less calories throughout the rest of the day than people who eat oatmeal or other cereal. Presumably, the reason is because the fats and proteins take a bit longer to digest and produce a greater, longer-lasting feeling of satiety.
Fats and protein put your hunger off longer.
For some people, that could be good.
But, the weight loss of the low carb over the high carb was not enough to lead to any health benefits. Your right, the bottom line is CICO, whether it be high carb, low carb, or somewhere in between.0 -
MarcyKirkton wrote: »I guess it depends on the goal of the person. If someone wants to drop fast and fit into a bikini for the big trip, then perhaps one diet or another might accomplish that goal. I don't really know much about the various food fads these days. I am mostly annoyed by the gluten-free fad, simply because it's made finding gluten for my breadmaker machine a bear!
I've never really understood diets. It's always been obvious to me.......move more, eat less. Only thing that works. The hard part to me was getting started, since I really do prefer to just eat what I like and not think about it much. Alas, I like fattening stuff.
Marcy, the only way one diet over another would lead to quicker weight loss is if the person had a bigger deficit. Hands down, it's not diet type but the deficit that leads to weight loss.
I always that eating less and moving more led to weight loss, I just refused to believe it for many years. It was easier for me to believe in all the woo and fad diets, just because I believed in what the magazines said rather than my mother, who always said it's not about what you eat, but how much.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions