PDA

View Full Version : Low-carb diet burns the most calories in small study



CrabSock
06-26-2012, 06:20 PM
I've always figured for the most part, a calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie. This study (or at least its MSM interpretation) suggests otherwise. My thoughts before I link and quote the article:

One: They claim it burned more calories, how did they measure calories burned from the different diets?
Two: Twenty one obese ppl, dieted down 10-20% of their bodyfat, and then started one of three diets. Isn't twenty-one the absolute minimum for N? This study seems way to small...
Three: they don't really understand it either... ""We think the low-carb and low-glycemic index diets, by not causing the surge and crash in blood sugar, don't trigger the starvation response. When the body thinks it's starving, it turns down metabolism to conserve energy," he says."

Some choice quotes, link to article below.

"The research finds that dieters who were trying to maintain their weight loss burned significantly more calories eating a low-carb diet than they did eating a low-fat diet."

"Findings, published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association: Participants burned about 300 calories more a day on a low-carb diet than they did on a low-fat diet. "That's the amount you'd burn off in an hour of moderate intensity physical activity without lifting a finger," says senior author David Ludwig, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children's Hospital."

"Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, says longer studies conducted among people in their own environments, not with such controlled meals, have shown "little difference in weight loss and maintenance between one kind of diet and another." More research is needed to show that interesting results like these are applicable in real life, she says.

"In the meantime, if you want to lose weight, eat less.""


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1

AlwaysTryin
06-27-2012, 02:17 AM
Ludwig...

MAGnitude
06-27-2012, 04:34 AM
what utter crap

JasonDB
06-27-2012, 05:39 AM
We've already addressed this study in other threads. Protein calories are not normal calories. Fat and carb calories are. A higher protein diet on the same calories (which IS what they actually studied) will yield better fat loss due to the slightly higher thermic effect of protein in the body. They would have gotten the same results had they replaced the same amount of fat calories with protein calories and then called it "a low fat diet". The critical variable here is the protein.... and it is old news and just confirms that the researchers in their conclusions haven't read previous peer reviews on macronutrient ratios and fat loss or they would have known it was the protein, not the carbs. Furthermore small study, on obese people.

mynameisuntz
06-27-2012, 05:48 AM
We've already addressed this study in other threads. Protein calories are not normal calories. Fat and carb calories are. A higher protein diet on the same calories (which IS what they actually studied) will yield better fat loss due to the slightly higher thermic effect of protein in the body. They would have gotten the same results had they replaced the same amount of fat calories with protein calories and then called it "a low fat diet". The critical variable here is the protein.... and it is old news and just confirms that the researchers in their conclusions haven't read previous peer reviews on macronutrient ratios and fat loss or they would have known it was the protein, not the carbs. Furthermore small study, on obese people.

And carbs have a slightly higher thermic effect than fat, so technically a high protein/high carb/high fat diet should be used for optimal fat loss! :P

Brb 45/45/10 diet.

WonderPug
06-27-2012, 05:50 AM
The study data indicates that higher intake of protein and fat (basically, coming closer to meeting sufficiency) was associated with a better outcome than intaking less sufficient amounts of protein and fat, and thus they concluded that CHO intake is the causative factor.

Full-text of the study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

JasonDB
06-27-2012, 06:01 AM
And carbs have a slightly higher thermic effect than fat, so technically a high protein/high carb/high fat diet should be used for optimal fat loss! :P

Brb 45/45/10 diet.

While true it isn't statistically signifigant like 2% more thermic... probably only enough to amount to a lbs of fat over a year... but yes you are correct. I am cutting on pretty low fat most days right now. Heavy protein bias and I hate sacrificing carbs I need for training but some days I just need my pizza.

snorkelman
06-27-2012, 06:14 AM
My favorite quotes from the study:


In view of the mechanistic nature of this study, relying on a feeding protocol, we did not design the diets for long-term practicality.

* * *


The physiological basis for the differences in REE and TEE remains subject to speculation...Although protein has a high thermic effect of food, the content of this macronutrient was the same for the low-fat and low–glycemic index diets and contributed only 10% more to total energy intake with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the other 2 diets.


Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention. In addition, participants in the study were selected for ability to comply with the rigors of a 7-month feeding protocol and may not represent overweight and obese individuals in the general population. Although we could not assess participant adherence during the outpatient phases of the study, good maintenance of weight loss throughout the test phase provides some reassurance on this point.

mynameisuntz
06-27-2012, 07:05 AM
While true it isn't statistically signifigant like 2% more thermic... probably only enough to amount to a lbs of fat over a year... but yes you are correct. I am cutting on pretty low fat most days right now. Heavy protein bias and I hate sacrificing carbs I need for training but some days I just need my pizza.

Hence me saying "slightly."

Dammit why do you always have to ruin my jokes, Jason? ALWAYS.

Nimm
06-27-2012, 07:18 AM
Another factor to put this in context-

This study involved (primarily) adaptive thermogenesis - i.e., the extra reduction in RMR and/or TDEE beyond what you'd expect to see simply as a function of reduced body mass. This study concluded that macronutrient composition of eucaloric diets after weight loss affected the degree of adaptive thermogenesis. Even if this is true, we don't know how long the effect lasts. And in fact, there's some other recent research that found no adaptive thermogenesis 24 months after weight loss (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/oby2012127a.html). So even if the study's conclusions were all correct (see the other responses in this thread on that point), it's a relatively minor effect that likely doesn't last long.

JasonDB
06-27-2012, 07:20 AM
Hence me saying "slightly."

Dammit why do you always have to ruin my jokes, Jason? ALWAYS.

Can we still be friends?

mynameisuntz
06-27-2012, 07:36 AM
Can we still be friends?

Only if you're gentler next time.

MMMKAYMAN1769
06-27-2012, 08:43 AM
50/30/20 http://youarestepone.com/images/34/c/wink.gif

mrivera11
06-27-2012, 09:24 AM
Ludwig...

Any relation to Lustig?? Seems so.

snorkelman
06-27-2012, 10:06 AM
Ludwig...

I didn't comment before, but the first thing I thought of was "crazy" King Ludwig of Bavarian fame