Low Carb Losers Keep it off Long Term - Some Study Links

First, we all know this. Duh. At least the LC adherents in here who
have lost weight and kept it off. But we've all heard, likely many
times, that LC doesn't work because you can't sustain it. So, imagine
my delight when I read this blog post by Adam Campbell, Features
Editor of Men's Health US (and new LC diet author):

http://thefitnessinsider.menshealth....t-going-t.html

Some folks looked at the National Weight Control Registry data, and
found that about 10% of the folks who had lost 30 and kept it off from
3 years were doing low carb. They compared these people to the 90%
they categorized as "not low carb" and found no significant difference
in regain between the populations.

Whoopie.

But then you get to the fun stuff.
The LC group:
Ate more calories (1610 vs 1310).
Ate a higher percentage of fat (59% vs 33%)
Burned fewer calories through exercise (1119 vs 2246/week)

And not one of the LC group actually counted calories.
Any rate, here's the link to that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

Lastly, before you talk small sample sizes, skewed sample sizes, etc,
check this one out:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17014706
That's a big sample of LC dieters who are doing pretty well I guess.

Rock on.

Hollywood wrote:

First, we all know this. Duh. At least the LC adherents in here who
have lost weight and kept it off. But we've all heard, likely many
times, that LC doesn't work because you can't sustain it. So, imagine
my delight when I read this blog post by Adam Campbell, Features
Editor of Men's Health US (and new LC diet author):

http://thefitnessinsider.menshealth....t-going-t.html

Some folks looked at the National Weight Control Registry data, and
found that about 10% of the folks who had lost 30 and kept it off from
3 years were doing low carb. They compared these people to the 90%
they categorized as "not low carb" and found no significant difference
in regain between the populations.

I never entered myself in th NCWR, and for a reason - The last
time I looked there was no way to answer their questions to
state I was a low carber. I haven't been back there in years.
Do they now have questions that do work for low carbers?

So while the 90/10 rule sounds interesting, I think it is utterly
without meaning. Over the years they drove away LOTS of
successful low carbers by asking questions that could not
detect low carbing. I always saw them as low fat biased and
with a pro low fat agenda. I valued their strategies of what
people do to keep it off, but never put any value whatsoever
on their data on what people ate to lose or keep it off.

Whoopie.

The 90/10 numbers are meaningless given their biased history.
If they now longer have that bias, good for them and eventually
that part of their history will fade into history. But consider my
history in buying cars - I bought a 1980 Chevy and it sucked.
Here I am 27 years later and I still haven't bough another Chevy.
How many low carbers looked at the questions on NWCR and
reacted as I have?

But then you get to the fun stuff.
The LC group:
Ate more calories (1610 vs 1310).

More comfortable levels hence easier to follow. Easy to follow
does NOT equal hard to fall off!

Ate a higher percentage of fat (59% vs 33%)

Fat good when low carbing.

Burned fewer calories through exercise (1119 vs 2246/week)

In spite of all the stress on exercise while low carbing, lots don't
do it.

And not one of the LC group actually counted calories.

Zero, nada, zilch, zip.

Any rate, here's the link to that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ShowDetailView...

Lastly, before you talk small sample sizes, skewed sample sizes, etc,
check this one out:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...l=pubmed&pubme...
That's a big sample of LC dieters who are doing pretty well I guess.

What I like about this study - It uses data from an active low carb
board
for its source of data. Same way I have collected what data I have
over the years. So much for the folks who complain that my data has
no meaning.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hollywood wrote:

First, we all know this. Duh. At least the LC adherents in here who
have lost weight and kept it off. But we've all heard, likely many
times, that LC doesn't work because you can't sustain it. So, imagine
my delight when I read this blog post by Adam Campbell, Features
Editor of Men's Health US (and new LC diet author):

http://thefitnessinsider.menshealth....t-going-t.html

Some folks looked at the National Weight Control Registry data, and
found that about 10% of the folks who had lost 30 and kept it off from
3 years were doing low carb. They compared these people to the 90%
they categorized as "not low carb" and found no significant difference
in regain between the populations.

I never entered myself in th NCWR, and for a reason - The last
time I looked there was no way to answer their questions to
state I was a low carber. I haven't been back there in years.
Do they now have questions that do work for low carbers?

So while the 90/10 rule sounds interesting, I think it is utterly
without meaning. Over the years they drove away LOTS of
successful low carbers by asking questions that could not
detect low carbing. I always saw them as low fat biased and
with a pro low fat agenda. I valued their strategies of what
people do to keep it off, but never put any value whatsoever
on their data on what people ate to lose or keep it off.

Whoopie.

The 90/10 numbers are meaningless given their biased history.
If they now longer have that bias, good for them and eventually
that part of their history will fade into history. But consider my
history in buying cars - I bought a 1980 Chevy and it sucked.
Here I am 27 years later and I still haven't bough another Chevy.
How many low carbers looked at the questions on NWCR and
reacted as I have?

But then you get to the fun stuff.
The LC group:
Ate more calories (1610 vs 1310).

More comfortable levels hence easier to follow. Easy to follow
does NOT equal hard to fall off!

Ate a higher percentage of fat (59% vs 33%)

Fat good when low carbing.

Food good when low carbing (important for staying the course).


Burned fewer calories through exercise (1119 vs 2246/week)

In spite of all the stress on exercise while low carbing, lots don't
do it.

Lots don't exercise, period. With low-fat, you have to exercise to maintain
normalized BG levels. If you don't, the high carbs force you to being to
regain due to swining BG levels, over time.


And not one of the LC group actually counted calories.

Zero, nada, zilch, zip.

Well, their data is poor.


Any rate, here's the link to that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ShowDetailView...

Lastly, before you talk small sample sizes, skewed sample sizes, etc,
check this one
out:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...l=pubmed&pubme...
That's a big sample of LC dieters who are doing pretty well I guess.

What I like about this study - It uses data from an active low carb
board
for its source of data. Same way I have collected what data I have
over the years. So much for the folks who complain that my data has
no meaning.

Did you ever published your data, Doug? Data has little meaning if others
can't see it, understand where/how you got it, and how you analyzed it to
draw your conclusions.

"Roger Zoul" wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote:

Lastly, before you talk small sample sizes, skewed sample sizes, etc,
check this one
out:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...l=pubmed&pubme...
That's a big sample of LC dieters who are doing pretty well I guess.

What I like about this study - It uses data from an active low carb
board
for its source of data. Same way I have collected what data I have
over the years. So much for the folks who complain that my data has
no meaning.

Did you ever published your data, Doug? Data has little meaning if others
can't see it, understand where/how you got it, and how you analyzed it to
draw your conclusions.

I gathered my data on boards that no longer exist - Escribe and
Ncenter.
As a result the raw data isn't searchable unless they are archived in
some wayback machine. As a result what exists is my summaries.
Those appear in the ASDLC archives best.

Doug Freyburger writes:
As a result the raw data isn't searchable unless they are archived in
some wayback machine.

Have you tried the Internet Wayback Machine?

http://www.archive.org/