Diet Alone - Unlikely Leads to Significant Weight Loss

A primate study, 18 female rhesus macaque monkey - on a high-fat diet
for several years - then returned to a lower-fat diet (standard monkey
food) with a 30 percent reduction in calories. During the next month of
observation - no weight loss, but a decline in activity. Further
reduction of food calories in the following month resulted in even less
physical activity.

Three monkeys on a normal diet were trained exercise 1 hour daily, and
these treadmill exercising monkeys did loose weight.

Much of this sounds familiar to readers of Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad
Calories". I went from 240 pounds to 175 pounds following a summer of
Low Carb plus about 1,000 miles of bicycling in 2004.


Science News

Diet Alone Will Not Likely Lead to Significant Weight Loss, Study
Suggests

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2010) — Newly published research by scientists at
Oregon Health & Science University demonstrates that simply reducing
caloric intake is not enough to promote significant weight loss. This
appears to be due to a natural compensatory mechanism that reduces a
person's physical activity in response to a reduction in calories.

The research is published in the April edition of the American Journal
of Physiology -- Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

"In the midst of America's obesity epidemic, physicians frequently
advise their patients to reduce the number of calories they are
consuming on a daily basis. This research shows that simply dieting will
not likely cause substantial weight loss. Instead, diet and exercise
must be combined to achieve this goal," explained Judy Cameron Ph.D., a
senior scientist at OHSU's Oregon National Primate Research Center, and
a professor of behavioral neuroscience and obstetrics & gynecology in
the OHSU School of Medicine, as well as a professor of psychiatry at the
University of Pittsburgh.

To conduct the research, Cameron and OHSU post-doctoral fellow Elinor
Sullivan, Ph.D., studied 18 female rhesus macaque monkeys at the Oregon
National Primate Research Center. The monkeys were placed on a high-fat
diet for several years. They were then returned to a lower-fat diet
(standard monkey food) with a 30 percent reduction in calories. For a
one-month period, the monkeys' weight and activity levels were closely
tracked. Activity was tracked through the use of an activity monitor
worn on a collar.

"Surprisingly, there was no significant weight loss at the end of the
month," explained Sullivan. "However, there was a significant change in
the activity levels for these monkeys. Naturally occurring levels of
physical activity for the animals began to diminish soon after the
reduced-calorie diet began. When caloric intake was further reduced in a
second month, physical activity in the monkeys diminished even further."

A comparison group of three monkeys was fed a normal monkey diet and was
trained to exercise for one hour daily on a treadmill. This comparison
group did lose weight.

"This study demonstrates that there is a natural body mechanism which
conserves energy in response to a reduction in calories. Food is not
always plentiful for humans and animals and the body seems to have
developed a strategy for responding to these fluctuations," added
Cameron. "These findings will assist medical professionals in advising
their patients. It may also impact the development of community
interventions to battle the childhood obesity epidemic and lead to
programs that emphasize both diet and exercise."

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.


Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by Oregon Health & Science
University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

1. Sullivan et al. A rapidly occurring compensatory decrease in
physical activity counteracts diet-induced weight loss in female
monkeys. AJP Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 2010;
298 (4): R1068 DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

On Apr 14, 9:39*am, pamela wrote:
A primate study, 18 female rhesus macaque monkey - on a high-fat diet
for several years - then returned to a lower-fat diet (standard monkey
food) with a 30 percent reduction in calories. During the next month of
observation - no weight loss, but a decline in activity. Further
reduction of food calories in the following month resulted in even less
physical activity.

Three monkeys on a normal diet were trained exercise 1 hour daily, and
these treadmill exercising monkeys did loose weight.

Much of this sounds familiar to readers of Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad
Calories". *I went from 240 pounds to 175 pounds following a summer of
Low Carb plus about 1,000 miles of bicycling in 2004.

Science News

Diet Alone Will Not Likely Lead to Significant Weight Loss, Study
Suggests

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2010) — Newly published research by scientists at
Oregon Health & Science University demonstrates that simply reducing
caloric intake is not enough to promote significant weight loss. This
appears to be due to a natural compensatory mechanism that reduces a
person's physical activity in response to a reduction in calories.

The research is published in the April edition of the American Journal
of Physiology -- Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

"In the midst of America's obesity epidemic, physicians frequently
advise their patients to reduce the number of calories they are
consuming on a daily basis. This research shows that simply dieting will
not likely cause substantial weight loss. Instead, diet and exercise
must be combined to achieve this goal," explained Judy Cameron Ph.D., a
senior scientist at OHSU's Oregon National Primate Research Center, and
a professor of behavioral neuroscience and obstetrics & gynecology in
the OHSU School of Medicine, as well as a professor of psychiatry at the
University of Pittsburgh.

To conduct the research, Cameron and OHSU post-doctoral fellow Elinor
Sullivan, Ph.D., studied 18 female rhesus macaque monkeys at the Oregon
National Primate Research Center. The monkeys were placed on a high-fat
diet for several years. They were then returned to a lower-fat diet
(standard monkey food) with a 30 percent reduction in calories. For a
one-month period, the monkeys' weight and activity levels were closely
tracked. Activity was tracked through the use of an activity monitor
worn on a collar.

"Surprisingly, there was no significant weight loss at the end of the
month," explained Sullivan. "However, there was a significant change in
the activity levels for these monkeys. Naturally occurring levels of
physical activity for the animals began to diminish soon after the
reduced-calorie diet began. When caloric intake was further reduced in a
second month, physical activity in the monkeys diminished even further."

A comparison group of three monkeys was fed a normal monkey diet and was
trained to exercise for one hour daily on a treadmill. This comparison
group did lose weight.

"This study demonstrates that there is a natural body mechanism which
conserves energy in response to a reduction in calories. Food is not
always plentiful for humans and animals and the body seems to have
developed a strategy for responding to these fluctuations," added
Cameron. "These findings will assist medical professionals in advising
their patients. It may also impact the development of community
interventions to battle the childhood obesity epidemic and lead to
programs that emphasize both diet and exercise."

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Story Source:

* * *Adapted from materials provided by Oregon Health & Science
University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

* * 1. Sullivan et al. A rapidly occurring compensatory decrease in
physical activity counteracts diet-induced weight loss in female
monkeys. AJP Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 2010;
298 (4): R1068 DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

The title should be changed from "Diet alone..." to "REDUCTION OF
CALORIES alone..."

Here is a definiton of diet:

"A special or limited selection of food and drink, chosen or
prescribed to promote health or a gain or loss of weight"

That definition is not about cutting food intake, but of WHAT you put
in your body. For my part, I keep notes of my calorie intake only for
future studies. I've been on low-carb diet for a few days (mostly
fish, chicken, almonds, pumpkin seeds, natural peanut butter) and shed
8 pounds in 5 days.

In article ,
pamela wrote:

Thanks for the study. If nothing else, it reaffirms by beliefs based on
what I've read. I lost 30 lbs about 9 months ago, with low carb, but I
seem to have hit a plateau. Damn, I may get desperate enough to
exercise;O)
A primate study, 18 female rhesus macaque monkey - on a high-fat diet
for several years - then returned to a lower-fat diet (standard monkey
food) with a 30 percent reduction in calories. During the next month of
observation - no weight loss, but a decline in activity. Further
reduction of food calories in the following month resulted in even less
physical activity.

Three monkeys on a normal diet were trained exercise 1 hour daily, and
these treadmill exercising monkeys did loose weight.

Much of this sounds familiar to readers of Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad
Calories". I went from 240 pounds to 175 pounds following a summer of
Low Carb plus about 1,000 miles of bicycling in 2004.


Science News

Diet Alone Will Not Likely Lead to Significant Weight Loss, Study
Suggests

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2010) ‹ Newly published research by scientists at
Oregon Health & Science University demonstrates that simply reducing
caloric intake is not enough to promote significant weight loss. This
appears to be due to a natural compensatory mechanism that reduces a
person's physical activity in response to a reduction in calories.

The research is published in the April edition of the American Journal
of Physiology -- Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

"In the midst of America's obesity epidemic, physicians frequently
advise their patients to reduce the number of calories they are
consuming on a daily basis. This research shows that simply dieting will
not likely cause substantial weight loss. Instead, diet and exercise
must be combined to achieve this goal," explained Judy Cameron Ph.D., a
senior scientist at OHSU's Oregon National Primate Research Center, and
a professor of behavioral neuroscience and obstetrics & gynecology in
the OHSU School of Medicine, as well as a professor of psychiatry at the
University of Pittsburgh.

To conduct the research, Cameron and OHSU post-doctoral fellow Elinor
Sullivan, Ph.D., studied 18 female rhesus macaque monkeys at the Oregon
National Primate Research Center. The monkeys were placed on a high-fat
diet for several years. They were then returned to a lower-fat diet
(standard monkey food) with a 30 percent reduction in calories. For a
one-month period, the monkeys' weight and activity levels were closely
tracked. Activity was tracked through the use of an activity monitor
worn on a collar.

"Surprisingly, there was no significant weight loss at the end of the
month," explained Sullivan. "However, there was a significant change in
the activity levels for these monkeys. Naturally occurring levels of
physical activity for the animals began to diminish soon after the
reduced-calorie diet began. When caloric intake was further reduced in a
second month, physical activity in the monkeys diminished even further."

A comparison group of three monkeys was fed a normal monkey diet and was
trained to exercise for one hour daily on a treadmill. This comparison
group did lose weight.

"This study demonstrates that there is a natural body mechanism which
conserves energy in response to a reduction in calories. Food is not
always plentiful for humans and animals and the body seems to have
developed a strategy for responding to these fluctuations," added
Cameron. "These findings will assist medical professionals in advising
their patients. It may also impact the development of community
interventions to battle the childhood obesity epidemic and lead to
programs that emphasize both diet and exercise."

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.


Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by Oregon Health & Science
University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Journal Reference:

1. Sullivan et al. A rapidly occurring compensatory decrease in
physical activity counteracts diet-induced weight loss in female
monkeys. AJP Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 2010;
298 (4): R1068 DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

wrote:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

The title should be changed from "Diet alone..." to "REDUCTION OF
CALORIES alone..."

There's a bit more to it than that. The test monkeys when from a medium
calorie high fat diet to a low calorie low fat diet without losing. It
was not the first study to compare those two strategies. That's been
done with humans as well. The mixture of fuels matters in addition to
the total energy of the fuel.

For my part, I keep notes of my calorie intake only for
future studies. I've been on low-carb diet for a few days (mostly
fish, chicken, almonds, pumpkin seeds, natural peanut butter) and shed
8 pounds in 5 days.

In another post you wrote that you went from 195 to 170 in 45 days. I
take it that was a different attempt or that was on a slightly different
food list so you reset your starting date?

I hope you also ate veggies. The foods you listed are meats and
meat-like substitutes. Nuts, seeds and legumes do count technically as
veggies rather like cucumbers count technically as fruit. There status
is more of a technicality than a generally accepted categorization.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

His story is starting to wander. I think it's time to bring out the
bright light and the rubber hose, if we want to get the truth, if anyone
cares.

wrote:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00617.2009

The title should be changed from "Diet alone..." to "REDUCTION OF
CALORIES alone..."

There's a bit more to it than that. The test monkeys when from a medium
calorie high fat diet to a low calorie low fat diet without losing. It
was not the first study to compare those two strategies. That's been
done with humans as well. The mixture of fuels matters in addition to
the total energy of the fuel.

For my part, I keep notes of my calorie intake only for
future studies. I've been on low-carb diet for a few days (mostly
fish, chicken, almonds, pumpkin seeds, natural peanut butter) and shed
8 pounds in 5 days.

In another post you wrote that you went from 195 to 170 in 45 days. I
take it that was a different attempt or that was on a slightly different
food list so you reset your starting date?

I hope you also ate veggies. The foods you listed are meats and
meat-like substitutes. Nuts, seeds and legumes do count technically as
veggies rather like cucumbers count technically as fruit. There status
is more of a technicality than a generally accepted categorization.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

On Apr 14, 3:07*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:

In another post you wrote that you went from 195 to 170 in 45 days. *I
take it that was a different attempt or that was on a slightly different
food list so you reset your starting date?

I hope you also ate veggies. *The foods you listed are meats and
meat-like substitutes. *Nuts, seeds and legumes do count technically as
veggies rather like cucumbers count technically as fruit. *There status
is more of a technicality than a generally accepted categorization.

Yes, the 195 to 170 was one or two years ago, and I lost 8 pounds in 5
days in the last week.

I resume my veggie intake. I had enough of these nuts and meat and did
not care for anything else. I had a mix of a can of tuna with a can of
green beans, and I had to force myself to eat these 250 calories. Then
I becom a bit worried about not having fresh veggies and fruits. I had
a banana today with natural, not salted peanut butter. It's a
wonderful mix of tastes. I know banana are high in carbs, but they do
provide potassium and have fibers. That's all I had for carbs today,
anyway.

On Apr 14, 4:43*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,
*Doug Freyburger wrote:

His story is starting to wander. I think it's time to bring out the
bright light and the rubber hose, if we want to get the truth, if anyone
cares.

Nothing sinister. I was referring to two distinct periods. Go back to
my posts I wrote through the years, and you'll see enjoyed the lows of
168 pounds and the sadness of the 197 pounds. I've been on and off my
several weight-management programs. Now I hope I'll stay on the right
track. I thank Doug for always been there for me through the years. He
always replied to my questions and help me. Free of charge, I should
say.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3l...inn_page.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

I hope you also ate veggies. *The foods you listed are meats and
meat-like substitutes. *Nuts, seeds and legumes do count technically as
veggies rather like cucumbers count technically as fruit. *There status
is more of a technicality than a generally accepted categorization.

I resume my veggie intake. I had enough of these nuts and meat and did
not care for anything else. I had a mix of a can of tuna with a can of
green beans,

Green beans are good and low carb, but they tend to get boring.
Variety.

and I had to force myself to eat these 250 calories.

I think you and I decide "force myself" differently. To me that's when
I am so full I feel sick so the food is pushed down against a gag. It
looks like to you that's when you aren't hungry but you eat anyways.

To me "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" so I would
rather eat while not hungry than eat while hungry. If I'm not hungry I
have better control so my total portions end up lower.

Then
I becom a bit worried about not having fresh veggies and fruits. I had
a banana today with natural, not salted peanut butter. It's a
wonderful mix of tastes. I know banana are high in carbs, but they do
provide potassium and have fibers. That's all I had for carbs today,
anyway.

A fraction of a banana. A large portion of cauliflower. An amount of
lettuce so big I can't finish it. All the same carb count. Just saying
....

wrote:
Billy wrote:

I think it's time to bring out the bright light and the rubber hose

Nothing sinister.

Drat. I was so looking forward to the rubber hose. The entire latex
outfit for that matter. Spot light, dancing pole, loud cheesy music,
latex outfit. Oh wait. Michael not Michelle. Never mind.

Must be the other meaning for it. You ate a legume in week 4? Whack!

On Apr 15, 2:47*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:
Billy wrote:

I think it's time to bring out the bright light and the rubber hose

Nothing sinister.

Drat. *I was so looking forward to the rubber hose. *The entire latex
outfit for that matter. *Spot light, dancing pole, loud cheesy music,
latex outfit. *Oh wait. Michael not Michelle. Never mind.

Must be the other meaning for it. *You ate a legume in week 4? *Whack!

I hope I can continue getting your full support.