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

Options
24567…13

Replies

  • sabrinalg
    sabrinalg Posts: 242 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing. The South Beach Diet focuses on low glycemic food as well.
  • 2knoxs
    2knoxs Posts: 81
    Options

    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
    Options
    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
    Options

    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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."

    :)
  • mikek333
    mikek333 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    I'm not buying the conclusion drawn by the headline writer. It's still # of calories in and # out. Glycemic loads matter in feeling full longer, but you could lose weight on a junk food diet as long as you ate at a deficit.
  • JeninBelgium
    JeninBelgium Posts: 804 Member
    Options
    Thanks to ACG for the full study link

    While this seems like common sense, it is interesting and important to note that there were only 21 participants in the study - thus the n value was not very significant - but it does serve as an interesting trial study to be repeated on a larger scale

    Also for those criticizing the study for not doing atkins right, the description of the diet in the abstract does not mention Atkins (at least not in the part I read) perhaps Atkins is referred to in one of the press articles or similar what the abstract says is:

    Intervention After achieving 10% to 15% weight loss while consuming a run-in diet, participants consumed an isocaloric low-fat diet (60% of energy from carbohydrate, 20% from fat, 20% from protein; high glycemic load), low–glycemic index diet (40% from carbohydrate, 40% from fat, and 20% from protein; moderate glycemic load), and very low-carbohydrate diet (10% from carbohydrate, 60% from fat, and 30% from protein; low glycemic load) in random order, each for 4 weeks.

    note that each participant tried each diet for 4 weeks only - thus it does not tell about long term effects however, the take home message of eating a well balanced diet of whole foods is a happy compromise in results - and I think most of us can agree to that (and of course you are going to eat crap sometimes, the point is to eat crap sometimes and not most or all of the ime- is it not?)
  • LexyDB
    LexyDB Posts: 261
    Options

    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.

    /sigh
    /rolls eyes

    Predictable answer from the masses who do disregard the OPs post. Knew it would happen.
  • historygirldd
    historygirldd Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    bump til I have time to read through
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    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.

    As laughable as garbage such as this spouted by the good doctor?

    "weight will be lost even when the calories taken in far exceed the calories expended"
  • DrMAvDPhD
    DrMAvDPhD Posts: 2,097 Member
    Options

    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.

    Burger is not considered "crap" by this article. The white bread bun on the burger is, but you can replace that with whole wheat and be fine :-)
  • AllTehBeers
    AllTehBeers Posts: 5,030 Member
    Options

    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.

    +2

    Obviously you will be healthier if you eat better foods, but its about what is sustainable for the rest of my life. Would I lose faster if all I ate was salad, chicken and vegetables? Absolutely. Could I do it for more then a week? Hell no.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options

    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.

    Burger is not considered "crap" by this article. The white bread bun on the burger is, but you can replace that with whole wheat and be fine :-)

    That makes the assumption that whole wheat bread is better then evil white bread
  • gwenmf
    gwenmf Posts: 888 Member
    Options
    get ready for the "I eat crap and still lost 50 pound crowd"

    lol I'm ready. I think any information is good to "digest"..........it's all good!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    I'm not buying the conclusion drawn by the headline writer. It's still # of calories in and # out. Glycemic loads matter in feeling full longer, but you could lose weight on a junk food diet as long as you ate at a deficit.

    If calories in and calories out didn't matter the study would have no relevance, since the results suggest the number of calories out may be greater with a low GI diet without increasing disease-causing stress markers.

Categories