Low fat, low carb, high protein.... "It's how much you put in your mouth."

[RedEarth]

Low fat, low carb, high protein — there's a diet plan of every flavor. And if you're one of the millions of Americans who struggle with weight, you've probably tried them all, likely with little success. That wouldn't surprise Dr. Frank Sacks, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of a new study published in the Feb. 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, whose findings confirm what a growing body of weight-loss evidence has already suggested: one diet is no better than the next when it comes to weight loss. It doesn't matter where your calories come from, as long as you're eating less.

"We have a really simple and practical message for people: it's not so much the type of diet you eat," says Sacks. "It's how much you put in your mouth."

In the analysis of 811 obese patients from Massachusetts and Louisiana, participants were randomly assigned to one of four heart-healthy diets: low fat or high fat, with either average or high levels of protein. All four regimens also included high amounts of whole grains, fruits and vegetables and substituted saturated fat, found in foods such as butter and meat, with unsaturated fat, found in vegetable oil and nuts. The participants were encouraged to exercise 90 minutes a week. (See the top 10 food trends of 2008.)

On average, the study participants lost about 13 lb. after six months of dieting, or about 7% of their starting weight, regardless of which diet plan they followed. At the one-year mark, the dieters had regained some of the lost weight, and after two years, average weight loss was about 9 lb. Only about 15% of participants were able to lose 10% of their body weight or more. Across the board, however, patients lowered their risk of diabetes and reduced blood levels of bad cholesterol (LDL) while increasing good cholesterol (HDL) and overall heart health.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1881795,00.html?imw=Y

[kestrel91316]

1. "Yeah, don't remind me," said kestrel as she shoveled in another

mouthful of chips and salsa.

[Sal Minella]

7. That sequence of photos made me want to run out and order fries

with a side of fries, and I never eat fries. Am afraid looking through that series of photos may have been counter-productive, yes.

[Clear Blue Sky]

2. Calories in versus calories out.

Isn't a diet simply energy balance? Consume more calories than you burn and you gain weight? And vice versa?

Granted calories from different sources may vary in terms of burn rate, but there is still the basic laws of thermodynamics.

[Lorien]

10. It's not that simple. Calories from high glycemic foods can cause more hunger

and more calorie storage, eating too little (one meal a day), can cause the metabolism to slow down and the body to store as much as possible too. A person eating six small meals a day totaling 2000 calories of low glycemic foods and exercising moderately will lose far more weight than someone who eats one high carb or high sugar meal a day totaling 1,500 calories and exercising twice as much as person #1.

[ihavenobias]

11. Exactly. While the bottom line is a caloric deficit, it's grossly oversimplifying things to say

all calories are created equal.

For one thing there's (granted, that only applies of protein is eaten by itself, but still). For another, there are things like essential fatty acids (think fatty fish and or flax seeds, etc.) and monounsaturated fats which have been shown to provide great health benefits AND expedite fat loss.

My biggest issue with this research, aside from the fact that it's making the masses buy into the "all calories are created equal" nonsense, is that I haven't read anything about body composition. So far I've only read that they measured WEIGHT loss, which is such an archaic way of measuring diet/exercise progress if used alone. I feel like we're back in the 80's!

The fact is that some diets keep you fuller longer, provide more health benefits and they're more or less likely to promote muscle growth and bone density (or at least prevent/slow losses). Here's an easy example to show you just how misleading the take away message can be:

*Technically* speaking, one could eat 3 packages of skittles and drink a few cans of soda every day and lose weight, as long as the caloric deficit was sufficient. That's a very high carb, low fat (and cholesterol/protein) diet. Of course this same person would get MUCH better long term results and be much healthier if they ate lean protein sources, essential fats, monounsaturated fats, high fiber grains and micro-nutrient dense vegetables and fruits.

[SheilaT]

3. This is a sad account of how very difficult

it is to lose weight and keep it off.

We are surrounded by food in our culture. As one very wise woman I knew who struggled with obesity said, "The problem is that you can't give up eating entirely. You can give up smoking permanently, but you can't give up eating permanently." I often think about what she said when I see obese people. I, like so many others, also struggle with my weight, although I've been able to avoid the obese category.

Another problem in our society is that we drive everywhere. In the normal course of our day we just don't walk or move around much, and that's a factor.

[grasswire]

4. I don't see how they tested a low carb option...

...when it states that all four diets included "high amounts of whole grains."

I suspect a true low carb diet would have resulted in greater weight loss.

[ihavenobias]

12. Good point.

As another poster pointed out, the "low carb" diet derived 35% of calories from carbs. That's a moderate carb diet, certainly not a "low carb" diet.

Granted, much of the initial weight loss that takes place on a low carb diet is a result of water loss, but still.

[Emillereid]

5. I just read the actual study -- and the low carb wing allowed 35% of calories

as carbohydrates. Not a low carb diet at all. Real low carb diet studies have consistently found them preferable to low fat or low calorie diets.

[katty]

6. it's portions-i like quite a few things that are indulgent, but my

portions are small, but I still feel satisfied and maintain a decent weight for my height.

[Mopar151]

8. You are 'zackly right

in Fancy Eatin School (Diabetes Ed.) they taught us to eat for taste - eatin' a bale of sawdust is no good if it does'nt satisfy the craving!
better you should have a little chicken, some beans, a little corn, some salsa, a nice tortilla, a little sour cream, some veggies - you know, eat!

[katty]

13. yup, i am a taste person - don't need quantity

[paulsby]

9. i agree, but...

i am a weightclassed athlete, so i am VERY familiar with how to diet, how to make weight (while maintaining performance), and every frigging calorie that goes down my gullet.

but the conclusion is a bit simplistic. the reason why, for instance, low carb diets work is that they make it easier to eat less calories.

because they blunt insulin response, it is easier to avoid hunger pangs and the massive insulin dumps that high carb meals cause.

the #1 factor for diets is whether people can follow them.

personally, i eat very high protein (150-250 gms a day) but other than that, i eat plenty of carbs and fats.

as long as i am getting tons of good fats, i feel free to eat carbs, but concentrate on non-processed stuff (fruits, vegetables, etc.) not refined flour, simple sugar etc.

last time i had to make weight, i had to lose 11 lbs in 6 days and didn't lose any strength, but a lot of that was water. and cutting carbs DEFINITELY helps cut water - as does water gorging just prior to the cut (it promotes aldosterone release).

also, the concept of a calorie as a unit of energy IS flawed. that's because it's based on bomb calorimeter, NOT how calories are used in the body.

[Locrian]

14. no way low carb is 35%

And "calorie counting" is bullshit.

There has to be something in our genetic makeup from the past 100,000's of years that would make sense to follow. Agriculture (ie grains, etc) have been around what, 10,000 years? Thats a blink of an eye evolutionary speaking.

http://www.paleodiet.com/

[ginnyinWI]

15. the grain of truth is

All diets are at least partially right. Whatever you eat, you just can't eat enormous amounts and expect to maintain a normal weight.

I think the worst problem Americans have is a good concept of what a normal portion looks like. We have supersized everything because it has been plentiful and cheap.

As a Scottish friend once remarked: "In Scotland we have a sandwich. In America, we have a SANDWICH!, as she showed the size difference with her hands. She couldn't get over how much food we think is normal.

Just start eating less, consistently. Eat only at mealtimes or designated snack times. If you are hungry between those times, wait. You'll start making better choices once you are conscious and committed to improving things. And you will get used to it and it will become normal.

Feed your body, not your fat and it will go away.

[ihavenobias]

16. Kick n/t