New study out of Harvard -- TYPE of calories matters more

gwenmf
gwenmf Posts: 888 Member
edited December 23 in Food and Nutrition
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A new study out of Harvard University about dieting that could change the way we think about keeping weight off. When it comes to counting calories, what kind we take in may matter as much as how many we take in, according to the study.

The study tried to answer why so few of us are able to lose weight, and keep it off. The answer? It's not enough to simply count calories. It matters what kinds of food those calories come from.

The study compared three basic diets with the same number of calories, but in different forms: A low-fat diet, a low carbohydrate diet-high protein diet, like Atkins, and what's called a low-glycemic diet. The low-glycemic diet includes normal amounts of protein, fat and carbs, but avoids processed carbohydrates like white rice, white bread and sugar.

The results? Researchers found the low-glycemic diet actually speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories.

The low-glycemic diet trades out white breads for stone ground whole wheat breads and steel cut, old fashioned oatmeal, instead of the instant variety.

Click here to learn more about the study or go to abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506 .




Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/health/healthy_living/Study-Type-of-calories-matter-more-than-how-many#ixzz1yzilqses
«13456789

Replies

  • patchesgizmo
    patchesgizmo Posts: 244 Member
    huh, they actually pay people to study these things, it just sounds like plain common sense to me. :laugh:
  • peachyxoxoxo
    peachyxoxoxo Posts: 1,178 Member
    Not a shock since it's more work for the body to break down complex carbs.
  • sandrajune72
    sandrajune72 Posts: 492 Member
    Thanks for sharing :happy:
  • LexyDB
    LexyDB Posts: 261

    The study tried to answer why so few of us are able to lose weight, and keep it off. The answer? It's not enough to simply count calories. It matters what kinds of food those calories come from.

    Thank you for taking the time to post this.

    This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

    Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

    Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.
  • tadpole242
    tadpole242 Posts: 507 Member
    The "Findings, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association: Participants burned about 300 calories more a day on a low-carb diet than they did on a low-fat diet. "That's the amount you'd burn off in an hour of moderate intensity physical activity without lifting a finger," says senior author David Ludwig, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital.

    "Participants burned 150 calories more on the low-glycemic index diet than the low-fat diet. That's about an hour of light physical activity," he says"


    "The authors note a downside to the low-carb diet: It appears to raise some risk factors for heart disease.

    Ludwig says that restricting carbohydrates over the long term may be hard for many people. If you're trying to lose weight, "you can get a jump start with a low-carb diet, but over the long term, a low-glycemic index diet may be better than severely restricting carbohydrates."

    "The low-glycemic index diet seems to be the happy medium," says Cara Ebbeling, associate director of the Obesity Prevention Center. "It didn't slow metabolism as much as the low-fat diet, and it didn't seem to have some of the negative effects on cardiovascular disease risk."

    So you lose more on a carb restricted diet twice as much in fact.
    But is it healthy???
  • LifeIsNotADressRehearsal
    LifeIsNotADressRehearsal Posts: 745 Member
    Bump
  • vtjenn
    vtjenn Posts: 8
    Great Information! thank you for sharing this! I've been concentrating on this very thing this week :happy:
  • belgerian
    belgerian Posts: 1,059 Member
    bump
  • kittyoates
    kittyoates Posts: 6
    Ok but we cut processed carbs out of our home months ago. I haven't had pasta in a really long time. We have whole wheat bread in the house but I don't eat that very often. Most of my carbs come from brown rice, which when we have it I mix with lentils. But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.
  • agentscully514
    agentscully514 Posts: 616 Member
    bump
  • FrugalMomsRock75
    FrugalMomsRock75 Posts: 698 Member
    Oh gee-you mean WHOLE FOODS are better? Who'd have thunk?
  • emuhawk
    emuhawk Posts: 62 Member

    Thank you for taking the time to post this.

    This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

    Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

    Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

    /sigh

    There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

    I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.
  • josiereside
    josiereside Posts: 720 Member
    bumping for me to read later!
  • LeenaRuns
    LeenaRuns Posts: 1,309 Member
    Thank goodness this was posted. Can we finally leave this topic to rest?
    Calorie deficit=weight loss; whole foods=better health!
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Clearly they did not do this study right as Atkins IS A LOW GLYCEMIC eating plan and the way you add back in your carbs is in line with the Glycemic index.

    These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.


    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A new study out of Harvard University about dieting that could change the way we think about keeping weight off. When it comes to counting calories, what kind we take in may matter as much as how many we take in, according to the study.

    The study tried to answer why so few of us are able to lose weight, and keep it off. The answer? It's not enough to simply count calories. It matters what kinds of food those calories come from.

    The study compared three basic diets with the same number of calories, but in different forms: A low-fat diet, a low carbohydrate diet-high protein diet, like Atkins, and what's called a low-glycemic diet. The low-glycemic diet includes normal amounts of protein, fat and carbs, but avoids processed carbohydrates like white rice, white bread and sugar.

    The results? Researchers found the low-glycemic diet actually speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories.

    The low-glycemic diet trades out white breads for stone ground whole wheat breads and steel cut, old fashioned oatmeal, instead of the instant variety.

    Click here to learn more about the study or go to abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506 .




    Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/health/healthy_living/Study-Type-of-calories-matter-more-than-how-many#ixzz1yzilqses
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    get ready for the "I eat crap and still lost 50 pound crowd"
  • thurberj
    thurberj Posts: 528 Member
    Bump for later.
  • Speazzy
    Speazzy Posts: 79 Member
    bump :smile:
  • mjsunshine16
    mjsunshine16 Posts: 251 Member
    good stuff, but not surprised. :-)
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

    That's because no matter what you MUST to have a calorie deficit to lose weight.
    "It's not that calories don't matter, but the quality of the calories going in can affect the number of calories going out," said study author Dr. David Ludwig, at Boston Children's Hospital.

    The type of food you eat does effect one part of the calorie balance equation - TEF (thermic effect of feeding) - which essentially is the amount of energy your body requires to breakdown your food intake. Obviously, if you are eating food which is highly processed then it requires less energy which means your deficit is decreased in comparison to complex carbs and protein which require more energy.

    However TEF only makes us a small part of the energy balance equation (about 10-15% off the top of my head) so to make the argument that it is somehow more important than your overall intake is misguided and not what should be taken from this study.

    Doesn't stop it being spun that way though...
  • sabrinalg
    sabrinalg Posts: 237 Member
    Thanks for sharing. The South Beach Diet focuses on low glycemic food as well.
  • 2knoxs
    2knoxs Posts: 81

    Thank you for taking the time to post this.

    This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

    Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

    Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

    /sigh

    There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

    I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

    How I feel as well.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Full study

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

    But also see;

    Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006)

    http://www.captura.uchile.cl/jspui/bitstream/2250/5614/1/Diaz_EO.pdf
  • AngryDiet
    AngryDiet Posts: 1,349 Member

    Thank you for taking the time to post this.

    This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

    Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

    Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

    /sigh

    There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

    I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

    I like this post.

    It's about success through choosing the battles one can win.

    And those battles will vary from person to person.

    Since I've started counting calories, I eat a heck of a lot better. But I still indulge when I can budget for it. I don't feel deprived, for the most part, and so I know that the new diet is sustainable.
  • Silverkittycat
    Silverkittycat Posts: 1,997 Member
    Just adding yesterday's thread on this topic.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/647847-a-new-diet-study
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Clearly they did not do this study right as Atkins IS A LOW GLYCEMIC eating plan and the way you add back in your carbs is in line with the Glycemic index.

    These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.

    Any low carb diet is going to be by nature low GI. But that is not the same thing as a Low GI Diet, which is not low carb. It is the amount of carbohydrates eaten that differentiates these diets.
  • kalynn06
    kalynn06 Posts: 368 Member
    It's important to note the study was on weight maintenance after a loss not on weight loss itself. Basically, they took a bunch of people and put them on the same diet to achieve a 12.5% weight loss, calculated their maintenance calories and then rotated the participants through the test diets. The diets were:

    Run in diet they used to lose the initial weight: (C/P/F) 45/25/30.
    The low carb diet: 10/30/60
    low glycemic: 40/20/40
    low fat: 60/20/20

    There was no significant change in body weight with any of the diets, but the low carb diet seemed to produce the least amount of decrease in pre-weightloss REE and the low fat diet, the most. The low glycemic was in the middle. The low carb diet. The low carb diet tended to be associated with higher levels of cortisol and C-reactive protein.

    I'm just not convinced you can put the results down to glycemic load necessarily. The sample size is small (of the 32 people they started with only 21 completed the study) and the diets are so widely varied it's hard to know what happened. It's interesting, but drawing wild conclusions from this set of data would be rash (which means it will be a media bonanza).
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Ok but we cut processed carbs out of our home months ago. I haven't had pasta in a really long time. We have whole wheat bread in the house but I don't eat that very often. Most of my carbs come from brown rice, which when we have it I mix with lentils. But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

    It's not saying that you can overeat low GI foods and lose weight.
  • FrugalMomsRock75
    FrugalMomsRock75 Posts: 698 Member
    Clearly they did not do this study right as Atkins IS A LOW GLYCEMIC eating plan and the way you add back in your carbs is in line with the Glycemic index.

    These studies are down right laughable as they have been trying to discredit Dr Atkins and all the work he did when he was alive to help heal people through proper nutrition for each person's body.


    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A new study out of Harvard University about dieting that could change the way we think about keeping weight off. When it comes to counting calories, what kind we take in may matter as much as how many we take in, according to the study.

    The study tried to answer why so few of us are able to lose weight, and keep it off. The answer? It's not enough to simply count calories. It matters what kinds of food those calories come from.

    The study compared three basic diets with the same number of calories, but in different forms: A low-fat diet, a low carbohydrate diet-high protein diet, like Atkins, and what's called a low-glycemic diet. The low-glycemic diet includes normal amounts of protein, fat and carbs, but avoids processed carbohydrates like white rice, white bread and sugar.

    The results? Researchers found the low-glycemic diet actually speeds up your metabolism and helps you burn calories.

    The low-glycemic diet trades out white breads for stone ground whole wheat breads and steel cut, old fashioned oatmeal, instead of the instant variety.

    Click here to learn more about the study or go to abcnews.go.com/Health/calorie-calorie-harvard-study-compares-popular-weight-loss/story?id=16654506 .




    Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/health/healthy_living/Study-Type-of-calories-matter-more-than-how-many#ixzz1yzilqses

    Seriously? Have you seen the baking mix? Let me tell you the ingredients: Wheat gluten, whole grain soy flour, modified wheat starch, unprocessed wheat bran.

    What part of that (other than maybe the soy flour) would you consider non-processed whole grain?

    How about the peanut butter cups. Ingredients: maltitol, cocoa butter, peanut butter (peanuts, mono and diglycerides, salt, mixed tocopherols), polydextrose, chocolate liquor, clarified butter, peanuts, less than 2% of peanut oil, sodium saseinate, milk powder, natural flavor, vanillin, tocopherols, palm kernel and palm oil, soy secithin, salt, sucralose.

    That is PROCESSED food. Not whole foods...

    Just because it's low carb, doesn't mean it's low glycemic by the definition of WHOLE GRAINS, whole foods.
  • FrugalMomsRock75
    FrugalMomsRock75 Posts: 698 Member
    My aunt said this to me the other day, that a doctor specializing in nutrition said to her: "what God hath brought together, let no man separate, and that doesn't just go for marriage."

    :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories