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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |