If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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 - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
"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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Comparison of 4 diet plans: all produce similar results
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
diet plans and tips | cntrlalttab | General Discussion | 0 | March 31st, 2009 05:46 AM |
Diet Plans Reviewed | Diet Plans Reviewed | General Discussion | 0 | January 23rd, 2008 01:25 AM |
Diet Meal Plans | sirch | General Discussion | 8 | December 14th, 2006 05:31 PM |
Switching diet plans | Lilith79 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | February 6th, 2005 03:08 AM |
Scale comparison results... | RT | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 20th, 2004 03:07 PM |