Diet doubts over counting calories
 

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...ceanddiscovery

Diet doubts over counting calories

Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers
have claimed.

A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to
put on more weight than others.

The survey of 65 overweight and obese adults - 70% of whom had type 2
diabetes - found that those put on a moderate fat diet containing
almonds lost more weight than those on a low-fat diet without almonds.

But the total number of calories for both groups was the same.

And other factors such as protein intake were also maintained at equal
levels.

The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with
almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group.

Fat mass figures also fell by 10% more in the group on the almond
diet.

The results - published in the International Journal of Obesity - cast
doubt on widely held beliefs about dieting.

It has long been assumed that a key to losing weight is cutting
calorie intake.

The study's lead researcher Dr Michelle Wien, from City of Hope
National Medical Centre in Duarte, California, said: "There may be
qualities in almonds that helped the first group lose more weight."

One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been
completely absorbed.


Story filed: 18:12 Thursday 6th November 2003

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

Duh. If you go by the logic that all you have to count
is calories, then 70 calories of Doritos are as good for
you as 70 calories of prunes. It doesn't take a brain
surgeon to see the garbage in that notion. I've been
saying this on this newsgroup for a long time now.

Don't just look at the calories, look at the nutritional
content.
Don't just count how many calories you will take in,
think about how you will burn them up.


Diarmid Logan wrote:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...ceanddiscovery

Diet doubts over counting calories

Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers
have claimed.

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

Diarmid Logan wrote:
Diet doubts over counting calories
The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with
almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group.

Barry Sears discusses this in "Enter the Zone". His theory is that
eating facts tells the body to burn fats for fuel. If you only eat
carbs, your body will be less prone to burn fats.

Other benefits of eating fats:

- Stimulate production of hormones that signal satiety
- Taste good
- Nuts are full of good vitamins etc

A little goes a long way though. I have a small handful (e.g. 12
almonds) of nuts before each meal, and no other fats except what comes
within other foods like lean meat.

Tim Josling

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to
the group and am following weight watchers am starting back on the program
after being off of it for a month and half maybe a bit more. trying to get
some new ideas for meals to spice up my diet a little also in need of some
different exercises as well. i do my work out s at home because i can't
afford to join a gym right now although i would love to.

also i am new to this board as well

angie
"Tim Josling" wrote in message
...
Diarmid Logan wrote:
Diet doubts over counting calories
The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with
almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group.

Barry Sears discusses this in "Enter the Zone". His theory is that
eating facts tells the body to burn fats for fuel. If you only eat
carbs, your body will be less prone to burn fats.

Other benefits of eating fats:

- Stimulate production of hormones that signal satiety
- Taste good
- Nuts are full of good vitamins etc

A little goes a long way though. I have a small handful (e.g. 12
almonds) of nuts before each meal, and no other fats except what comes
within other foods like lean meat.

Tim Josling





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

"Anglea Woollcombe" wrote in message ...
hello all was wondering what type of diet plan everybody was on. i am new to
the group and am following weight watchers am starting back on the program
after being off of it for a month and half maybe a bit more. trying to get
some new ideas for meals to spice up my diet a little also in need of some
different exercises as well. i do my work out s at home because i can't
afford to join a gym right now although i would love to.

also i am new to this board as well

angie

Hi Ang,

The Zone diet, Barry Sears. Three years of low-carbing, blood lipids
are bang on, lost 20 lbs and kept it off easily. Wife has lost 30 lbs
and is very near her goal weight.

TC

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

Now see, these types of articles are VERY MISLEADING.

Counting calories is important to an extent. No, it's not the be all and end
all to losing weight but it helps.

This article said the total number of calories for both groups was the same.
It did not say both groups continued to consume the same amount of calories
as previously before the diet.

So how much were their calories actually reduced here? It doesn't say.

It also does NOT define what a "low fat diet" is. The standard low fat diet
of 60g a day or 30% of your calories by the FDA is not low enough. It's
quite high!

One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been
completely absorbed.

Well DUH! Almonds contain fiber people. Fats bond to fiber and they all
don't get digested, hence while you might be consuming through the mouth the
same amount of calories, your body isn't.

Again, very misleading article.

Trent


-- Look and Feel Great! FREE weight loss and anti-aging group. Join now @
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weightloss_health


From: (Diarmid Logan)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:
alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-fat,alt.support.diet.low-calorie,alt.sup
port.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
Date: 7 Nov 2003 07:50:24 -0800
Subject: Diet doubts over counting calories

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...ceanddiscovery

Diet doubts over counting calories

Counting calories may not be the best way to lose weight, researchers
have claimed.

A six-month study in America has found some calories cause people to
put on more weight than others.

The survey of 65 overweight and obese adults - 70% of whom had type 2
diabetes - found that those put on a moderate fat diet containing
almonds lost more weight than those on a low-fat diet without almonds.

But the total number of calories for both groups was the same.

And other factors such as protein intake were also maintained at equal
levels.

The waistline measurements of those on the moderate fat diet with
almonds fell by 14%, compared with 9% for the other group.

Fat mass figures also fell by 10% more in the group on the almond
diet.

The results - published in the International Journal of Obesity - cast
doubt on widely held beliefs about dieting.

It has long been assumed that a key to losing weight is cutting
calorie intake.

The study's lead researcher Dr Michelle Wien, from City of Hope
National Medical Centre in Duarte, California, said: "There may be
qualities in almonds that helped the first group lose more weight."

One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been
completely absorbed.


Story filed: 18:12 Thursday 6th November 2003

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

Trent Duke wrote in message ...
Now see, these types of articles are VERY MISLEADING.

Counting calories is important to an extent. No, it's not the be all and end
all to losing weight but it helps.

This article said the total number of calories for both groups was the same.
It did not say both groups continued to consume the same amount of calories
as previously before the diet.

So how much were their calories actually reduced here? It doesn't say.

It also does NOT define what a "low fat diet" is. The standard low fat diet
of 60g a day or 30% of your calories by the FDA is not low enough. It's
quite high!

Quite high? I've been eating well, well beyond 60g a day and losing
weight. I was on a low fat diet for many years (about 20), and all it
did was make me hungry. I could eat several plates of pasta and be
hungry an hour later.

One possible explanation was that the fat in almonds may not have been
completely absorbed.

Well DUH! Almonds contain fiber people. Fats bond to fiber and they all
don't get digested, hence while you might be consuming through the mouth the
same amount of calories, your body isn't.

Again, very misleading article.

Trent



But if what you say is true, then the article is correct. People who
are eating almonds and the like -- by your reasoning -- are taking in
more calories but digesting less of them. But then you'd have to
deal with the fact that the "low fat" diet folks are also eating fiber
(I assume), so the fiber must also be removing their low amounts of
fat. What's the difference?

Diet doubts over counting calories
 

Well DUH! Almonds contain fiber people. Fats bond to fiber and they all
don't get digested, hence while you might be consuming through the mouth the
same amount of calories, your body isn't.

Again, very misleading article.

Trent

But if what you say is true, then the article is correct. People who
are eating almonds and the like -- by your reasoning -- are taking in
more calories but digesting less of them. But then you'd have to
deal with the fact that the "low fat" diet folks are also eating fiber
(I assume), so the fiber must also be removing their low amounts of
fat. What's the difference?

LOL You might be interested in this study on the interaction between
obesity genes and dietary fat. Perhaps this is one reason why there is
so much disagreement about weight loss methods. There are hundreds of
obesity-causing genetic defects and, like poker players, we are all
dealt a different genetic hand, which accounts for the large
variations in the way people respond to diet, exercise, weight loss
drugs, etc. But people tend to think that what works for them will
work for everybody, so we end up with confusion and strife.

Nieters A, et al. "Polymorphisms in candidate obesity genes and their
interaction with dietary intake of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids
affect obesity risk in a sub-sample of the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort."
Eur J Nutr. 2002 Oct;41(5):210-21; PMID: 12395215.
Full abstract: http://tinyurl.com/w9or
"BACKGROUND, AIM: In several genes coding for molecules involved in
the regulation of body weight (fat mass) and thermogenesis,
polymorphisms have been reported which possibly modify human obesity
risk . . . Importantly, the results of the analysis of gene-diet
interactions suggest that the allelic variants of candidate genes
(leptin, TNFA, PPARG2) might strongly affect diet-related obesity
risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results support some but not all previous
reports about a risk-modulating effect of polymorphisms in genes
affecting obesity risk. THE MOST IMPORTANT FINDING IS AN INDICATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL INTERACTION BETWEEN ALLELIC VARIANTS OF PARTICULAR GENES
AND FATTY ACID INTAKE-RELATED OBESITY RISK. These observations suggest
that future studies on polymorphisms in obesity genes should take data
on dietary habits into account." [emphasis added]

Live Long and Prosper!
DrumLib

DrumLib's Health Research Review
http://www.drumlib.com
Vitamin Price Comparison
http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm
Disclaimer
http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm