Low-fat diet more effective than low-carb diet?

osarusan

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33905745

Cutting fat from your diet leads to more fat loss than reducing carbohydrates, a US health study shows.
Scientists intensely analysed people on controlled diets by inspecting every morsel of food, minute of exercise and breath taken.
Both diets, analysed by the National Institutes of Health, led to fat loss when calories were cut, but people lost more when they reduced fat intake.
.
.
.
The results published in Cell Metabolism showed that after six days on each diet, those reducing fat intake lost an average 463g of body fat - 80% more than those cutting down on carbs, whose average loss was 245g.

Dr Hall said there was no "metabolic" reason to chose a low-carb diet.

Isn't this the opposite of what research has suggested over the last number of years?

Although I would agree with one line from the article:

Experts say the most effective diet is one people can stick to.

Sometimes I wonder how something studied so much can still produce such differing conclusions.

kylith

I try to reduce both fat and carbs and increase my exercise. It seems to be working so far.

El Weirdo

osarusan wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33905745

Isn't this the opposite of what research has suggested over the last number of years?

Meh.

Give it a few years and it'll be the opposite again.

T'was ever thus.

Mellor

Without knowing details of what the diets entailed, its impossible to draw any conclusions.

the groutch

Yes, because a six day experiment, which judging by the fat loss probably involved a starvation diet, is relevant to people's long-term lifestyles.

Peregrinus

The diet that works is the one that (a) you stick to, and (b) reduces your calorie intake. It makes no difference whether you reduce your calorie intake by consuming less fat, or less carbs, or a bit of both.

But low fat vs low carbs may affect how well you stick to the diet. Some people find it easier to reduce fat intake, some carbs. This is partly a matter of personal taste, and partly a matter of whether your present, less-than-good diet is made up disproportionately of more fat than you need, or more carbs than you need. If your weight problem is mainly down to overconsumption of fatty foods, you could in theory reduce your weight by reducing your carb intake, but it would probably not make you feel very well since, nutritionally, your diet would be even more unbalanced than before. And, of course, if a diet makes you feel not very well, it's hard to stick to it.

Basically, if you're tucking into fried chicken, chips, potato crisps, ice-cream etc on a regular basis, you're going to do better on a reduced fat diet. Whereas if your problem is bread, pasta and the spuds, you want reduced carbs.

Which explains why different studies can produce different results. They are looking at different populations of dieters, in different countries or regions. And eating habits (and eating bad habits) vary from place to place.

Wizard!

Carbohydrates most probably are not natural products (except fruits, vegetables, etc). So, from my point of view, I prefer butter, oil, meat fat, than pasta, sugar, cereal, etc, even if it takes more time and harder work to reach or keep my ideal weight/body fat.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which explains why different studies can produce different results. They are looking at different populations of dieters, in different countries or regions. And eating habits (and eating bad habits) vary from place to place.

Populations? They made the research on 19 adults... I cannot count this as a research anyway.

Mellor

Roastlambshank wrote: »

You shouldn't eat low fat diets as there are essential nutrients contained in fat. It is much healthier to reduce carbohydrates.

You know you don't have to reduce one or the other.
Just a thought, eat a balanced diet and reduce all macros equally.

the groutch wrote: »

Yes, because a six day experiment, which judging by the fat loss probably involved a starvation diet, is relevant to people's long-term lifestyles.

200-400g in 6 days is no where near starvation. It's actually quite mild.
500g/1lb per week is perfectly sustainable, and requires only a 500 cal deficit daily.

JacquesSon

Diets are for idiots.

Eat less, walk more.

Caliden

A 2 week study is worthless.

Ask anyone with <10% bodyfat how much their weight changes from day to day while on a cut.

Peregrinus

JacquesSon wrote: »

Diets are for idiots.

Eat less, walk more.

How is "eat less" not a diet?

Gongoozler

Yeah, nothing is "debunked" because of 19 people in a study.

Besides, I'm sure the other group just had a glandular problem

Cold War Kid

JacquesSon wrote: »

Diets are for idiots.

Eat less, walk more.

"Eat less" could mean anything. People need to know what to/what not to eat.

JacquesSon

Cold War Kid wrote: »

"Eat less" could mean anything. People need to know what to/what not to eat.

Eat less means exactly what it says.

Eating too much celery will still make you phat.;)

Wizard!

Eating less is not that simple. If you eat much less, your metabolism will stop working, thus sustain your weight and body mass. You will be hungry and instead of loosing fat, your body will consume its muscles.
In order to loose weight, you need to eat about 200-300 calories less than your body needs to sustain weight.
Not everybody knows how to do that. It is not science, however it is not simple as "eat less"

Cold War Kid

JacquesSon wrote: »

Eat less means exactly what it says.

Eating too much celery will still make you phat.;)

Eating less calories can actually require eating more amounts of food.
Eating two pizzas a day is eating less than three pizzas a day, but it would be best to have a pizza only the odd time.

Sorry, but "Eat less" as weight-loss advice is a phrase I really dislike as it's too vague.

Cold War Kid

Wizard! wrote: »

Eating less is not that simple. If you eat much less, your metabolism will stop working, thus sustain your weight and body mass. You will be hungry and instead of loosing fat, your body will consume its muscles.
In order to loose weight, you need to eat about 200-300 calories less than your body needs to sustain weight.
Not everybody knows how to do that. It is not science, however it is not simple as "eat less"

I'm confused re that thing about how starving yourself causes you to maintain your weight. Starving surely makes a person lose weight? I don't mean that directed at you, just generally speaking.

Macy0161

The research I've read or heard is that calorie reduction is the biggest driver. The differences between low fat and low carb are about how easy people find to stick to the diet. I think the sigma nutrition did a podcast about it, and it was that the low carb had a higher success rate due to people sticking it longer, which is fairly important to be honest.

My experience with concentrating on maintain a deficit is that my diet became lower carb as the deficit has become harder to maintain whilst keeping my protein intake up.

Wizard!

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I'm confused re that thing about how starving yourself causes you to maintain your weight. Starving surely makes a person lose weight? I don't mean that directed at you, just generally speaking.

Your body burns fat, and builds muscles. If you eat more than it needs, it stores fat. However, if you eat much less, you are blocking the metabolism process. At the beginning it burns fat, but later, it starts consuming its muscles. In the meantime, your weight remains at a specific level. If you keep starving, eventually you will loose weight, but you will get weaker and weaker.

Actually the period where your body starts consuming its muscles starts about 10-12 hours since your last meal. That is why most nutritionists suggest frequent small meals throughout the day. If you do not have a meal after 12 hours, and by meal we mean enough calories to keep you going, fat burn stops, and muscle burn begins. If I am not mistaken, this procedure is called "Starvation Response".

JacquesSon

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Sorry, but "Eat less" as weight-loss advice is a phrase I really dislike as it's too vague.

My opinion is that vague is appropriate when talking about weight loss or gain without knowing the specifics of the individual.

Everyone is different. What works for me won't necessarily be good for you.

Eating less and exercising more is universally effective.

valoren

It's a vicious cycle.

You can eat energy dense, healthy fats but when you eat refined carbohydrates (rice, biscuits, bread, sweets etc and not natural low carb sources, berries, veggies) then your insulin will increase as these spike your blood sugar (glucose) level. The energy dense fat calories have to go somewhere and will get stored as body fat as insulin has evolved to inhibit burning body fat for fuel.

I guess the approach of low 'carb' meaning minimising refined carbs and eating nutrient dense fats (which don't increase blood sugar) will level out blood sugar levels and keep insulin secretion at 'normal' levels is a good one. Fat for fuel is not inhibited and weight maintenance is easier.

the groutch

Mellor wrote: »

200-400g in 6 days is no where near starvation. It's actually quite mild.
500g/1lb per week is perfectly sustainable, and requires only a 500 cal deficit daily.

that 250g & 460g are listed as body fat loss, not weight loss, so the weight loss would be a lot more.

ghostdancer

JacquesSon wrote: »

My opinion is that vague is appropriate when talking about weight loss or gain without knowing the specifics of the individual.

Everyone is different. What works for me won't necessarily be good for you.

Eating less and exercising more is universally effective.

no it isn't. sometimes eating more will result in weight-loss.

AudreyHepburn

TBH I don't think diets are the way to go at all......just eat everything in moderation and exercise regularly.

Limiting yourself or cutting out entire food groups is just not healthy or viable in the long term imo.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

El Weirdo

https://twitter.com/WhispersNewsLTD/status/632122044210024448?s=09

Irishcrx

It doesn't matter , it's just down to personal preferance on what way each person finds it easiest to maintain low fat or low carbs.

Calories is the key overall...more = more weight less = less weight , everything else is personalised depending on what the person is trying to achieve. It's a simple model that works really , sticking to it is the hard part.

JacquesSon

ghostdancer wrote: »

no it isn't. sometimes eating more will result in weight-loss.

How does that refute what I said?

Are you Oxegen ghostdancer?

kylith

ghostdancer wrote: »

no it isn't. sometimes eating more will result in weight-loss.

You can probably read 'eat less' as 'eat fewer calories'.

Maximus Alexander

Eat fewer calories, move your body around more.

I'm forever mystified by how complicated people can make this simple equation.

cbyrd

Peregrinus wrote:

Basically, if you're tucking into fried chicken, chips, potato crisps, ice-cream etc on a regular basis, you're going to do better on a reduced fat diet. Whereas if your problem is bread, pasta and the spuds, you want reduced carbs.

These are all carbs ... Except the chicken... Carbs turn to sugar in the blood, the difference between good and bad is the rate it turns to sugar. Potatoes brown carbs (rice, pasta or bread) are supposedly better but really only after a workout when you need to bring the blood sugars up again.
Protein will keep you feeling fuller for longer, spinach nuts seeds meat dairy (although dairy is muck..) fats are essential and have gotten a lot of bad press over the last few decades.. Eggs are now a superfood.. Not the cholesterol causing enemy it was once labelled..
You want to lose weight? Dump SUGAR.
Or at least cut down, make all your portion sizes smaller and move more.
A deficit of 500 calories a day will result in a loss of 1lb a week.. That's a sandwich and s couple of biscuits..
What ever is sustainable over the long term is good, quick fixes can be good for the system once you don't go back to gorging on shìte...

El_Dangeroso

I can't believe such a crappy study is getting such play in the press. 19 people? 2 weeks? When we have 2 YEAR long studies with 100's of people.. SMH

But I actually agree with the conclusions, some people definitely do better cutting out fat than carbs.

Basically all effective diets do one thing, reduce the overall reward value of the food causing you to eat less. Fat + sugar or starch (plus salt) is the most rewarding combo. It's hard to eat pure fat like butter on it's own and plain potatoes are also not that appetising, combine them and you have something you can overeat.

Mellor

the groutch wrote: »

that 250g & 460g are listed as body fat loss, not weight loss, so the weight loss would be a lot more.

No it wouldn't.
If you loss 1kg of fat, you Bodyweight drops by one kilo. Fat tissue is almost 100%, there no water content. The study doesn't mention muscle loss, and over 6 days it's not important. Water flucuations are not relevant either.
500calorie deficit oer day equals roughly 1lb if fat loss per week, not 1lb weigh liss. It's nowhere near starvation, it's completely normal diet.

the groutch

Mellor wrote: »

500calorie deficit oer day equals roughly 1lb if fat loss per week, not 1lb weigh liss.

ok, whatever you say

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Lower calorie intake while maintaining protein intake as best you can.

I lost about 90lbs in one summer back in '07 just from calorie restriction, exercise, and making sure that whey protein comprised as high a percentage of my calorie intake as possible. Still need carbs and fat in order to stay healthy, but personally I never saw the logic of concentrating on restricting certain calorie types when the bottom line is that energy consumed vs energy used determines whether fat is stored or burned.

NachoBusiness

The best research in this area (and the most ignored) and not just in regards to weight loss, but health in general, is that both fat and refined grains/sugar can cause weight gain, but both combined is far far worse (for fat gain and your overall heath) than eating them alone. Eat them together and it creates a chemical /hormonal cocktail in the body which hits levels that cannot be hit when either starch or fat are eaten alone.

This is why all foods that contain both starch AND fat are like crack cocaine to humans:

Pizza, Chips, Bread/Toast & Butter, Burgers, Fried Rice, Crisps, Chocolate, Batter, Pastries etc etc etc.

This chemical cocktail hitting such heights causes not just weight gain, but inflammation, auto immune disorders, etc all of which are in turn linked to everything from heart disease to cancer, dementia, Alzheimer's and so on.

Avoiding foods/meals which contain lots of carbs (especially refined sugar/grains) and lots of fat (especially refined long chain fats) is without question the single best thing anyone can do for their health.

Coconut oil/cream/milk would be an exception to eat with carbs as its fat is predominately medium chain and so digested by the body in a much different way to long chain fats which tend to be the predominant fat in all the foods listed above.

This is all just my opinion of course. Enjoy your kebabs.

Tar.Aldarion

I lost nearly 50 pounds in a year on a high carb diet, really it's just eating healthy foods and exercising without worrying too much on macros. Get the right nutrients, eat the right amount of calories.

OneOfThem

60/20/20 protein/carbs/fat. Nutrient dense fresh whole foods. Lots of variety. Vitamins and minerals. You need them. Sweets as occasional treats, not a staple. Easy on the booze. Exercise like a mother fvcker. Mix it up, aerobic and strength building. Be healthy and look good naked. That'll be €400 please. Show the next fatty in please Lisa.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Cold War Kid

kylith wrote: »

You can probably read 'eat less' as 'eat fewer calories'.

Still though, that could mean going from eating 4,000 calories of junkfood a day to 3,000 calories of junkfood a day. You will lose weight doing that, but you won't get healthy, and you won't get to a healthy weight.

"Eat less" should be broken down IMO to "Eat healthy, non processed foods as much as possible, and limit high-calorie processed foods as much as possible.

ygolometsipe

Its fuc*king depressing that diet starts with die.

TheLastMohican

I stopped eating crabs and my gout has not returned.
Sorry, didn't realise that it was crabs carbs that ye were on about!

ALiasEX

Wizard! wrote: »

Your body burns fat, and builds muscles. If you eat more than it needs, it stores fat. However, if you eat much less, you are blocking the metabolism process. At the beginning it burns fat, but later, it starts consuming its muscles. In the meantime, your weight remains at a specific level. If you keep starving, eventually you will loose weight, but you will get weaker and weaker.

Actually the period where your body starts consuming its muscles starts about 10-12 hours since your last meal. That is why most nutritionists suggest frequent small meals throughout the day. If you do not have a meal after 12 hours, and by meal we mean enough calories to keep you going, fat burn stops, and muscle burn begins. If I am not mistaken, this procedure is called "Starvation Response".

How come the 5:2 diet works so well then? Are people on it having their muscles consumed twice a week?

Mellor

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Still though, that could mean going from eating 4,000 calories of junkfood a day to 3,000 calories of junkfood a day. You will lose weight doing that, but you won't get healthy, and you won't get to a healthy weight.

Anyone that interprets "eat less" as eating 3000 calories instead of 4000 can hardly expect to lose weight. And nor do they deserve to if that's the effort they but in.

And reducing to 3000 calories is nowhere near low enough for weight loss for the average person. Even if they are 3000 cals of healthy food.
Unless they are very active or carry a lot of muscle mass, it's just not low enough.

Subcomandante Marcos

The problem with weight control isn't carbs in a board sense, it's an extremely specific carb, fructose.

Most "low" fat branded foods are rammed with added sugars. Added sugars (White/brown/raw/honey/agave/fruit concentrates/HFCS whatever, doesn't matter) are what's causing metabolic diseases.

High fat diets are fine .

High carb diets are fine.

The recent pollution of the western diet with ever increasing amounts of added refined sugars is the problem.

If you did the same test again with 3 groups, one on a high fat - low carb diet, one on a high carb - low refined sugar diet and one on a "low fat" diet where they have to get the same amount of calories as the previous two but mostly from sources with added sugars (breakfast cereals, white bread, jars of sauces, etc) then the results will show that the high carb and high fat diets are broadly the same but he high added sugar diet will have scary effects.

gctest50

"Subcomandante wrote:

.......
The recent pollution of the western diet with ever increasing amounts of added refined sugars is the problem........

ever increasing amounts of the cheapest sugars is part of the problem

Subcomandante Marcos

gctest50 wrote: »

ever increasing amounts of the cheapest sugars is part of the problem

Sugar is sugar. It's all the same thing chemically.

gctest50

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Sugar is sugar. It's all the same thing chemically.

If "sugar" is "contained" in more complex/expensive things it will take your body longer to break it down

C6H12O6

Subcomandante Marcos

gctest50 wrote: »

If "sugar" is "contained" in more complex/expensive things it will take your body longer to break it down

I've explicitly stated I was talking about added sugars in the post which you originally quoted.

It doesn't matter if that added sugar is sucrose from cane or beets, honey from your local bee keeper, organic agave nectar, concentrated fruit juices or HFCS, they are all the same thing.

cbyrd

Honey is a simple carbohydrate easier broken down by the body, as is fructose. Other 'un-natural' sugars that are processed, like cane or beet are harder for the body to process and therefore not as good for you. Artificial sweeteners like aspartame are over time poison.. Stevia and zylitol are fast becoming a replacement for aspartame as people are becoming more aware of what is going into their bodies.