Interesting Study

I only wish they were more descriptive as to exactly what they ate in each
diet. Comments?

Comparison of 4 diets of varying glycemic load on weight loss and
cardiovascular risk reduction in overweight and obese young adults: a
randomized controlled trial.

McMillan-Price J, Petocz P, Atkinson F, O'neill K, Samman S, Steinbeck K,
Caterson I, Brand-Miller J.

Human Nutrition Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Despite the popularity of low-glycemic index (GI) and
high-protein diets, to our knowledge no randomized, controlled trials have
systematically compared their relative effects on weight loss and
cardiovascular risk. METHODS: A total of 129 overweight or obese young
adults (body mass index, or =25 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided
by the square of height in meters]) were assigned to 1 of 4 reduced-fat,
high-fiber diets for 12 weeks. Diets 1 and 2 were high carbohydrate (55% of
total energy intake), with high and low GIs, respectively; diets 3 and 4 were
high protein (25% of total energy intake), with high and low GIs, respectively.
The glycemic load was highest in diet 1 and lowest in diet 4. Changes in
weight, body composition, and blood chemistry profile were studied.
RESULTS: While all groups lost a similar mean +/- SE percentage of weight
(diet 1, -4.2% +/- 0.6%; diet 2, -5.5% +/- 0.5%; diet 3, -6.2% +/- 0.4%; and diet 4,
-4.8% +/- 0.7%; P = .09), the proportion of subjects in each group who lost 5%
or more of body weight varied significantly by diet (diet 1, 31%; diet 2, 56%;
diet 3, 66%; and diet 4, 33%; P = .01). Women on diets 2 and 3 lost
approximately 80% more fat mass (-4.5 +/- 0.5 [mean +/- SE] kg and -4.6 +/-
0.5 kg) than those on diet 1 (-2.5 +/- 0.5 kg; P = .007). Mean +/- SE
low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels declined significantly in the diet 2
group (-6.6 +/- 3.9 mg/dL [-0.17 +/- 0.10 mmol/L]) but increased in the diet 3
group (+10.0 +/- 3.9 mg/dL [+0.26 +/- 0.10 mmol/L]; P = .02). Goals for energy
distribution were not achieved exactly: both carbohydrate groups ate less fat,
and the diet 2 group ate more fiber. CONCLUSION: Both high-protein and
low-GI regimens increase body fat loss, but cardiovascular risk reduction is
optimized by a high-carbohydrate, low-GI diet.

"Armand" wrote in message
...
I only wish they were more descriptive as to exactly what they ate in each
diet. Comments?

I agree, it's difficult to draw any conclusions because we really can't tell
from this abstract what they were doing. How many calories, for instance?

I'd note in particular that none of these diets appear to correspond to a
"traditional" low carb diet, such as Atkins or Eades recommend. Keeping fat
low (or "reduced") necessitates raising either carb or protein levels, and
neither is a particularly good strategy for keeping insulin levels low.
Because fat percentage wasn't indicated it's impossible to tell what the
actual macronutrient % was.

Also, I note that subjects were obese young adults. I think that one of the
particular advantages of low carb diets is how they tend to reduce appetite
and insulin levels, allowing weight loss to occur, in people who have become
insulin resistant. You'd therefore expect to see a more pronounced
difference between diet types, on average, in older subjects, because
insulin resistance tends to develop and increase with age.

I can't really see much more than that here.

HG

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:20:02 -0400, Hannah Gruen
wrote:

"Armand" wrote in message
...
I only wish they were more descriptive as to exactly what they ate in
each
diet. Comments?

I agree, it's difficult to draw any conclusions because we really can't
tell
from this abstract what they were doing. How many calories, for instance?

I'd note in particular that none of these diets appear to correspond to a
"traditional" low carb diet, such as Atkins or Eades recommend. Keeping
fat
low (or "reduced") necessitates raising either carb or protein levels,
and
neither is a particularly good strategy for keeping insulin levels low.
Because fat percentage wasn't indicated it's impossible to tell what the
actual macronutrient % was.

Also, I note that subjects were obese young adults. I think that one of
the
particular advantages of low carb diets is how they tend to reduce
appetite
and insulin levels, allowing weight loss to occur, in people who have
become
insulin resistant. You'd therefore expect to see a more pronounced
difference between diet types, on average, in older subjects, because
insulin resistance tends to develop and increase with age.

I can't really see much more than that here.

HG



LDL has never been conclusively shown to increase heart disease risk(*).
Therefore, that someone raised or lowered LDL based on one diet or another
is completely meaningless.

(*) For instance, people given fish oil supplements had LDL increases yet
lower CHD risk.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:20:02 -0400, Hannah Gruen
wrote:



LDL has never been conclusively shown to increase heart disease risk(*).
Therefore, that someone raised or lowered LDL based on one diet or another
is completely meaningless.

(*) For instance, people given fish oil supplements had LDL increases yet
lower CHD risk.

--
Bob in CT

Haven't there been a number of studies and posts on the subject of low
fat / low carb diet and cholesterol numbers?

If I remember correctly it has been shown many times that a low fat
diet will lower both LDL and total cholesterol, but that the HDL/LDL
ratio, which is considered to be a better indicator of cardiovascular
risk, is generally worse in the low fat diets compared to a low
carbohydrate diet.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:18:36 -0400, Noway2 wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:20:02 -0400, Hannah Gruen
wrote:



LDL has never been conclusively shown to increase heart disease risk(*).
Therefore, that someone raised or lowered LDL based on one diet or
another
is completely meaningless.

(*) For instance, people given fish oil supplements had LDL increases
yet
lower CHD risk.

--
Bob in CT

Haven't there been a number of studies and posts on the subject of low
fat / low carb diet and cholesterol numbers?

If I remember correctly it has been shown many times that a low fat
diet will lower both LDL and total cholesterol, but that the HDL/LDL
ratio, which is considered to be a better indicator of cardiovascular
risk, is generally worse in the low fat diets compared to a low
carbohydrate diet.


It depends. Low carb can increase the HDL/LDL ratio, but there are some
who believe the ratio is a meaningless number. See, eg:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...666215?ie=UTF8

In this book, the author skewers the whole "good" hdl and "bad" ldl
hypothesis.

See also:

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...tE&keytype=ref

Where the author argues that high cholesterol may protect against
infections and atherosclerosis.

--
Bob in CT

"Bob in CT" wrote in message

See also:

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...tE&keytype=ref

Where the author argues that high cholesterol may protect against
infections and atherosclerosis.

Thanks for posting this link, Bob. Very interesting.

Sort of related, I think I've posted about this before. Years ago, like many
of us, I tried the Pritikin/Ornish very low fat high carb diets for weight
loss. I did lose some weight, temporarily, but did not feel good. Besides
worsened arthritis, I got sick a LOT... I mean *really* a lot. I got every
stomach flu that came by, every cold and flu. And when I got colds they
would move into bronchitis and hang on for weeks and weeks. But on even
moderately low-carb, as I am now, I very rarely get sick at all. When I do,
it seems to be quite mild.

I really think that a lower carb diet tends to enhance immune system
function. Oh, I remember I posted an article by Ron Rosedale on this subject
some months back. Very good stuff on possible mechanism for high carb
depressing immune system functioning. Googling the group for "Ron Rosedale"
should turn it up.

HG

Marengo wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:22:35 -0400, "Hannah Gruen" I tried the
Pritikin/Ornish very low fat high carb diets for weight
|loss. I did lose some weight, temporarily, but did not feel good. Besides
|worsened arthritis, I got sick a LOT... I mean *really* a lot. I got every
|stomach flu that came by, every cold and flu. And when I got colds they
|would move into bronchitis and hang on for weeks and weeks. But on even
|moderately low-carb, as I am now, I very rarely get sick at all. When I do,
|it seems to be quite mild.
|
|I really think that a lower carb diet tends to enhance immune system
|function.
|HG

I find the same thing; I rarely get sick when I stick to low carb. But
I had attributed it to the nutritional supplements that I take along
with it -- garlic, B complex, zinc, fish oil, vitamin C, CoQ10, and
others.

That has been my experience too. A few years back, when I was very
strick in my LC regimine I never got sick (for almost two years), even
when the flu and everything else was running rampant. Over time, I
had gotten away from it and when I did, I got sick three times in the
winter and spring alone.

Personally, I find that I feel a hell of a lot better with the LC
approach. In addition to not getting sick as often, it is even the
little things like lack of heartburn and not feeling as groggy or
sluggish in the morning.

In line with the original post of this topic, regardless of what any
medical 'professional' says, or some study finds (and there are
certainly enough of those out there) it seems to me that feeling better
is a pretty good indication that you are doing something right.

Marengo wrote:
:: On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:22:35 -0400, "Hannah Gruen" I tried the
:: Pritikin/Ornish very low fat high carb diets for weight
::: loss. I did lose some weight, temporarily, but did not feel good.
::: Besides worsened arthritis, I got sick a LOT... I mean *really* a
::: lot. I got every stomach flu that came by, every cold and flu. And
::: when I got colds they would move into bronchitis and hang on for
::: weeks and weeks. But on even moderately low-carb, as I am now, I
::: very rarely get sick at all. When I do, it seems to be quite mild.
:::
::: I really think that a lower carb diet tends to enhance immune system
::: function.
::: HG
::
:: I find the same thing; I rarely get sick when I stick to low carb.
:: But I had attributed it to the nutritional supplements that I take
:: along with it -- garlic, B complex, zinc, fish oil, vitamin C,
:: CoQ10, and others.

I nearly always am LCing...but sometimes, like when I travel, I stop taking
supplements since they are a pain to take with me. I never notice a
difference when not taking them. Of course, that's only up to about 2 weeks
at a time....