Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Apr-03-10, 02:38
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,778
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default New Studies Eat Into Diet Math

Quote:
From The Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2010

New Studies Eat Into Diet Math

How many calories must a dieter cut to lose a pound?

The answer most dietitians have long provided is 3,500. But recent studies indicate that calories can't be converted into weight through a simple formula.

The result is that the 3,500-calorie rule of thumb gets things very wrong over the long term, and has led health analysts astray. Much bigger dietary changes are needed to gain or shed pounds than the formula suggests.

Consider the chocolate-chip-cookie fan who adds one 60-calorie cookie to his daily diet. By the old math, that cookie would add up to six pounds in a year, 60 pounds in a decade and hundreds of pounds in a lifetime.

But new research—based on studies of volunteers whose calorie consumption is observed in laboratory settings, rather than often-unreliable food diaries—suggests that the body's self-regulatory mechanisms tamp down the effects of changes in diet or behavior. If the new nutritional science is applied, the cookie fiend probably will see his weight gain approach six pounds, and then level off, pediatrician David Ludwig and nutrition scientist Martijn Katan wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association earlier this year. The same numbers, in reverse, apply to weight loss.

Rewriting the math on weight change has major implications for efforts to fight obesity.

New York City officials estimated that a local law requiring chain restaurants to post calorie information about their menu items, which took effect in 2008, would reduce the number of obese city residents by at least 150,000 over five years. That law was a model for a national measure included in the recently passed health-care bill. But the estimate of obesity reduction was built on the old calorie math.

"There is a growing body of literature that shows [weight loss is] more complex" than a pound per 3,500 calories, says Lynn Silver, assistant commissioner of the New York City Health Department's bureau of chronic disease prevention and control. Dr. Silver says the city has recognized the new science by couching its statements about obesity reduction with phrases such as "up to," rather than "at least." She adds, "If it does take more than 3,500 calories to lose a pound or not gain a pound, then it makes it all the more important to change the food environment."

Revising the formula also alters the math for one substantially overweight woman who had launched a well-publicized effort to become more obese.

Donna Simpson wants to drastically change her food environment. The Old Bridge, N.J., woman weighs 604 pounds, according to published reports last month, and hopes to reach 1,000 lbs. to challenge world records. To hit her goal, she has said she will consume 12,000 calories every day—roughly six times what a typical adult should eat, according to the Food and Drug Administration. (Ms. Simpson declined to comment through a publicist.)

Under the 3,500-calorie-a-pound formula, that ample diet would allow Ms. Simpson to gain two pounds a day, says Beth Lanzisera, a dietitian in Cranford, N.J., meaning she would reach her total weight goal within seven months.

"It's just a rough estimate," says Ms. Lanzisera. "Everybody's body is certainly very different."

The 3,500-calorie-rule makes sense in short time frames with small diet changes, nutrition experts say. Fat has about 4,500 calories per pound, and protein has about 2,000. Thus a pound of body mass that is approximately 25% lean tissue, such as protein- and water-rich muscle, and 75% fatty tissue contains about 3,500 calories of energy.

But just as the body requires less fuel to power itself as weight declines, it requires more to create and sustain more weight. That self-correcting process would delay Ms. Simpson from breaking the 1,000-pound barrier until almost 11 months had elapsed, says Kevin Hall, a biophysicist with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Hall is one of the scientists who have created formulas that attempt to more accurately predict long-term weight loss and gain due to changes in diet or exercise. Dr. Ludwig and Prof. Katan, authors of the JAMA paper, had developed their own model but now use Dr. Hall's formula, which continues to evolve."What people used to say you would gain in a year is what you would gain after an infinite amount of time," says Dr. Hall of weight gain from dietary changes.

Still, not all nutrition scientists agree on what the new formula should be, as a look at proposed soft-drink taxes shows.

Barry Popkin, who directs the Interdisciplinary Obesity Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, suggests his own conversion factor, based on a paper he co-wrote that was published in an AMA journal.

The study tracked more than 5,000 adults over 20 years and correlated their weight with changes in the price of food and beverages. It found that a $1 increase in the price of a one-liter bottle of soda would lead to a 124-calorie decline in the average adult's daily diet. That would translate into 2.3 pounds of weight loss per year over 20 years.

Dr. Popkin's conclusion falls somewhere in between the old orthodoxy, which would predict 13 pounds lost per year, and Dr. Hall's model, which would predict about 0.6 pound lost per year over the 20-year period.

"We are dealing with the real world," Prof. Popkin says in explaining why he prefers his translation of calories to pounds. Dr. Hall responds that Prof. Popkin's study relied on volunteers' food diaries, which are "certainly not accurate assessments of food intake."

Either way, weight loss is much less than previously predicted. This shift "grounds our public-health obesity-prevention policies in the correct science," says Dr. Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children's Hospital in Boston. "If we launch a national campaign with the wrong assumptions, aiming for example to shift the calorie balance by 50 to 100 calories per day, we're going to be sorely disappointed with the results."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...0324371484.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Apr-03-10, 02:41
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,778
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
WSJ Blogs
The Numbers Guy
Carl Bialik examines the way numbers are used, and abused


April 2, 2010

How the Cookie’s Calories Crumble

Weight-gain and dieting math have been upended by a series of recent studies that call into question a longstanding rule of thumb, namely that consuming or cutting 3,500 calories leads to a gain or loss of one pound. This rule of thumb works well in the short term, and with small shifts in weight, but as I write in my print column this week, the rule breaks down over long periods, because as a person’s weight changes, so does the body’s energy needs.

“That equation might work very well to understand weight change over a few months,” pediatrician David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children’s Hospital in Boston, said of the 3,500-calorie rule. “It works much less well over a few years. And it’s meaningless over a decade.”

Martijn Katan, a nutrition scientist at Amsterdam’s VU University and co-author with Ludwig of a recent paper on the new nutrition math, compares the dynamics to that of a jet fighter. Fill its fuel tank halfway, and it will fly more than half the distance it would have with a full tank, because there is less weight to support. “That’s what happens with humans, too,” Katan said. Dieting “becomes a self-defeating process,” as a lighter frame requires less energy and therefore fewer calories to support it.

This revision to obesity orthodoxy affects estimates of how much health policy can reverse rising obesity rates. New York City’s health department forecast big things from the introduction of calorie counts on chain restaurants’ posted menus, based on the 3,500 calorie rule; those calorie counts now are going nationwide. So did a study of the same potential policy change by the County of Los Angeles’s public-health department. “If the body adapts in a way that minimizes the impact of reduced calorie intake, certainly then the effect on weight would be reduced,” said Paul Simon, director of the county’s division of chronic disease and injury prevention.

Efforts to replace the rule of thumb have been hampered by the lack of a simple rule to replace it, though Kevin Hall, a biophysicist with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a part of the federal National Institutes of Health, said that, roughly, a 10-calorie reduction in daily dietary intake will lead to a pound of weight lost over a lifetime.

Hall is continually refining his model. His effort is complicated by weaknesses in studies that have sought to attribute weight changes to calorie intake. “It’s been very difficult to get good measurements over long periods of time of how people eat as body weight changes,” Hall said.

Long-term studies generally must rely on only occasional direct observations of eating, or on often-unreliable food diaries. Short-term studies can isolate volunteers in controlled laboratories to get accurate calorie numbers and measure excreted air or urine to estimate how many calories are being burned. But these studies — called feeding studies when intended to study weight gain — haven’t lasted long enough to observe weight gain completely level off, and ethical considerations preclude overfeeding at a level anywhere near one high-profile proposed self-experiment.

That’s the attempt by a New Jersey woman to increase her weight from 604 pounds to 1,000 pounds and make the record books (the heaviest woman on record, Rosalie Bradford, reached 1,200 pounds in 1987). The folks at Guinness World Records currently are considering Donna Simpson’s claim to be the world’s heaviest mother. Such weight claims must be validated by medical records to make the book. “Guinness World Records no longer monitors heaviest pet records as we do not wish to encourage owners to overfeed their pets for a record,” a Guinness spokeswoman said. So why risk encouraging people to overfeed themselves in search of records? “These heaviest records exist and we are impartially reporting on some of the extreme superlative records of the world,” she said.

Recent studies on the possible impact of proposed soda taxes demonstrate that a consensus on calorie math hasn’t yet been struck. A paper last year in the New England Journal of Medicine based an estimate of two pounds lost per year per person, due to higher soda prices, on the 3,500-calorie rule of thumb. And a paper last month in the Archives of Internal Medicine reported that an 18% soda tax would lead to a 56-calorie reduction in the average adult’s diet, and therefore five pounds lost per person per year — roughly what the 3,500-calorie conversion suggests. Similar figures appeared in a press release about the study issued by the University of North Carolina, where co-author Barry Popkin directs the Interdisciplinary Obesity Program, and in media accounts of the study. Popkin said that figure overstates weight loss, and plans to seek a correction in the journal.

The new math suggests that small measures may not suffice to combat obesity. “If we’re trying to reverse obesity, then we have a substantial challenge in front of us,” said Nancy F. Butte, professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, and author of a recent paper on ties between calorie shifts and weight gain.

That adds to the extant challenge created by dieters’ tendency to relax their restrictions over time. “People don’t correct for the reduction in energy expenditure” as they lose weight, said Eric Doucet, professor in the faculty of health sciences at the University of Ottawa. “People also tend to be less compliant with their restrictions.”

“In one sense it may be discouraging — it is going to require a much larger shift in calories to prevent obesity, let alone treat it,” Ludwig said. “It’s also good news, because the argument that the obesity epidemic can be attributed to small calorie imbalances — 50 to 100 calories per day over time — places all of the blame for the epidemic on the individual. If all you had to do was walk an extra mile a day, or drink one less soda a day, one could fairly say that the obesity epidemic is attributable to personal failure. But if the calorie imbalance is 10 times that, then we can no longer place responsibility exclusively on the individual.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how...es-crumble-917/
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Apr-03-10, 17:10
mathmaniac mathmaniac is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,639
 
Plan: Wingin' it.
Stats: 257/240.0/130 Female 65 inches
BF:yes!
Progress: 13%
Location: U.S.A.
Default

If you're going to tell me how many calories I burn, you had better know what gender I am, how old I am, my family history, how much I weigh and how long I'm sedentary during the day!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Apr-03-10, 17:57
maile1 maile1 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 376
 
Plan: hcg
Stats: 192/142/138 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: Vancouver, BC
Default

Quote:
The Old Bridge, N.J., woman weighs 604 pounds, according to published reports last month, and hopes to reach 1,000 lbs. to challenge world records.


I am at a loss to understand why someone would want to do this if they were rational
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Apr-03-10, 21:05
howlovely howlovely is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 778
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 180/170/145 Female 70
BF:
Progress: 29%
Default

Calorie intake has a minimal effect on weight gain or weight loss. The fact that you generally have to be pretty drastic either way to gain or lose is evidence enough. This "3500 calories = a pound" has never made any sense to me.

If I were to eat 3500 extra calories a day for one month I would NOT gain 30 pounds. I might gain 10, but not in a million years would I pack on 30 pounds. Additionally, if I were to reduce my calories the next month by 3500 a day I would NOT lose 30 pounds.

Our bodies don't know math! They only understand hormones. Our bodies are regulated by glucose, fructose, sucrose, fat, etc.

The calories theory does not make any sense. It has NEVER made any sense. The human body is way more complex than that.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Apr-04-10, 10:59
mathmaniac mathmaniac is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,639
 
Plan: Wingin' it.
Stats: 257/240.0/130 Female 65 inches
BF:yes!
Progress: 13%
Location: U.S.A.
Smile

'They only understand hormones.'

Our bodies may understand hormones but hormones are a fascinating mystery in the medical world. All you can do - without knowing the hormones and their interactions - is go with what works best for your body, and does the least damage.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Apr-04-10, 11:53
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,866
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Finally at least a few of these stodgy old troglodytes are budging slightly. Or at least it's finally catching the eye of the media.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Apr-05-10, 19:36
PurpleBass's Avatar
PurpleBass PurpleBass is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 248
 
Plan: Primal
Stats: 173/135/132 Female 160 cm
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
Default

What a surprise! The human body is not a bank account; micro-transactions are NOT going to save the day for all of us.

(Okay, that "what a surprise" part was sarcasm. Did I do it right??)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.