'Slow' Carb Diet May Be Key to Weight Loss

[tortoise]

"A low-GI diet and a low-carb diet are poles apart."

I very much doubt this. They are just trying to distance themselves from the now-maligned low-carb diet.

It actually sounds quite close to the Zone diet to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156363,00.html

'Slow' Carb Diet May Be Key to Weight Loss
Friday, May 13, 2005
By Daniel J. DeNoon


They didn't avoid fats or carbs. They didn't count calories or eat prepackaged foods. Yet 11 obese 30-year-olds lost more weight than 12 of their peers on a conventional low-fat diet. And they lowered their risk of heart disease.

They didn't do it with a low-carb diet, but with a slow-carb diet. It's what nutritionists call a low-glycemic-load or a low-glycemic-index diet. The key is eating plenty of satisfying foods that your body can't quickly convert into sugar — slow carbs, as they're coming to be called.

And it seems to work, says David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Children's Hospital, Boston. Ludwig's small study appears in the May 1 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"A diet focused on glycemic index may be easier to follow than diets restricted in either fat or carbs," Ludwig tells WebMD. "And there seems to be an additional benefit in reducing the risk of chronic disease."

Low-Glycemic Diet Made Simple


Foods have a higher or lower glycemic index depending on how much of them you eat, how you cook them, and what you eat them with.

This can quickly get complicated — especially as it's not always easy to tell which foods are low-GI and which are high-GI. Ludwig's team came up with a simple plan. They created a low-glycemic-load food pyramid:

—At the bottom — the basis of the diet — are fruits and vegetables, cooked or served with healthful oils.

—Next come reduced-fat dairy foods, lean meats and fish, nuts, and beans.

—Higher up — and meant to be eaten less frequently — come whole grains, unrefined grains and pastas.

—At the top — to be eaten sparingly if at all — come refined grains, potatoes, and sweets.

Obese participants in the study were instructed to eat nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, and dairy products. They were told to eat carbs with protein and healthful fat at every meal and snack. And they were told to eat until they were full and to snack when hungry.

Other obese study subjects were put on a traditional, low-fat/low-calorie diet. Both groups were asked to exercise regularly and were given lifestyle counseling.

"Those in the low-glycemic-diet group were told to eat as much as they wanted and to snack when hungry," Ludwig says. "Yet after a year, they lost fully as much weight as those told to cut back on fat and to cut back on calories. But they did better in terms of heart disease risk reduction."

Weight, Heart Risk Down

After 12 months on the diets, the slow-carb group lost 7.8 percent of their body weight compared with 6.1 percent in the low-fat-diet group.

Levels of triglycerides — blood fats linked to heart disease — decreased much more in the slow-carb group. The levels were down 37 percent in the slow-carb group compared with 19 percent in the low-fat group.

Levels of a factor that increases blood clots — called plasminogen activator inhibitor — decreased by 39 percent in the slow-carb group but increased 33 percent among the low-fat dieters. Blood clots in the heart arteries are usually the cause of heart attacks.

Slow-Carb Diet, Not Low-Carb Diet

The Ludwig study is far from the first to find benefits for a low-glycemic-load diet, says Jennie Brand-Miller, PhD, professor of human nutrition at the University of Sydney, Australia, and co-author of The Low GI Diet Revolution and other books in The New Glucose Revolution series. Brand-Miller's editorial accompanies the Ludwig team's report.

"This study is telling us that losing weight on a low-GI diet produces better outcomes in terms of heart health than a conventional weight loss diet," Brand-Miller tells WebMD. "Even if the amount of weight lost is the same, you are better off on the low-GI diet. So it's a double bonus."

Brand-Miller says the slow-carb diet — a name coined by Patricia and Harvey Haakonson, MD, authors of Slow Carb for Life — is the opposite of the low-carb diet.

"The aim is not to get the lowest glycemic load possible. That's the fastest route to a low-carb-style diet," she says. "A low-GI diet and a low-carb diet are poles apart. We want you to eat lots of carbs, but selectively — the low-GI versions."

How? Here's Brand-Miller's advice:

—Aim to eat carbohydrates at every meal.

—Aim for the low-GI breakfast cereals — oats, muesli, All-Bran.

—Aim for heavy-grain breads, sourdough breads, and stone-ground breads.

—Eat lots of legumes (even baked beans).

—Don't be afraid to eat pasta, Basmati rice, or couscous.

—Have two to three servings of low-fat dairy a day.

—Eat nine servings of fruit and vegetables a day.

—Don't avoid any kind of fruit or vegetable except potatoes. Replace white potatoes with sweet potatoes, corn, and other healthy foods.

—Eat lean meat, fish, and chicken.

Ludwig now is recruiting volunteers for a larger study. He's looking for overweight or obese individuals aged 18 to 35 who are willing to sign up for 18 months. The study is taking place at Boston's Children's Hospital.


By Daniel J. DeNoon, reviewed by Michael W. Smith, MD


SOURCES: Ebbeling, C.B. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2005; vol 81: pp 976-982. Brand-Miller, J. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2005; vol 81: pp 949-950. WebMD Medical News: "Good Carbs Mean Better Weight." WebMD Medical News: "Sick of Low-Carb Diets? Try Low-GI." David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics, Children's Hospital, Boston. Jennie Brand-Miller, PhD, professor of human nutrition, University of Sydney, Australia.

[kwikdriver]

The more stuff like this comes out, the more confused people become, until they throw up their hands in despair and head for the fast food drive through. Sometimes I think that's the idea.

[mcsblues]

How? Here's Brand-Miller's advice:

—Aim to eat carbohydrates at every meal.

—Aim for the low-GI breakfast cereals — oats, muesli, All-Bran.

—Aim for heavy-grain breads, sourdough breads, and stone-ground breads.

—Eat lots of legumes (even baked beans).

—Don't be afraid to eat pasta, Basmati rice, or couscous.

—Have two to three servings of low-fat dairy a day.

—Eat nine servings of fruit and vegetables a day.

—Don't avoid any kind of fruit or vegetable except potatoes. Replace white potatoes with sweet potatoes, corn, and other healthy foods.

—Eat lean meat, fish, and chicken.

Yep sounds like my pre low carb menu - it made me put on weight, become more insulin resistant and left me with low energy levels amongst other health problems. In all probability I was on a one way track for diabetes. You think I regret changing?? ;)

The Ludwig study is far from the first to find benefits for a low-glycemic-load diet, says Jennie Brand-Miller, PhD, professor of human nutrition at the University of Sydney, Australia, and co-author of The Low GI Diet Revolution and other books in The New Glucose Revolution series. Brand-Miller's editorial accompanies the Ludwig team's report.

"This study is telling us that losing weight on a low-GI diet produces better outcomes in terms of heart health than a conventional weight loss diet," Brand-Miller tells WebMD. "Even if the amount of weight lost is the same, you are better off on the low-GI diet. So it's a double bonus."

Brand-Miller says the slow-carb diet — a name coined by Patricia and Harvey Haakonson, MD, authors of Slow Carb for Life — is the opposite of the low-carb diet.

"The aim is not to get the lowest glycemic load possible. That's the fastest route to a low-carb-style diet," she says. "A low-GI diet and a low-carb diet are poles apart. We want you to eat lots of carbs, but selectively — the low-GI versions."
Brand Miller's own books say that GI AND GL are important (gee, so does Atkins!) In fact any low carb diet controls GL (of course) - and the carb sources recommended by every low carb author such as LC veggetables and fruits are almost all low GI (wow, Jennie - time to write another book about your "new" discovery!)

But yet again we have a couple of "scientists" who do a study comparing two things (a low GI diet and a low fat diet) and they then draw conclusions about how much better one of those diets is compared to something they didn't study at all. The weight loss difference between the low GI group and the low fat group is barely (if at all) significant. It would be really interesting to compare a low carb group (call it low GL if you like!) with a low GI, don't worry about the GL group ...

... but that would be real science.

Cheers,


Malcolm

[tortoise]

It seems to me that the part you quoted, Malcolm, varies quite a bit from this part, the "pyramid", which I thought was strange. And both vary from what they actually fed the subjects in the study (see the paragraph below the "pyramid"). They want to have their cake, and their low carb cake as well.:

—At the bottom — the basis of the diet — are fruits and vegetables, cooked or served with healthful oils.

—Next come reduced-fat dairy foods, lean meats and fish, nuts, and beans.

—Higher up — and meant to be eaten less frequently — come whole grains, unrefined grains and pastas.

—At the top — to be eaten sparingly if at all — come refined grains, potatoes, and sweets.

Obese participants in the study were instructed to eat nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, and dairy products. They were told to eat carbs with protein and healthful fat at every meal and snack.

Notice there is no mention at all of bread, pasta, and potatoes in that last section.

This is the part that sounds almost exactly like the Zone (and South Beach) to me. And, truth to tell, it's similar to the way I eat, except "less frequently" translates to "very rarely", and I have a more "balanced fat" portfolio - lots of olive oil, but a fair amount of animal fat, plus the Omega-3's.

In no way is this, as they said in the article, "the opposite of the low-carb diet".


Malcolm wrote:But yet again we have a couple of "scientists" who do a study comparing two things (a low GI diet and a low fat diet) and they then draw conclusions about how much better one of those diets is compared to something they didn't study at all.

Absolutely.

[kaypeeoh]

The bottom-line goal of each diet is to control insulin. How you do it isn't important, but you must do it if you're obese or have blood lipid problems. I don't like Atkins because the only easy way to stay on it is by eating meat, fatty meat. But doing so does control my sugar addiction better than other diets. I find if I eat lean turkey, fish or soy I'm controlling the insulin problem. Fat isn't so necessary. I try to balance protein with the right GI foods, but don't always manage it. If the choice is frozen broccoli or fresh corn.... For fats I rely on almonds, avocado, that sort of thing.

[kwikdriver]

The bottom-line goal of each diet is to control insulin. How you do it isn't important, but you must do it if you're obese or have blood lipid problems.


And that's the message that gets lost in the media-created noise of competing diets. There doesn't seem to be a dime's worth of difference between the maintenance phases of most low carb diets, and the message of all of them is simple: control insulin for health and weight management. But it's a message that I never see clearly explained in media coverage of low carb diets. The low fat people had their mantra: "It's not the bagel (or the pasta, or the bread), but what you put on it," and the media managed to get that message out, as false and misleading as it was. How can they be so unable to get out the one message that is core to all the low carb diets? Are journalists really that incompetent?

[ceberezin]

This article is full of confusing and contradictory information. It is not going to help anyone who is interested in or who truly needs good nutritional information. It is interesting that these researchers only tested their "slow carb" diet against a low fat diet. This is called stacking the deck. Of course,the slow carb diet is going to win hands down. They chose not to test their slow carb diet against the more traditional low carb diet, as advocated by Atkins or Eades, to see if their approach produced any additional benefits. I think we know what the outcome would have been. That outcome would not allow them to sell diet books by bashing low carb diets and touting themselves as the answer.

The main problem with low GI diets is that they are based on the traditional nutritionist's conceit that the only thing that matters is what you put in your mouth. What happens after you swallow is outside their department. But how your body manages what you swallow is just as important. If you you have any degree of insulin resistance, and most people who have been eating high carbohydrate all their lives do, then your body is going to manage those low GI carbs differently form someone who has no insulin resistance. What's needed is to lower insulin resistance, and the low GI diet does not do that very effetively.

[kmct10]

It seems that all you have to do is come up with a new NAME for a diet to say you've discovered a new breakthrough. Then spend all your money slamming the old name. It's all marketing.