What do you think of this article?
 

Low-carb diets no quick fix: study
Tue Apr 8,11:04 AM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!



CHICAGO (AFP) - Diets low in carbohydrates have got some good press in recent months, but a study suggests they are no better than conventional calorie-counting regimes.



"While these diets are effective in the short term, weight loss results from reduced calories, not carbohydrate restriction," said Dena Bravata, a lead researcher on the paper which is published in this week's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (news - web sites).


Advocates of low-carb, high-protein diets have long claimed that these regimes promote rapid weight-loss because they force the body to metabolise fat stores for energy instead of carbohydrates.


Cardiologist Robert Atkins, perhaps the best-known advocate of the philosophy, has sold millions of books promoting just this advice.


But medical professionals, including the American Dietetic Association and the American Heart Association (news - web sites), have cautioned the public against these weight-loss programs, warning that they could potentially lead to kidney and liver problems because of their high fat content.


In an effort to establish what the science showed about the success of these diets, researchers from Stanford University Medical Center and Yale University reviewed 107 studies on low-carb diets carried out since the mid-1960s up to the present day.


Their analysis showed that people on diets of 60 or fewer grams of carbohydrates a day did lose some weight, but the lost pounds were due to a restricted calorie intake and the length of the diet.


"The greatest predictors of weight loss appear to be caloric intake and diet duration," said Bravata, a social science researcher at Stanford.


"The findings suggest that if you want to lose weight, you should eat fewer calories and do so over a longer period of time."


The researchers could find no evidence that the diets adversely affected the cholesterol, glucose, insulin and blood-pressure levels of the volunteers who took part in the studies (some 3,268 people) but said more research was needed to thoroughly evaluate any side effects.


In an editorial accompanying the study, George Bray, an obesity expert at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, suggested that the popularity of low-carb regimes might reflect dieters' preferences.


"The broader issue of whether a unique diet exists that will produce long-term weight loss has yet to be evaluated. Although the truth of "a calorie is a calorie" has been reaffirmed by the systematic review by Bravata et al, the question of whether patients can adhere more easily to one type of diet or another remains to be answered."

true
 

Sure the success of a low carb plan is a reduction in calories.

But its the intake of foods that nourish the body with out over stuffing it that makes low carb sustainable over the long term.

"The greatest predictors of weight loss appear to be caloric intake and diet duration," said Bravata, a social science researcher at Stanford.

This is new ! It used to be "calories in - calories out". The change is not that innocent. Ketones are calories, they go "out" without being burned ! Somebody must have figured that out and changed the "party" line.

"The greatest predictors of weight loss appear to be caloric intake and diet duration,"


Of course, the only reason I have stayed on this "diet" for about 9 months now, is that I am NEVER hungry.

Sure, I could have lost the same amount of wt. on a low calorie diet, but I am pretty damn sure I would never have stayed with it this long.

I'm down another couple of pounds this week - must be all that low-cal bacon, eggs, butter, steak, and cream I've been wolfing down.

Do you suppose they bothered noticing the study where the low-carb people lost more weight eating 700 calories more a day then the low-fat people. Or the typical result where the low-carb people simply loose more weight on the same calories, and are not grumpy about their diet.

This is simply the last gasp efforts of the anti low-carb establishment to put down low-carbing, because the evidence is mounting for it with every new study.

I saw this on the news, and have been looking for the article. I do think it's low-cal - I doubt I've gone over 1700 cals a day (and sometimes am probably around 1300), but the difference is that I can eat that many calories and not spend the time I'm not eating - thinking about eating. Freedom!

I did the Zone eight years ago, and took off 35 pounds that I've kept off. While I was religious about it, it did occur to me that I'd never eaten so methodically, carefully, and probably had never taken in so few calories. I was also never hungry. The whys and wherefores don't matter so much, so long as it is sustainable. I did it for six months, and was able to readjust the way that I ate.

The behavior modification worked! I'm doing Atkins now so that I can pay that close attention again & knock off those last stubborn ones. I just came off of 9 weeks on ediets, over which I lost 1 lb. Was always hungry.

Everyone's needs and predictors of success are different, but for me, the proof is in the lack of pudding!

I agree orzabelle
 

I will certainly admit that part of my my success has been due to restricting calories. I feebly tried the Zone but could not design a new menu to always eat a certain ratio of carb to protein. I knew carbs were part of the problem but how much? What Atkins did was take a sledgehammer to my head and bash in 20g carb a day. It was not until I tried to do 20g a day that I woke up and realized what a correct (balanced) carb portion was. I was poisoning myself with sugar. So this behaviour modification worked. Plus with Atkins for a non-cooking guy like me it was easy to throw out the rolls, bread, fries, rice, potatoes, pasta -no tedious meal planning.

My first statement - restricting calories is based on dropping about 180 gm carb out of my diet a day. I did not replace those carbs with more meat. I eat the same portion size as before. Sometime I will list a journal of my meals and some of you will think I am starving myself. But I am very stable on my target - a few lbs light right now over 8.5 months maintenance. The control I have over my weight is unbelievable. I have a business associate who said the same thing after I influenced him to do LC. He said he now can control his eating where as before he was always hungry.

The other thing they never consider is the wonderful value of eating a low glycemic diet. I hardly get drowsy now for company meetings after lunch. We went on a long drive and I was the only one who did not have to sleep after lunch so guess who drove through all the torrential downpours? My head is so clear now. How many of us will be spared from Type II Diabetes? I have a friend who is diabetic and has converted to LC and I am so relieved! :wave:

Over more than six months I have lost 47 lbs while consuming about 2200-2400 calories per day. Sometimes more than that, seldom less.

The Low Fat claque simply cannot accept the reality of the metabolic advantage, nor of the patterns that develop over time as our bodies become efficient at burning fat rather than sugar for normal daily fuel.

But even better, longer term studies are in the works, and then more radical positions will have to be taken by the Low Fat gurus to maintain their market share.

What a country!

Exactly.

I like to think of it this way .... With low-carbing, the caloric deficit happens at the level of the cell, not the dinner plate.

:)

Doreen