The latest NuSI study: LF vs LC
wabmester
Posts: 2,748 Member
Gary Taubes' NuSI funded this study from Gardner at Stanford:
https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/
Pretty cool study. Both groups started out at legit levels of LC (20g) and LF (20g), but they self-adjusted to whatever level they felt they could sustain (about 115 g/d is where the LC group ended up).
Weight loss about the same in both groups. Insulin response didn't predict which diet worked better. Neither did genes related to the insulin response.
What was common for both groups was the elimination of junk food and stuff like white bread, white rice, etc. Basically a high-fiber diet.
The best part? No calorie restriction in either group. Both groups could eat as much as they wanted, and both groups lost a good bit of weight.
There was a huge variation in response as this chart in the article shows:
And, of course, LDL and HDL went up on LC and down on LF. This result led one cardiologist to say "no reason to try LC since LF works just as well and doesn't raise LDL."
In other words, the debate rages on....
https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/
Pretty cool study. Both groups started out at legit levels of LC (20g) and LF (20g), but they self-adjusted to whatever level they felt they could sustain (about 115 g/d is where the LC group ended up).
Weight loss about the same in both groups. Insulin response didn't predict which diet worked better. Neither did genes related to the insulin response.
What was common for both groups was the elimination of junk food and stuff like white bread, white rice, etc. Basically a high-fiber diet.
The best part? No calorie restriction in either group. Both groups could eat as much as they wanted, and both groups lost a good bit of weight.
There was a huge variation in response as this chart in the article shows:
And, of course, LDL and HDL went up on LC and down on LF. This result led one cardiologist to say "no reason to try LC since LF works just as well and doesn't raise LDL."
In other words, the debate rages on....
1
Replies
-
I hate the idea that very low carbs is unsustainable. And then we try and use studies where they ate over 100 grams a day as low-carb diet studies. Imagine if we ran smoking cessation studies in a similar fashion.We asked each participant to lower their cigarette consumption to 2 per day, although we admitted to them that this was an arbitrary number. They were told they could increase their cigarette consumption until they found the lowest possible amount that was considered sustainable for them. The average low-cigarette participant went from 23 cigarettes a day to 12 cigarettes a day. We consider this a "low smoking" lifestyle.
And, don't get me started about how this advice
throws a wrench in both diets.Specifically, they were instructed to “maximize vegetable intake ... minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and ... focus on whole foods that were minimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible.”
2 -
I didn't really have a problem with the study (with the caveat that I haven't read the Real Thing yet). It probably represents real-life "healthy low fat" and "low carb" pretty well.
Over 600 people, and most of them lost weight without consciously restricting calories. Average weight loss around 12lbs sounds small, but it's larger than we've seen in most previous studies.
So, it says to me that by removing the obvious crap from your diet, your appetite will normalize. That's pretty huge.
You can optimize from there. Evidence suggest that keto-levels probably give you a bigger appetite effect.
It also tells us that losing weight improves health markers, and we can tweak those markers by tweaking the macro percentages.2 -
My appetite normalized after I cut out foods containing added sugar and/or any form of any grains. I lost weight eating all that I wanted and I am maintaining eating all that I want.3
-
So, it says to me that by removing the obvious crap from your diet, your appetite will normalize. That's pretty huge.
This right here is a big thing. I think that alone accounts for the changes. It was a crap-free diet compared to a different crap-free diet. It was people eating foods closer to natural forms and cooking at home. It was people avoiding processed foods and the worst of the harmful carbs. When you remove the highly palatable processed foods and most high-glycemic carbs, is it any wonder that appetite starts to normalize?
I know there is no perfect study. I have skimmed the full study. But, I'm not able to pull it apart into the details at the moment. Oddly, it seems the glycemic index didn't change much for either group, and a higher glycemic load (nearly unchanged from baseline) didn't cause much issues for the low fat group.
Still, the biggest takeaway has to be that cutting out the crap foods is important.4 -
Yup. An interesting follow-up for me would be a study that slowly added "crap" back in to see what had the biggest effect on appetite/weight. Currently, the definition of "crap" is pretty ambiguous.
"the reduction of edible oils, fatty meats, whole-fat dairy, and nuts was prioritized for the healthy low-fat group, whereas the reduction of cereals, grains, rice, starchy vegetables, and legumes was prioritized for the healthy low-carbohydrate group."
"Both diet groups were instructed to (1)maximize vegetable intake; (2)minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and (3) focus on whole foods that wereminimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible"2 -
I didn't get much from this study. Even their definitions of low carb and low fat seemed off. They were supposed to start off at 20g carbs or 20g fat but according to the graphs, it did not last long .
Eventually the low fat group was at 57g and the low carb group was at 132g... And those were the averages so you know about half of the people were higher and out of low carb, and i am guessing the 57g of fat was possibly not low fat (I think low fat is considered to be around 20% or your calories). Basically the low fat group tripled their fat grams, and the low carb group increased theirs by almost 7 times.
The calorie creep was big too. They were supposed to be eating a deficit of 500kcal a day which would have been 52lbs lost in a year. Instead the average loss was 13 lbs, or a deficit of less the 150 kcal, I would guess.
I don't know... NuSi has not impressed me with their studies. Like you pointed out, the take away seems to be that reducing crap (refined and highly processed foods) and eating whole foods at a minor caloric deficit can help with weight loss and cholesterol, . There isn't much new there.
4 -
I didn't get much from this study. Even their definitions of low carb and low fat seemed off. They were supposed to start off at 20g carbs or 20g fat but according to the graphs, it did not last long .
Eventually the low fat group was at 57g and the low carb group was at 132g... And those were the averages so you know about half of the people were higher and out of low carb, and i am guessing the 57g of fat was possibly not low fat (I think low fat is considered to be around 20% or your calories). Basically the low fat group tripled their fat grams, and the low carb group increased theirs by almost 7 times.
The calorie creep was big too. They were supposed to be eating a deficit of 500kcal a day which would have been 52lbs lost in a year. Instead the average loss was 13 lbs, or a deficit of less the 150 kcal, I would guess.
I don't know... NuSi has not impressed me with their studies. Like you pointed out, the take away seems to be that reducing crap (refined and highly processed foods) and eating whole foods at a minor caloric deficit can help with weight loss and cholesterol, . There isn't much new there.
That’s largely because there won’t be anything new. “Stop shoving pizza, pop tarts, ice cream, and cakes onto your face, and your hunger signaling will eventually return to normal” has worked since forever. Everything else is pointless minutia, but ya’ know, “quit eating so damned many Honey Buns and drinking a liter of soda per day” doesn’t sell books or overpriced diet plans.3 -
Yay for a low crap diet!2
-
I think most governments know they will collapse if they can not get their health care cost down and down fast so junk food will be taxed as a "vice".
Not sure that will be helpful but this kind of research should be helpful in more people understanding what we eat can be more important than what we eat.
Finding my way to "intuitive" eating when on a hunch I cut out added sugar and all forms of all grains for my pain management was my lucky day back in Oct 2014.1 -
NuSi has not impressed me with their studies.
Could be the choice of scientists. I think Taubes wanted renowned scientists who were against him to be the ones to prove him right. He chose Kevin Hall (Dr CICO) and Gardner (vegetarian). Probably should have stuck with Phinney and Volek. 1 -
NuSi has not impressed me with their studies.
Could be the choice of scientists. I think Taubes wanted renowned scientists who were against him to be the ones to prove him right. He chose Kevin Hall (Dr CICO) and Gardner (vegetarian). Probably should have stuck with Phinney and Volek.
LOL
You could be right.
Hall just annoys me. He's definitely Mr CICO. Even when there are indications that low carb could be good, he seems to go out of his way to ignore it, word the results weirdly, or test things that prove nothing new... Maybe its an evil conspiracy to bankrupt Taubes? 0 -
Halls latest study will look at processed food and test the "low-crap diet" theory.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT034070530 -
Hmm. I wonder what he'll set calories at. I hope it is a slight excess.
Thanks.0 -
It's ad lib. "determine differences in ad libitum energy intake (kcals) during 2 weeks of eating an ultra-processed diet as compared to 2 weeks of an unprocessed diet matched for presented calories, macronutrient composition, sugar, fiber, and sodium"0
-
Halls latest study will look at processed food and test the "low-crap diet" theory.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03407053
Looking forward to the results.1 -
I didn't see the location of the study. Participants will be in "in clinic" somewhere for a month while they are provided 2 weeks of highly processed foods and 2 weeks of unprocessed foods.
The study is still recruiting Too bad I'm over 50. 
The criterion of "stable weight" is of interest to me. I'm curious as to the parameters that surround that definition. I'm quite convinced there are those who are attracted to/stimulated by processed food and are over eaters. And those who are not. My husband and I would be good examples of that. I've been of stable weight for nearly 4 years but place snacks and other processed stuff in front of me and I'm still easily inclined to over eat. Place processed food or ANY food in front of my husband and he'll eat it only when hungry. He has been of stable weight for the 30 years we have been married (and prior to) and is simply not an over eater. The guy has always stopped eating when not hungry and thinks nothing of leaving food on his plate. I've long been a "scape it clean" person.4
This discussion has been closed.