5 ms·

A recent multi-year study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 http://content.nejm.or

by sergeo 17y ago

A recent multi-year study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (abstract: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/9/859 , full text is also available there) concludes that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." 811 overweight adults were randomly assigned to one of four diets: percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in all four groups - about 7 lbs. Among the 80% who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets. Attendance of counseling groups was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). Bottom line: 1. It's all about eating less - eat what you like (so you can stick to it for life). As long your calories are reduced (to lose a pound of fat you need to lose 3,500 calories) and you stay within healthy nutrient ranges you will lose weight. 2. Consider participation in some sort of community (or even online groups), for support, motivation and accountability.

latortuga 17y ago
Their conclusion that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." seems to neglect the fact that they did not assign any low-carbohydrate diets. You'd think that in a study of diets emphasizing different levels of nutrients they'd at least include one that induces ketosis.
- dhimes 17y ago
  I'm not sure that many medically qualified researchers would advocate a diet based on ketosis (a la Atkins). You can have low carb and not go that low.
thras 17y ago
No you're 100% wrong. How do I know? Because I lost weight on a low-calorie diet. They are a terrible thing to do to oneself and your brain will fight your new weight forever. I became a good-looking normal weight man after having been 150 pounds overweight all of my adult life. It took about a year. But I was starving every moment of every day. I have tremendous willpower, but in the end I couldn't keep it up for the following years. Losing the weight through low-calorie starvation techniques had destroyed by muscle. My brain thought I was emaciated. I thought about food constantly while on the diet and after. Like 99% of the people who lose weight by following a low-calorie diet, I gained it back within the next couple of years. Now, since December, I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet. I eat huge quantities of fat and protein. I'll probably go home and have a whole chicken for dinner tonight -- or maybe a pound or two of pork loin. I'm less hungry now than I was. And my muscle -- it's still there, in fact I'm getting stronger. I can't tell you how amazing it is to have my bench press and dead lift stay the same while I'm dieting. I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows, but it all seems to be fat that I'm losing instead of fat + muscle. What explains it? The calorie theory is bankrupt. Fat accumulation is regulated by insulin which is driven by carbohydrate consumption. Yes, you will lose body weight by eating less. By why not attack the real problem instead? Obesity is a disease of fatty accumulation caused by the hormone insulin, not a disease of willpower.
- jonnycoder 17y ago
  I agree with you. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/carbs/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/carbs/
- Retric 17y ago
  I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet. You lost weight, by removing calories from your diet. I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows, So you are less hungry when you don't calorie restrict as much. PS: Doing callorie ristriction dieting without reducing nutrition is hard, however meat contains most nutrients your body needs which impacts hunger. So, comparing a study that controwls for nutrition with your perconal habits is probably a mistake.
  - thras 17y ago
    Why don't you read Taubes' book? Let me count up my "low-calorie" eating from yesterday. 1 whole chicken, baked: about 2000 calories. 1/2 pound of 83% lean ground beef, grilled, with 3oz cheese: about 800 calories Chocolate Mousse (made from 100% cacao chocolate + heavy cream + splenda): 500 or so calories, mostly from 1/2 cup of heavy cream 3 hard boiled eggs: 200 calories Total: 3500 calories Oh yeah, I'm living the "low-calorie" life. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
    - Retric 17y ago
      3500 calories is not all that much for a large active person. I have known people on 8k/day "diet" that where losing weight; not that most people are 6'6" and exercizing 10 hours a day, but it happens. Using your body fat%, activity level, weight ect you can create a fairly accurate estimate on you're caloric needs and it's often higher than you might think. PS: I can burn 1k calories exercizing for one hour.
      - unexpected 17y ago
        I agree with your points, except that last one: It's very hard to burn 1000 calories in 1 hour. No matter what the elliptical machine says when you're on it for 30 minutes, you generally burn 100 calories a mile. 1000 calories would be 10 miles at a 6 minute clip for an hour, which would be ridiculously impressive.
ph0rque 17y ago
I see your study, and raise you another one: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/04/is.one.diet.good.another.u.i.study.says.no.and.tells.you.why http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/04/is.one.diet.good... Although both plans were equal in calories, half the group followed a moderate-protein diet (40% carbohydrates, 30% protein, 30% fat) while the other followed a diet based on USDA's food-guide pyramid (55% carbohydrates, 15% protein, 15% fat). ... Although the amount of weight lost in both groups was similar, at 4 months participants in the protein group had lost 22 percent more body fat than members of the food-pyramid group. At 12 months, the moderate-protein dieters had lost 38 percent more body fat. ... Average weight loss for the protein group was 23 percent higher than the food-pyramid group, with 31 percent of "completers" in the protein group losing more of than 10 percent of their initial body weight versus 21 percent of the food-pyramid group.

by sergeo 17y ago

latortuga 17y ago

Their conclusion that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." seems to neglect the fact that they did not assign any low-carbohydrate diets. You'd think that in a study of diets emphasizing different levels of nutrients they'd at least include one that induces ketosis.

dhimes 17y ago
I'm not sure that many medically qualified researchers would advocate a diet based on ketosis (a la Atkins). You can have low carb and not go that low.

thras 17y ago

No you're 100% wrong. How do I know? Because I lost weight on a low-calorie diet. They are a terrible thing to do to oneself and your brain will fight your new weight forever. I became a good-looking normal weight man after having been 150 pounds overweight all of my adult life. It took about a year. But I was starving every moment of every day. I have tremendous willpower, but in the end I couldn't keep it up for the following years. Losing the weight through low-calorie starvation techniques had destroyed by muscle. My brain thought I was emaciated. I thought about food constantly while on the diet and after. Like 99% of the people who lose weight by following a low-calorie diet, I gained it back within the next couple of years. Now, since December, I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet. I eat huge quantities of fat and protein. I'll probably go home and have a whole chicken for dinner tonight -- or maybe a pound or two of pork loin. I'm less hungry now than I was. And my muscle -- it's still there, in fact I'm getting stronger. I can't tell you how amazing it is to have my bench press and dead lift stay the same while I'm dieting. I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows, but it all seems to be fat that I'm losing instead of fat + muscle. What explains it? The calorie theory is bankrupt. Fat accumulation is regulated by insulin which is driven by carbohydrate consumption. Yes, you will lose body weight by eating less. By why not attack the real problem instead? Obesity is a disease of fatty accumulation caused by the hormone insulin, not a disease of willpower.

jonnycoder 17y ago
I agree with you. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/carbs/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/carbs/
Retric 17y ago
I've lost 40 pounds by kicking the carbohydrates out of my diet. You lost weight, by removing calories from your diet. I'm losing weight more slowly than low-calorie allows, So you are less hungry when you don't calorie restrict as much. PS: Doing callorie ristriction dieting without reducing nutrition is hard, however meat contains most nutrients your body needs which impacts hunger. So, comparing a study that controwls for nutrition with your perconal habits is probably a mistake.
- thras 17y ago
  Why don't you read Taubes' book? Let me count up my "low-calorie" eating from yesterday. 1 whole chicken, baked: about 2000 calories. 1/2 pound of 83% lean ground beef, grilled, with 3oz cheese: about 800 calories Chocolate Mousse (made from 100% cacao chocolate + heavy cream + splenda): 500 or so calories, mostly from 1/2 cup of heavy cream 3 hard boiled eggs: 200 calories Total: 3500 calories Oh yeah, I'm living the "low-calorie" life. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
  - Retric 17y ago
    3500 calories is not all that much for a large active person. I have known people on 8k/day "diet" that where losing weight; not that most people are 6'6" and exercizing 10 hours a day, but it happens. Using your body fat%, activity level, weight ect you can create a fairly accurate estimate on you're caloric needs and it's often higher than you might think. PS: I can burn 1k calories exercizing for one hour.
    - unexpected 17y ago
      I agree with your points, except that last one: It's very hard to burn 1000 calories in 1 hour. No matter what the elliptical machine says when you're on it for 30 minutes, you generally burn 100 calories a mile. 1000 calories would be 10 miles at a 6 minute clip for an hour, which would be ridiculously impressive.

ph0rque 17y ago

I see your study, and raise you another one: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/04/is.one.diet.good.another.u.i.study.says.no.and.tells.you.why http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/04/is.one.diet.good... Although both plans were equal in calories, half the group followed a moderate-protein diet (40% carbohydrates, 30% protein, 30% fat) while the other followed a diet based on USDA's food-guide pyramid (55% carbohydrates, 15% protein, 15% fat). ... Although the amount of weight lost in both groups was similar, at 4 months participants in the protein group had lost 22 percent more body fat than members of the food-pyramid group. At 12 months, the moderate-protein dieters had lost 38 percent more body fat. ... Average weight loss for the protein group was 23 percent higher than the food-pyramid group, with 31 percent of "completers" in the protein group losing more of than 10 percent of their initial body weight versus 21 percent of the food-pyramid group.