Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results

wrote:

http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=624501

Want to Lose Weight? Just Eat Less, Diet Study Suggests
Comparison of 4 diet plans finds all produce similar results

Telling folks to eat less is meaningless if they do not know how much
they are eating **and** if no information is given about what is the
optimal amount.

It remains smarter to weigh meals to know how much we are eating and
then to eat less, down to the optimal amount, in order to lose the VAT
thereby curing the insulin resistance (IR/MetS) and possibly receive a
cure for type-2 diabetes:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

Love in the truth,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://T3WiJ.com

On Apr 17, 9:09*pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:
wrote:

http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=624501

Want to Lose Weight? Just Eat Less, Diet Study Suggests
Comparison of 4 diet plans finds all produce similar results

Telling folks to eat less is meaningless if they do not know how much
they are eating **and** if no information is given about what is the
optimal amount.

It remains smarter to weigh meals to know how much we are eating and
then to eat less, down to the optimal amount, in order to lose the VAT
thereby curing the insulin resistance (IR/MetS) and possibly receive a
cure for type-2 diabetes:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

Love in the truth,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologisthttp://T3WiJ.com


There's obviously a lot wrong with this silly study. First, since
among other places, you posted this to a low carb newsgroup, let's
start there. None of the 4 diets assigned were anywhere near LC.
The lowest percent of carbs was 35%, meaning if the caloric intake was
1800 cals a day, they would be consuming 158 grams a day of carb.
Compare that to the most popular LC diet, Atkins, where you would be
starting off at 20g a day and slowly increasing carbs, winding up at
maybe 75 or 100g in maintenance after getting down to goal weight.
Gee, would it have been so hard to just follow one of the actual LC
plans?


Then we have this curious comment by a critic of the study:

"This might not be the end of the debate, however. In an accompanying
editorial, Martijn Katan, a nutrition professor at VU University in
Amsterdam, pointed out that although the researchers had anticipated
that the contents of the diets would vary greatly, the actual
differences in content between the plans averaged just 1 percent or 2
percent."

Given the stated differences in protein, fat, carb that were stated in
the study, I don't see how the above could be, but if this is indeed
true, it brings into question what really was done here. And not
having the full study to read, we don't know.

Finally, it comes as no great surprise that IF you can get people to
stay on a calorie restricted diet of the same caloric content and vary
only the fat/protein/carb ratios slightly, they will have similar
weight loss results. Of course the elephant in the room is that most
people find it impossible to stay on a calorie restricted diet.
Which, for many of us, is the great advantage of LC, in that you don't
walk around hungry all the time, thinking of your next meal. But the
study participants never got to experience that, because there was no
LC group.

Trad Wrote:
There's obviously a lot wrong with this silly study. * First, since
among other places, you posted this to a low carb newsgroup, let's
start there. * None of the 4 diets assigned were anywhere near LC.
The lowest percent of carbs was 35%, meaning if the caloric intake was
1800 cals a day, they would be consuming 158 grams a day of carb.
Compare that to the most popular LC diet, Atkins, where you would be
starting off at 20g a day and slowly increasing carbs, winding up at
maybe 75 or 100g in maintenance after getting down to goal weight.
Gee, would it have been so hard to just follow one of the actual LC
plans?

Reply:
Irrespective of this study, there exist a large body of tightly
controlled experiments that have demonstrated that calories, not diet
compositon, are responsible for weigth gain/loss.

Please note that these studies, unlike the "free living" data that are
often qouted to support the superiour weight loss of low carb diets,
are very expensive metabolic ward studies. We know exactly what and
how much the subject ate. We are Not dependent on the honor systems.
Also these studies are of the cross over type. They compare different
diets on the same people. These have even been demonstarted in
diabetics and subjects with metabolic syndrome.

When the data is collected this way, weight loss is dependent only on
calories. Carbs, fats and protein do not count. Also these studies
have been done with wide variance of macronutrients, from the extremes
of high carb (over 75% to 10%), fat and protein.

Interestingly ketogenic diets perform worse. Subjects lose more
protein on these diets than non-ketogenic types. (I admit ketogenic
might have some benfits for the nervous system, but that's another
topic)

See references below


Trad Wrote:
Then we have this curious comment by a critic of the study:

"This might not be the end of the debate, however. In an accompanying
editorial, Martijn Katan, a nutrition professor at VU University in
Amsterdam, pointed out that although the researchers had anticipated
that the contents of the diets would vary greatly, the actual
differences in content between the plans averaged just 1 percent or 2
percent."

Given the stated differences in protein, fat, carb that were stated in
the study, I don't see how the above could be, but if this is indeed
true, it brings into question what really was done here. * And not
having the full study to read, we don't know.

Reply:
That is indeed interesting, but more info is needed as it stands. If
the Journal truely beleived the article was that incorrect it never
would have been published. I suspect there is more to the story.

Finally, I do agree that higher protein diets are more satiating than
lower protein diets and folks will eat less, but the data indicates
that it's increased protein intake thats responsible for this effect,
not decreased carb consumption.

Also adlib high carb low fat (high fiber) diets have also been shown
to be satiating, even in diabetics. This is not a diet I follow, but
the data does support this.

Regards
Randy



References:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/493991_6
If a password is required, I suggest you join.


The full relevance of some of these studies is contained in the full
papers so the abstracts may seem incomplete.


Here's the metabolic ward studies:


Predictability of weight loss
W. M. Bortz
JAMA. 1968;204:101-105.


Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by
wide
variation in diet composition
http://tinyurl.com/2lxpub



Kinsell LW Calories do count
http://tinyurl.com/38kzx8


Metabolic effects of substituting carbohydrate for protein in a low-
calorie diet: a prolonged study in obese patients.
http://tinyurl.com/38gejt


Metabolic effects of carbohydrate in low-calorie diets.
http://tinyurl.com/2wkonk



Protein metabolism during weight reduction with very-low-energy
diets:
evaluation of the independent effects of protein and carbohydrate on
protein sparing.
http://tinyurl.com/34wl5o


Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets
http://tinyurl.com/2ta9gn




Composition of Weight Lost
during Short-Term Weight Reduction
METABOLIC RESPONSES OF OBESE SUBJECTS TO
STARVATION AND LOW-CALORIE KETOGENIC
AND NONKETOGENIC DIETS

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...1&blobtype=pdf


http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

Composition of weight lost during short-term weight reduction.
Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie
ketogenic and nonketogenic diets.
PMID: 956398











































































Finally, it comes as no great surprise that IF you can get people to
stay on a calorie restricted diet of the same caloric content and vary
only the fat/protein/carb ratios slightly, they will have similar
weight loss results. * Of course the elephant in the room is that most
people find it impossible to stay on a calorie restricted diet.
Which, for many of us, is the great advantage of LC, in that you don't
walk around hungry all the time, thinking of your next meal. * But the
study participants never got to experience that, because there was no
LC group.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

trader4 wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote::
Kurt Wheeling wrote:

http://www.healthday.com/Article.asp?AID=624501

Want to Lose Weight? Just Eat Less, Diet Study Suggests
Comparison of 4 diet plans finds all produce similar results

Telling folks to eat less is meaningless if they do not know how much
they are eating **and** if no information is given about what is the
optimal amount.

It remains smarter to weigh meals to know how much we are eating and
then to eat less, down to the optimal amount, in order to lose the VAT
thereby curing the insulin resistance (IR/MetS) and possibly receive a
cure for type-2 diabetes:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

There's obviously a lot wrong with this silly study. First, since
among other places, you posted this to a low carb newsgroup, let's
start there. None of the 4 diets assigned were anywhere near LC.

It is low-carb compared to what most Americans typically eat.

Would estimate that my usual diet is about 75% carbs and 15% fats and
10% protein because this makes me hungrier (healthier) so that it is
right for me. YMMV as to what makes you hungrier (healthier).

My favorite foods are breads, pasta, fatty fish, and dessert :-)

There is more joy in eating ones favorites :-))

The lowest percent of carbs was 35%, meaning if the caloric intake was
1800 cals a day, they would be consuming 158 grams a day of carb.
Compare that to the most popular LC diet, Atkins, where you would be
starting off at 20g a day and slowly increasing carbs, winding up at
maybe 75 or 100g in maintenance after getting down to goal weight.
Gee, would it have been so hard to just follow one of the actual LC
plans?

There would be less joy.

Then we have this curious comment by a critic of the study:

"This might not be the end of the debate, however. In an accompanying
editorial, Martijn Katan, a nutrition professor at VU University in
Amsterdam, pointed out that although the researchers had anticipated
that the contents of the diets would vary greatly, the actual
differences in content between the plans averaged just 1 percent or 2
percent."

Given the stated differences in protein, fat, carb that were stated in
the study, I don't see how the above could be, but if this is indeed
true, it brings into question what really was done here. And not
having the full study to read, we don't know.

Finally, it comes as no great surprise that IF you can get people to
stay on a calorie restricted diet of the same caloric content and vary
only the fat/protein/carb ratios slightly, they will have similar
weight loss results. Of course the elephant in the room is that most
people find it impossible to stay on a calorie restricted diet.

Not for those of us who know in our hearts that hunger is wonderful
and have been deprogrammed from the cultish brainwashing that hunger
is starvation:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart

As it is written, "know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Truth is simple :-)

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier

Love in the truth,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://EmoryCardiology.com

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Finally, it comes as no great surprise that IF you can get people to
stay on a calorie restricted diet of the same caloric content and vary
only the fat/protein/carb ratios slightly, they will have similar
weight loss results. Of course the elephant in the room is that most
people find it impossible to stay on a calorie restricted diet.

The first fallacy in your argument is that you, or anyone else not
carrying a portable bomb calorimeter, can count cals with any reasonable
degree of accuracy.

Which, for many of us, is the great advantage of LC, in that you don't
walk around hungry all the time, thinking of your next meal. But the
study participants never got to experience that, because there was no
LC group.

Considering the percentages of people who fail on LC, especailly that
quack-fraud Atkins version, it makes no difference that LC was not
included.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:31:45 -0400, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

There's obviously a lot wrong with this silly study. First, since
among other places, you posted this to a low carb newsgroup, let's
start there. None of the 4 diets assigned were anywhere near LC.

It is low-carb compared to what most Americans typically eat.

Would estimate that my usual diet is about 75% carbs and 15% fats and
10% protein because this makes me hungrier (healthier) so that it is
right for me. YMMV as to what makes you hungrier (healthier).

I haven't any clue, my eating habits change so frequently due to travel.

My favorite foods are breads, pasta, fatty fish, and dessert :-)

Pasta, any fish, most raw and cooked vegetables if not overcooked, some
meat mostly chicken, very few desserts, cheeses, and lotsa water.

There is more joy in eating ones favorites :-))

And more success with weight control.

2PD.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MU wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

There's obviously a lot wrong with this silly study. First, since
among other places, you posted this to a low carb newsgroup, let's
start there. None of the 4 diets assigned were anywhere near LC.

It is low-carb compared to what most Americans typically eat.

Would estimate that my usual diet is about 75% carbs and 15% fats and
10% protein because this makes me hungrier (healthier) so that it is
right for me. YMMV as to what makes you hungrier (healthier).

I haven't any clue, my eating habits change so frequently due to travel.

No worries when you know how much you are eating :-)

My favorite foods are breads, pasta, fatty fish, and dessert :-)

Pasta, any fish, most raw and cooked vegetables if not overcooked, some
meat mostly chicken, very few desserts, cheeses, and lotsa water.

There is more joy in eating ones favorites :-))

And more success with weight control.

2PD.

It is the right amount :-)

Love in the truth,

Andrew
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2aafa0aad16eb?

"MU" wrote in message
...

Considering the percentages of people who fail on LC, especailly that
quack-fraud Atkins version, it makes no difference that LC was not
included.

And how many succeed on carrying a scale around all day to make sure they
don't go over 2 lbs? What about what they drink? People can drink hundreds
of calories a day by drinking sugary sodas and other drinks. You're as crazy
as Chung.

How many succeeded on the 2 lbs a day diet? Where is the scientific
evidence it works for everyone from small petite women to tall husky men?
Where are the double blind studies?

On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:23:39 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote:

"MU" wrote in message
...

Considering the percentages of people who fail on LC, especailly that
quack-fraud Atkins version, it makes no difference that LC was not
included.

And how many succeed on carrying a scale around all day to make sure they
don't go over 2 lbs?

Many.

What about what they drink? People can drink hundreds
of calories a day by drinking sugary sodas and other drinks.

Clue coming, get your pen out an write it down.

No more answers until you read the 2PD for if you had, you wouldn't ask
such ridiculous questions.

You're as crazy
as Chung.

How many succeeded on the 2 lbs a day diet? Where is the scientific
evidence it works for everyone from small petite women to tall husky men?
Where are the double blind studies?

Asked and answered.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

On 2009-05-04, L.B. Listmann wrote:

"MU" wrote in message
...

Considering the percentages of people who fail on LC, especailly that
quack-fraud Atkins version, it makes no difference that LC was not
included.

And how many succeed on carrying a scale around all day to make sure they
don't go over 2 lbs?

I don't think that's the idea. The idea is to prepare the food in advance; i.e.
assemble everything you are going to eat in one day, and weigh it all at once.

The people clearly targetted by this diet fall into two categories: those who
have very little self-discipline, and tend to fall of the wagon in the face of
any daily inconvenience, and those who have no accountability in their eating
(the ``eat and forget'') types.

The former group would probably not stick for very long with a diet that
required them to carry a scale around. The second group would likely face
insurmountable challenges from any approach which allowed them to eat randomly
and keep track of it.

What about what they drink? People can drink hundreds
of calories a day by drinking sugary sodas and other drinks.

Anything which contains energy would have to be weighed, with its water content
and all. So you'd obviously have to think twice about sugary crap, the
inclusion of which would consume your two pound allotment rather quickly.

Obviously you can drink on this diet, but if the drink has calories, it must
come from the pre-measured parcel of food. Otherwise it has to be something
with zero, or negligible energy content: water, tea, black coffee, etc. If you
want to enjoy juice, milk, pop, beer, etc. it has to be included in the
weighing.