Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting study

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interesting study

    "...but where the calories come from may not matter as much as simply cutting back on them..."

    Low-fat, schmo-fat. Only the calories count - Health - Diet and nutrition - msnbc.com

  • #2
    If weight loss is the SOLE goal--that might be true, but what about health? I restrict calories for weight management, but I eat Primal for health.

    Comment


    • #3
      For someone that is obese it is basically always healthier to get to a normal weight range, whether its a diet based on grains and legumes or not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by emmie View Post
        If weight loss is the SOLE goal--that might be true, but what about health? I restrict calories for weight management, but I eat Primal for health.
        However you can get the weight off that suits your lifestyle and dietary preferences leads to improved health. Carrying around excess fat is not healthy even if you eat primal but are not losing it.

        Comment


        • #5
          Two points I picked out of this:

          "The major predictor for weight loss was 'adherence'. Those participants who adhered better, lost more weight than those who did not," said George Bray, at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who worked on the study.
          Taubes goes in to this in GCBC, cites many studies which have shown that people find fat/protein based diets easier to adhere to than carb based diets.

          Each of the diets was designed to cut 750 calories a day.

          After six months and again at two years after starting the diets, researchers checked participants' weight, fat mass and lean mass.

          At six months, people had lost more than 4.1 kg (9 lbs) of fat and close to 2.3 kg (5 lbs) of lean mass, but they regained some of this by the two-year mark.
          (My emphasis)

          So each diet, regardless of composition, ran at a calorie deficiet. The study was based on the assumption that a calorie is just a calorie, so the body is being deprived of the fuel it needs and the expected rebound of regaining weight is evidenced. The study does not test what happens if one eats a low carb diet in accordance with what their body's telling them.

          File under bad science IMO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jimhensen View Post
            For someone that is obese it is basically always healthier to get to a normal weight range, whether its a diet based on grains and legumes or not.
            Oh Jimbo...
            If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

            Originally posted by tfarny
            If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/

            Comment


            • #7
              as already someone pointed out, sustainability is very important. sure i can hold my breath and suck in my tummy and sport a wash board stomach for 20-30 seconds.
              Few but ripe.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 70in2012 View Post
                as already someone pointed out, sustainability is very important. sure i can hold my breath and suck in my tummy and sport a wash board stomach for 20-30 seconds.
                Exactly. So if someone cannot stick to a primal diet because they find it too restrictive, another diet they can stick to including some banned foods on the primal diet would be healthier.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Euan_B View Post
                  Two points I picked out of this:



                  Taubes goes in to this in GCBC, cites many studies which have shown that people find fat/protein based diets easier to adhere to than carb based diets.

                  (My emphasis)

                  So each diet, regardless of composition, ran at a calorie deficiet. The study was based on the assumption that a calorie is just a calorie, so the body is being deprived of the fuel it needs and the expected rebound of regaining weight is evidenced. The study does not test what happens if one eats a low carb diet in accordance with what their body's telling them.

                  File under bad science IMO.
                  Some people do well on low carb, some people crave carbs constantly and cannot stick with it and can stick to a diet including grains much easier. What diet one can stick to is highly individual.

                  And your assertion that this is bad science because "The study does not test what happens if one eats a low carb diet in accordance with what their body's telling them" is absolutely hilarious. This has nothing to do with what they were trying to test. They wanted to see if diets with different macronutrients but similar deficits made a difference in weight loss. The study seemed to show that these macronutrient differences didn't make a difference. If they had a group and just said "eat as much low carb as your body tells you" the results would be all over the place because calories wouldn't be accounted for...and if what this study suggests is correct, their weight loss would be directly correlated with their calories, not their carb intake.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X