New JAMA Weight Loss Study
Options
Replies
-
I do wonder how well these research subjects maintain their new weights. That would be an interesting follow up in 3 years. Too bad it is not a metabolic wars study.1
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Here's a different take on the same study: https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/
From the Q&A with Dr. Gardner, the lead study author:We wanted for them to find a new eating pattern they could maintain maintain without even thinking of it as a “diet”. We got a lot of positive feedback from the participants: they were happy to not have to “count calories” (to not have to limit their daily caloric intake). Table 2 in the paper shows that the participants reported “achieving” a ≈500 calorie deficit, without us prescribing one … and it was fairly consistent through the 12 months. Now, I honestly think they likely exaggerated the caloric restriction. But in fact they did lose >6,500 lbs collectively by the end of the study (≈3,000 kg), even though the level of physical activity only went up a little in both groups (the level of activity they reached was not statistically different from baseline). So they must have eaten less. I think this is an important area to explore.
So calories DO matter - whether you count them or not.
It's also worth noting NuSi took part in the research. NuSi was founded by Gary Taubes, who is a quack, ketovangelist and insulin fearmongerer. How interesting that the study showed that insulin production from a diet higher in carbs and lower in fat had no adverse effect upon weight loss.
But Taubes has already openly stated that even if research conclusively proved him wrong, he would not change his mind on the subject. Not surprising though, since his degree is in journalism and he has no training/education in nutrition/health sciences.5 -
Also interesting to look at the chart showing distribution of weight loss among low-fat vs. low-carb participants. Notice how even and virtually identical the distribution patterns are:
9 -
'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.39
-
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
You "ate yourself thin" by consuming less calories than you were expending. Because that's how weight loss works, whether you count calories or not (which is not the same thing as CICO, by the way).
Congratulations on finding a way to do it that worked for you.19 -
I'm still trying to figure out how anyone who read the study got to "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods. It's miles away from the study itself.12
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I'm still trying to figure out how anyone who read the study got to "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods. It's miles away from the study itself.
Sometimes people see what they want to see - whether it's actually there or not.8 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
Da *kitten*!?! How did you manage to post 2600 posts over 8 years and not tumble upon this way of eating till the first week on January of 2018?
Like, seriously, what ways of eating were you exploring these past 8 years? What was your purported/believed/"paper" caloric deficit per year and what were your actual weight trend results?
Kudos for your perseverance in the face of adversity. I am known for being very patient but I'm sure I would have given up during eight years of no results.20 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed.
Are you another person who can't tell calorie counting from CICO?i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories..
Good for you. I've lost not counting before too, so I know it's possible (it was still CICO, though -- I ate less and moved more than when I wasn't losing).
However, in 2014-15, I lost 95 lbs counting calories. Lost the first 80 in a year, which is FAR more than the people in the study did. So how does the study disprove calorie counting again (obviously it does not disprove CICO, as that's how the people in the study lost).now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day.
Was that really a new thing for you? I was into cooking and ate whole foods, lean proteins, lots of veg (many of us here are pretty into vegetables), some fruit (how are "unprocessed carbs" a different thing from fruit, puzzled by that), and so on when losing, but also when gaining and when maintaining an overweight weight. Just doing that wouldn't have been a change, so it wouldn't have been enough for me.
Oh, I used salt in cooking when I lost (still do), didn't hurt me a bit (I'm into cooking and I think a little salt makes a huge difference in taste, you don't have to make things salty).
If your diet was really so awful that it was the problem, I'm glad you fixed it!10 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
Da *kitten*!?! How did you manage to post 2600 posts over 8 years and not tumble upon this way of eating till the first week on January of 2018?
Like, seriously, what ways of eating were you exploring these past 8 years? What was your purported/believed/"paper" caloric deficit per year and what were your actual weight trend results?
Kudos for your perseverance in the face of adversity. I am known for being very patient but I'm sure I would have given up during eight years of no results.
And how in 8 years has the abundance of graphs posted not sink in regarding every diet boiling down to cico?! I’m truly bewildered12 -
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
Did you miss the part where it completely and utterly misses the point of the study it's trying to talk about worse than a blind archer looking in the wrong direction with crosswinds and a broken bowstring?14 -
CICO. Every. Single. Time.8
-
I wonder if the OPs, or other posters, who come in and post about how CICO doesn't work, and every single time that I have seen they are using CICO to mean counting calories, ever come back to read these threads. I'm thinking not. I think that's truly unfortunate, because it's difficult enough dispelling all the misinformation out there without having to also try to explain that CICO does not mean counting calories.11
-
Also interesting to look at the chart showing distribution of weight loss among low-fat vs. low-carb participants. Notice how even and virtually identical the distribution patterns are:
Was thinking about this this morning.
Imagine taking one of the participants from each group on the left side of the graph (who lost weight). Interview them (before the results were announced) separately and then put them in a room together to discuss their results.
Can you imagine the argument that would ensue? One would be utterly convinced low carb is the answer while the other would be adamant that low fat is the way to go. I see fists flying at some point.
11 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I'm still trying to figure out how anyone who read the study got to "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods. It's miles away from the study itself.
BOTH groups were instructed not to eat refined grains and added sugars, so yeah.
3 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.19 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.
Low carbohydrates doesn't equal keto. You can successfully lose weight on a low carbohydrate plan without ever going into keto assuming one is in a deficit (the same thing that creates weight loss when one is doing keto).
Nothing in the construction of the study leads one to believe that those running it wanted or expected the low carbohydrate group to be on keto.10 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.
I believe they were trying to compare based on what people do in the real world, so not controlling them was part of the study.
If you want a controlled study, that exists too, and low carb did no better.6 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.
There IS no extra fat burn from keto.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions