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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Jan-29-12, 21:28
ICDogg's Avatar
ICDogg ICDogg is offline
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
Default "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.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Jan-30-12, 01:43
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,492
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Jan-31-12, 08:47
Karhys's Avatar
Karhys Karhys is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 324
 
Plan: Primal-ish
Stats: 172/158/132 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress: 35%
Location: Rural NSW, Australia
Default

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?!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Jan-31-12, 16:52
ICDogg's Avatar
ICDogg ICDogg is offline
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
Default

Also consider that Bray, one of the guys named on the study, has been an anti-lowcarber since the 70's.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Feb-01-12, 06:53
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,672
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Participants regained ∼40% of these losses by 2 y, with no differences between diets (P ≥ 0.23).


Yep, that's just the problem--there really were no differences between diets. This was a failure to actually intervene.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 11:37.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.