"Calories count, but source doesn't matter - study" : LC Research/Media Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#1 ^

Sun, Jan-29-12, 21:28

ICDogg

Senior Member

Posts: 1,563

Plan: Low carb, high fat keto
Stats: 310/212/183 Male 6'0"

BF:D
Progress: 77%

Location: Philadelphia area

"Calories count, but source doesn't matter - study"

article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...E8CU0QC20120130

study:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2...ajcn.111.026328

Quote:

In a subset of participants in a randomized trial of 4 weight-loss diets, body fat and lean mass (n = 424; by using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) and abdominal and hepatic fat (n = 165; by using computed tomography) were measured after 6 mo and 2 y. Changes from baseline were compared between assigned amounts of protein (25% compared with 15%) and fat (40% compared with 20%) and across 4 carbohydrate amounts (35% through 65%).

Note that every diet tested had at least 35% carbs. Still, they're going to use this to "prove" that all calories are the same.

Sponsored Links

#2 ^

Mon, Jan-30-12, 01:43

M Levac

Senior Member

Posts: 6,498

Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"

BF:
Progress: 5%

Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

With a little math, we find that the study was carefully designed so that everybody would eat at least 100g/day of carbs. The article says all diets were intended to cut 750 kcals. For an average person, that's 2000 - 750 = 1250. For the lower carb diets, carb content was 35% or 437 kcals or ~110g. Anybody here who knows about ketosis knows that this much carbs will keep insulin high and prevent ketosis from occurring. George Bray probably knows this too. He would not have kept his job for so long if he didn't.

#3 ^

Tue, Jan-31-12, 08:47

Karhys

Senior Member

Posts: 324

Plan: Primal-ish
Stats: 172/158/132 Female 5'2"

BF:
Progress: 35%

Location: Rural NSW, Australia

Quote:

But many of the people who started in the study dropped out, and the diets of those who completed it were not exactly what had been assigned.

For example, the researchers had hoped to see two diet groups get 25 percent of their calories from protein and the other two groups get 15 percent of their calories from protein. But all four groups ended up getting about 20 percent of their calories from protein after two years.

And considering this -- that many participants didn't even adhere to the guidelines of whichever group they were in -- are we actually expected to take any of the conclusions of this study seriously?!