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 Mon, Sep-01-14, 16:36
glidergirl's Avatar
glidergirl glidergirl is offline
Craft Ninja!
Posts: 261
 
Plan: Dr. Atkins/Dr. Westman
Stats: 204/194/169 Female 5'6" inches
BF:high wght over 204
Progress: 29%
Location: North West Florida
Default Cutting Back On Carbs, Not Fat, May Lead To More Weight Loss

From npr.org:
A new study~published~in the~Annals of Internal Medicineadds to the body of evidence that cutting back on carbs, not fat, can lead to more weight loss.

The Salt

Don't Fear The Fat: Experts Question Saturated Fat Guidelines

Researchers at Tulane University tracked two groups of dieters for one year. The participants ranged in age from their early 20s to their mid-70s and included a mix of African-Americans and Caucasians.The low-carb group, which reduced their carb consumption to about 28 percent of their daily calories, lost almost three times as much weight as the low-fat dieters who got about 40 to 45 percent of their calories from carbs.The low-fat group lost about 4 pounds, whereas the low-carb group's average weight loss was almost 12 pounds. Participants in the two groups were eating eating about the same amount of calories.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ore-weight-loss
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Sep-01-14, 19:53
OregonRose's Avatar
OregonRose OregonRose is offline
Wag more, bark less.
Posts: 692
 
Plan: Meat.
Stats: 216/149/145 Female 65.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Eugene
Default

Another article on the same study, this one in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/.../low-carb...-fat-diet.html?

People who avoid carbohydrates and eat more fat, even saturated fat, lose more body fat and have fewer cardiovascular risks than people who follow the low-fat diet that health authorities have favored for decades, a major new study shows.

The findings are unlikely to be the final salvo in what has been a long and often contentious debate about what foods are best to eat for weight loss and overall health. The notion that dietary fat is harmful, particularly saturated fat, arose decades ago from comparisons of disease rates among large national populations.

But more recent clinical studies in which individuals and their diets were assessed over time have produced a more complex picture. Some have provided strong evidence that people can sharply reduce their heart disease risk by eating fewer carbohydrates and more dietary fat, with the exception of trans fats. The new findings suggest that this strategy more effectively reduces body fat and also lowers overall weight.

The new study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.

“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”

Diets low in carbohydrates and higher in fat and protein have been commonly used for weight loss since Dr. Robert Atkins popularized the approach in the 1970s. Among the longstanding criticisms is that these diets cause people to lose weight in the form of water instead of body fat, and that cholesterol and other heart disease risk factors climb because dieters invariably raise their intake of saturated fat by eating more meat and dairy.

Many nutritionists and health authorities have “actively advised against” low-carbohydrate diets, said the lead author of the new study, Dr. Lydia A. Bazzano of the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. “It’s been thought that your saturated fat is, of course, going to increase, and then your cholesterol is going to go up,” she said. “And then bad things will happen in general.”

The new study showed that was not the case.

By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.

While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.

“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”

The high-fat group followed something of a modified Atkins diet. They were told to eat mostly protein and fat, and to choose foods with primarily unsaturated fats, like fish, olive oil and nuts. But they were allowed to eat foods higher in saturated fat as well, including cheese and red meat.

A typical day’s diet was not onerous: It might consist of eggs for breakfast, tuna salad for lunch, and some kind of protein for dinner — like red meat, chicken, fish, pork or tofu — along with vegetables. Low-carb participants were encouraged to cook with olive and canola oils, but butter was allowed, too.

Over all, they took in a little more than 13 percent of their daily calories from saturated fat, more than double the 5 to 6 percent limit recommended by the American Heart Association. The majority of their fat intake, however, was unsaturated fats.

The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal government’s dietary guidelines. The other group increased their total fat intake to more than 40 percent of daily calories.

Both groups were encouraged to eat vegetables, and the low-carbohydrate group was told that eating some beans and fresh fruit was fine as well.

In the end, people in the low-carbohydrate group saw markers of inflammation and triglycerides — a type of fat that circulates in the blood — plunge. Their HDL, the so-called good cholesterol, rose more sharply than it did for people in the low-fat group.

Blood pressure, total cholesterol and LDL, the so-called bad cholesterol, stayed about the same for people in each group.

Nonetheless, those on the low-carbohydrate diet ultimately did so well that they managed to lower their Framingham risk scores, which calculate the likelihood of a heart attack within the next 10 years. The low-fat group on average had no improvement in their scores.

The decrease in risk on the low-carboydrate diet “should translate into a substantial benefit,” said Dr. Allan Sniderman, a professor of cardiology at McGill University in Montreal.

One important predictor of heart disease that the study did not assess, Dr. Sniderman said, was the relative size and number of LDL particles in the bloodstream. Two people can have the same overall LDL concentration, but very different levels of risk depending on whether they have a lot of small, dense LDL particles or a small number of large and fluffy particles.

Eating refined carbohydrates tends to raise the overall number of LDL particles and shift them toward the small, dense variety, which contributes to atherosclerosis. Saturated fat tends to make LDL particles larger, more buoyant and less likely to clog arteries, at least when carbohydrate intake is not high, said Dr. Ronald M. Krauss, the former chairman of the American Heart Association’s dietary guidelines committee.

Small, dense LDL is the kind typically found in heart patients and in people who have high triglycerides, central obesity and other aspects of the so-called metabolic syndrome, said Dr. Krauss, who is also the director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute.

“I’ve been a strong advocate of moving saturated fat down the list of priorities in dietary recommendations for one reason: because of the increasing importance of metabolic syndrome and the role that carbohydrates play,” Dr. Krauss said.

Dr. Mozaffarian said the research suggested that health authorities should pivot away from fat restrictions and encourage people to eat fewer processed foods, particularly those with refined carbohydrates.

The average person may not pay much attention to the federal dietary guidelines, but their influence can be seen, for example, in school lunch programs, which is why many schools forbid whole milk but serve their students fat-free chocolate milk loaded with sugar, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

A version of this article appears in print on September 2, 2014, on page D1 of the New York edition with the headline: A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Sep-01-14, 20:19
glidergirl's Avatar
glidergirl glidergirl is offline
Craft Ninja!
Posts: 261
 
Plan: Dr. Atkins/Dr. Westman
Stats: 204/194/169 Female 5'6" inches
BF:high wght over 204
Progress: 29%
Location: North West Florida
Default


Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Sep-01-14, 20:25
coachjeff's Avatar
coachjeff coachjeff is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 635
 
Plan: Very Low Carb
Stats: 211/212/210 Male 72
BF:
Progress: -100%
Location: Shreveport, LA
Default

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

I believe this is the study...funded by the NIH, which is good, because that way no one can say it was biased, due to being funded by Atkins or other LC company.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Sep-01-14, 20:50
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,140
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

I'm thrilled to see this study getting so much good press. On NPR they indicated the Low Carb group was eating 40-43% of their calories from fat. Over the course of the year that group lost 12 pounds, the low fat group 4. Imagine how much more the LC group might have lost if they got 60+% of their calories from fat.

ETA: i'm very glad to see Dr Mozaffarian looking ahead to how this study (and presumably other studies as well) could affect school lunch programs.

Last edited by Liz53 : Mon, Sep-01-14 at 22:03.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 05:09
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,442
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Being reported in many major news outlets. Dr Eenfeldt lists a few in his summary: http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-major...-health-markers
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 06:23
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,152
 
Plan: LC--Atkins
Stats: 195/160/150 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 78%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

At last the tide is turning. R.I.P. Dr. Atkins.

Let's hope the people responsible for those school lunch menus listen up. Childhood obesity leading to diabetes is an epidemic on the order of Spanish flu. Everybody gets sick and dies--just not as fast.

I just listened to a rather dry lecture by Dr.Robert Lustig--the second of two lectures on the physiology and chemistry of carbohydrate consumption. This talk will make you a True Believer. And a scared one at that. He points out that the cost of treating the ever-growing population with diabetes will obliterate Medicare, Medicaid, and every other health insurance option within a couple of decades.

What to do?
#1--Stop consuming sugar. That includes soft drinks, and just about everything in the middle of the grocery store. Read the label on everything you buy. Better yet, don't buy much of anything with a label.
#2--Eat fresh and local as much as you can.
#3--Let butter, olive oil, and meat be your friends.
#5--Reject those processed carbs.
#6--Appeal to your political representatives to Save Our Chlldren!

This goes way beyond a weight loss diet scheme. It's a matter of worldwide health and economic survival.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 06:33
coachjeff's Avatar
coachjeff coachjeff is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 635
 
Plan: Very Low Carb
Stats: 211/212/210 Male 72
BF:
Progress: -100%
Location: Shreveport, LA
Default

I can already hear the critics though...they are going to seize upon the greater weight loss of the LC arm of the study, and say it was the greater weight loss which produced better cardio-profile, rather than LC per-se. The Alan Aragons of the world will seize upon the higher protein content of the LC diet, and say it was the protein that did it. I do wish they would start controlling for protein in LC vs LF studies, to shut Aragon up about protein. Heck...I can be HUNGRY on over 250 grams of daily protein, if I eat much carbs with it. But 100 grams of protein is plenty, in terms of hunger control, when not consumed with a bunch of starch or sugars.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 06:42
coachjeff's Avatar
coachjeff coachjeff is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 635
 
Plan: Very Low Carb
Stats: 211/212/210 Male 72
BF:
Progress: -100%
Location: Shreveport, LA
Default

Hey wait a minute....I think I just accidentally debunked the common vegan argument that LC diets are too meat-centric to be "earth friendly"...but LC makes me eat LESS animal products, than I would on a high-carb/low-fat diet. Because I'm not starving. Therefore LC is MORE "green" than high-carb/low-fat diets. Not that raising meat on GRASS is bad for the planet anyway...but still....
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 07:16
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,140
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachjeff
Hey wait a minute....I think I just accidentally debunked the common vegan argument that LC diets are too meat-centric to be "earth friendly"...but LC makes me eat LESS animal products, than I would on a high-carb/low-fat diet. Because I'm not starving. Therefore LC is MORE "green" than high-carb/low-fat diets. Not that raising meat on GRASS is bad for the planet anyway...but still....


The other argument is that our current consumption of meat, with a strong preference for muscle meat, is more wasteful than it needs to be. If organ meats and fats were seen as the delicacies they used to be (or at the least as healthful not harmful), more of each slaughtered animal would be put to good use. That's good for the planet too.

Meat is an efficient way to get the complete protein you need. Converting pasture and forest to grain production is not without consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 07:42
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Say NO to Diabetes!
Posts: 8,671
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/228/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 92%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachjeff
Hey wait a minute....I think I just accidentally debunked the common vegan argument that LC diets are too meat-centric to be "earth friendly"...but LC makes me eat LESS animal products, than I would on a high-carb/low-fat diet. Because I'm not starving. Therefore LC is MORE "green" than high-carb/low-fat diets. Not that raising meat on GRASS is bad for the planet anyway...but still....


I had a long talk with my obese, Type 2 Diabetic brother yesterday regarding switching to a low carb diet. He told me that he didn't think he could afford it. The point you made was an important fact that I pointed out to my brother. When I was eating SAD, my portion sizes were huge and I ate plenty of fast-food burgers on a regular basis. I'm sure my brother does, too. Since going low carb, I eat less than half the amount of protein that I used to eat -- maybe as little as 1/3 compared to what I did. Eating SAD, if I had chicken -- I had 3 or 4 pieces. If I had pork chops, I would eat two. I would have twice the protein in a bacon and eggs breakfast than I do now. Since going LC, I just can't eat that much meat anymore and don't want to. Plus, I rarely eat out. I told him that he was going to have to do some cooking, but in the end -- he can afford to eat LC.

How many times have you read that people on low carb diets eat nothing but meat? That may be true for a few, but I'd be willing to bet that most of us eat less than what we did before going LC. What I eat more of is fat and non-starchy veggies.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 09:31
Cleome's Avatar
Cleome Cleome is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 240
 
Plan: LowCarb/Metformin/IF
Stats: 230/190/130 Female 63"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default

As one would expect, Dr. David Katz is having a conniption over this study.

Diet Research, Stuck in the Stone Age
David Katz, M.D. Director, Yale Prevention Research Center

Quote:
...It was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and frankly redounds much to the shame of this generally prestigious journal. Allegedly, the researchers compared a low-fat to a low-carb diet. But in fact, they compared a diet that allowed up to 30 percent of calories from fat to a diet that allowed up to 40 grams of daily carbohydrate.

...Not relevant, because this was a study designed to generate a predictably useless, misleading, and potentially harmful answer to an egregiously silly and perhaps even willfully disingenuous question. If science were generally this bad, we would never have exited the Stone Age.

-fin

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP is the founding director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center, President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Childhood Obesity, and the Childhood Obesity expert for About.com. He is the author of 15 books, including three editions of a nutrition textbook, four editions of an epidemiology textbook, and a text on clinical research methods. His most recent book is Disease Proof.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 09:36
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP is the founding director of Yale University's Prevention Research Center, President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Childhood Obesity, and the Childhood Obesity expert for About.com. He is the author of 15 books, including three editions of a nutrition textbook, four editions of an epidemiology textbook, and a text on clinical research methods. His most recent book is Disease Proof.

Wow, he's got lots of academic credentials. I'd wager good money that he's never been fat.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 09:45
Cleome's Avatar
Cleome Cleome is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 240
 
Plan: LowCarb/Metformin/IF
Stats: 230/190/130 Female 63"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Default

Dr. Katz has a dog in this fight, his NuVal® Nutritional Scoring System based on encouraging the consumption of HeartHealthyWholeGrains while avoiding ArteryCloggingSaturatedFats.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Tue, Sep-02-14, 10:24
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleome
Dr. Katz has a dog in this fight, his NuVal® Nutritional Scoring System based on encouraging the consumption of HeartHealthyWholeGrains while avoiding ArteryCloggingSaturatedFats.

Hmmmm, maybe follow the money is where to look based on this. Maybe the (hearthealthywhole)grain lobby backs him?
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 23:51.


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