A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Fat Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 18th, 2004, 12:02 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...RB18/TPHealth/
------------------------------------------------------------
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
After one year, weight-loss on the two diet regimes was about the
same, researchers find

By ANDRÉ PICARD
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER
Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - Page A17

Over a six-month period, low-carb diets like Atkins and South Beach
result in greater weight-loss than traditional low-fat diets, but by
one year, the results are about the same for each regime, according to
two new studies.

While the research is, by no means, the final word in the fierce diet
debate, it will no doubt provide a boost to the immensely popular but
much disparaged proponents of low-carbohydrate weight-loss.

Even Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at
Harvard University and one of the world's foremost nutritional
experts, said that, based on the new research, "We can no longer
dismiss very-low-carbohydrate diets." He stressed, however, that this
should not be taken as an endorsement.

Rather, Dr. Willett said, the message to retain is that people who are
overweight should "experiment with various methods of weight control"
to find the one that works best for them and "find ways to eat [that]
they can maintain indefinitely rather than seeking diets that promote
rapid weight-loss."

Dr. Willett, the author of Eat, Drink and Be Healthy, is a proponent
of a Mediterranean-style diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables,
fish and nuts. He believes people should consume healthy fats and
healthy carbs, and avoid refined sugars, flours and other processed
foods.

The new studies, published in today's edition of the Annals of
Internal Medicine, are the first to compare low-carb and low-fat
approaches to dieting head-to-head for a period of up to 12 months.

The first study, conducted by researchers at Duke University in
Durham, N.C., followed 120 healthy, moderately obese people over a
six-month period. During that time, average body weight dropped by 12
kilograms in the low-carb group, compared to 6.5 kilograms in the
low-fat group.

The low-carb dieters also saw greater improvements in their blood
lipids (markers for heart-disease risk), notably lower triglycerides
and higher high-density lipoproteins (good cholesterol). However, two
people in the low-carb group dropped out of the study because their
low-density lipoprotein (bad cholesterol) rose sharply and, overall,
they reported more bad reactions (such as constipation, diarrhea and
general weakness) than the low-fat group.

The second study, conducted at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in
Philadelphia, followed 132 severely obese adults for one year. At
six-months, the low-carb group had lost more weight than the low-fat
group.

But, afterward, weight stabilized for the low-carb group, while it
continued to drop for the low-fat group.

By the one-year mark, both diets had virtually identical results, with
the low-carb dieters having lost 5.1 to 8.7 kilos, and the low-fat
group 3.1 to 8.4 kilos.

In the end, however, the low-carb dieters had better lipid readings,
particularly triglycerides and HDL cholesterol.

Linda Stern, an internist at the VA hospital and lead author of the
study, cautioned that "more research is needed to see if a
low-carbohydrate diet remains safe and effective for the longer term."

But she said the ability of people on low-carb diets to drop weight
quickly and keep that weight off was impressive, and may be a good
choice for many people.

"I think a low-carbohydrate diet is a good choice because much of our
overeating has to do with consumption of too many carbohydrates," she
said.

Gord Brethour, a retired General Motors worker who lives in Brighton,
Ont., said he was not too surprised by the new research but,
ultimately, what matters to him is practical results, not research
findings.

"You can make the numbers say whatever you want in these studies, but
the numbers on my scale don't lie," he said.

Mr. Brethour started on the South Beach diet, a low-carb regime, in
February, and since then he has lost more than 15 kilos. His doctor
has also cut the dose of his blood-pressure medication by half.

"For me, South Beach has been a success. The diets I tried before
weren't a success because I felt I was starving myself to death," he
said. Prior to taking the low-carb route, Mr. Brethour had tried three
low-fat diets, a grapefruit diet, an oat-bran diet and the Slim-Fast
plan.

Low-carb diets restrict grains, pastas, starchy vegetables, including
potatoes, and refined sugars. Mr. Brethour said that at first, he
missed staples such as potatoes and pasta, but has quickly come to
enjoy the alternatives -- fresh vegetables, beans and legumes.

"In my garden this year, I'm planting Swiss chard and spinach instead
of potatoes," he said.

An estimated one in nine adults in North America is on a low-carb
diet, and twice as many again are planning to go the low-carb route in
the coming two years, according to a recent survey.

The new research shows that one of the difficulties in judging the
effectiveness of diets, whether low-carb or low-fat, is that many
people have trouble sticking to them. In both studies, the dropout
rate was as high as 43 per cent over six months.

Mr. Brethour said he is conscious of this pitfall, but is convinced he
can keep the weight off permanently.

"I've had to change my whole style of eating. This isn't short-term
for me. I'll stick to a version of this diet permanently."

Duelling diets

Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year*

Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb

Dieters at start................................68........... .64

Still on diet at one year.......................43.............44

Weight loss..........................3.1-8.4 kilos....5.1-8.7 kilos

Dietary intakes (numbers indicate deviations from the average diet)

Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510

Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11

Carbs - grams daily.........................-22...........-131

Fat - grams daily.............................-6............+22

Fiber - grams daily...........................-1..............-5

Saturated fat - grams daily..................-4..............-2

Dietary cholesterol - grams daily..........-26............+88

Sodium - daily micrograms...............+451............-633

Average blood pressure................132/77..........139/82

Blood lipids (numbers indicate deviations from the average person)

Triglycerides - mmol/L..................+0.05...........-0.65

Cholesterol - mmol/L.....................-0.21..........+0.16

(Good cholesterol) HDL - mmol/L.....-0.13..........-0.03

(Bad cholesterol) LDL - mmol/L......-0.10..........+0.18

-*Based on a study of 132 obese adults, only 87 of whom stuck to the
diet for a full year.

SOURCE: ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
  #2  
Old May 18th, 2004, 12:26 PM
Mirek Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Now these numbers are really really interesting:!

Dietary intakes (numbers indicate deviations from the average diet)


LF
LC

Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510


!!!!

Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11


!!!! High protein diet, indeed....

Saturated fat - grams daily..................-4..............-2


!!!! Diet high in saturated fat, sure...

Sodium - daily micrograms...............+451............-633


!!!! Diet high in sodium, of course...

What a pity they have not traced hydrogenated fats too...

Mirek


  #3  
Old May 18th, 2004, 01:49 PM
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find


"Ignoramus13397" wrote in message
...
Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year*
Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb
Dieters at start................................68........... .64
Still on diet at one year.......................43.............44
Weight loss..........................3.1-8.4 kilos....5.1-8.7 kilos
Dietary intakes (numbers indicate deviations from the average diet)
Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510
Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11


I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.


Did you read it wrong? I think it states the low-carb dieters ate +7 grams
more than the average diet and the low-fat dieters ate -11 grams below the
average.





Also, low fat and low carb diets are not opposites of one another, and
they both restrict most of junk food.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);
}
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."



  #4  
Old May 18th, 2004, 02:05 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Ignoramus13397 wrote:
I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.


There are high protien, low fat foods. There are low carb/high fat
foods that are low protien.

Steve


--
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
on television or bought in a shopping mall"
  #5  
Old May 18th, 2004, 02:24 PM
Jackie Patti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Ignoramus13397 wrote:

I removed extraneous lines to make sure you see which column is titled
low carb and which column is titled low fat. Apparently, low fat
dieters eat more protein and low carb dieters eat less protein.

This is counterintuitive as most protein comes packaged with
fat. Think most meats, most fish, eggs, cheese, milk, etc.

Protein without fat is more of an exception than the rule.


It seems that low-carbers ate 500 less calories per day though, likely
due to the appetite-supressant effcts of a ketogenic diet. It's hard to
say though, there just isn't enough information about what constitutes
low-fat or low-carb in this study.

But it doesn't surprise me *too* much if low-fat dieters ate more
protein since they ate more overall. They'd choose chicken breasts over
hamburger, but hunger on a low-fat diet could push the numbers up.

Also... I buy the groceries here - and I don't buy more meat since I
began doing low-carb. Surprisingly enough, I buy a whole heck of a lot
less bacon than I used to. I buy a lot less hamburger too. I don't
*limit* meat in any way, I just seem to buy less of it.

Contrary to the stereotypes of a low-carb diet, our familial dairy and
vegetable intake has increased, but our meat intake has actually
decreased. Given that I'm the only one who specifically changed diets
here, I assume that difference in grocery shopping is due to me
low-carbing.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

  #6  
Old May 18th, 2004, 02:46 PM
Crafting Mom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Steve wrote:

Ignoramus13397 wrote:
I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.


There are high protien, low fat foods. There are low carb/high fat
foods that are low protien.


Exactly. And, low-fat protein (albacore tuna, for instance) can be quite
filling. Low fat dieters, like low-carb dieters, also seek foods that they
can eat in small quantities and yet feel satisfied.

As a low-carb dieter I find I do *not* eat "more protein", contrary to
popular myth. There may be the few who get caught in the act by the media
(that silly couple who pigged out on roast beef at the buffet restaurant
for example), but that is entirely their actions, and it is certainly not
definitive of the low-carb diet. Increasing protein is *not* a requirement
of a low-carb diet. My fat intake, however, has increased, because I enjoy
olive oil and good fats accompanying my food. Also, my intake of
low-starch vegetables, greens, etc, has increased dramatically.

YMMV
--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.
  #7  
Old May 18th, 2004, 03:10 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Ignoramus13397 wrote:

In article , Steve wrote:

Ignoramus13397 wrote:

I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.


There are high protien, low fat foods.



well, sure, just not very many. Some lean fish, chicken breast, and
some very lean meats, but it is not that much compared to high
fat/high protein food.


Most legumes( dozens of legumes, dozens of recipies ), low fat cottage
cheese, low fat yogurt, skim milk, along with what you mention that is
quite a variety.

Many vegtables also have more protien per calorie then just about
anything else and they are low in fat. He he, the trick is being able
to eat a sufficent number of calories with them, like with spinach.

There are low carb/high fat foods that are low protien.




sure, like butter or lard or oils...


ice cream, cookies, cakes, coconut, avodcados, many sauces, and all of
the recipes, oils, butters etc are used in.

Steve

--
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/

"The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
on television or bought in a shopping mall"
  #8  
Old May 18th, 2004, 06:54 PM
FOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Mmmmmmmm, butter.

In ,
Ignoramus13397 stated
|
|| There are low carb/high fat foods that are low protien.
|
|
| sure, like butter or lard or oils...
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
|
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
| "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."


  #9  
Old May 18th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Ignoramus13397 wrote:

I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.


The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting
work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh.

"Find it impossible" is irrelevant. "Contray to intuition" is
irrelevant. Measured observed facts are exactly that, measured,
observed, facts. Are you saying the studies lie in stated
facts? Or are you actually saying your intuition leads you
down the worng road? Check, wrong road.

All this shows is what non-low-carbers wildly dream that
low-carbers eat is a wild dream. And for that matter it shows
that low-fatters eat more than many think.

Low carbing causes appetite suppression in most people. It's the
greatest advantage low carb has going for it. It explains most
of the rest of the numbers. Lower appetite, less drive to eat
more food. Fat tends to reduce appetite and carbs tend to
increase appetite, so low carbers tend to eat less.

It's interesting that by month six, there was little different
between low fat and low carb. Some will have reached goal and
once at goal it no longer matters how you got there you will
stay the same weight. I wonder how much difference that made.
I do know that the metabolic advantage of ketosis gets less and
less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened
on low fat.
  #10  
Old May 18th, 2004, 07:03 PM
Mirek Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find


"Ignoramus13397" píše v diskusním
příspěvku ...
Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year*
Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb
Dieters at start................................68........... .64
Still on diet at one year.......................43.............44
Weight loss..........................3.1-8.4 kilos....5.1-8.7 kilos
Dietary intakes (numbers indicate deviations from the average diet)
Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510
Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11


I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low
carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition
suggests.


What a pity they did not traced protein sources too, and that way
protein quality. I suppose one might find that low-fat dieters ate more
protein (because protein is present in many high-carb meals like rice
and grains), but less complete protein.

Mirek


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Something new MOM PEAGRAM Weightwatchers 7 June 13th, 2004 01:35 AM
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find Steve General Discussion 50 May 31st, 2004 05:44 AM
Low Carb intelligence vs. low carb STUPIDITY Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 February 5th, 2004 01:12 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
The First and Only Low Carb Cafe In The Country Will Open in Beverly Hills, CA This January Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 7th, 2004 02:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.