Duh! It's the Calories that make you fat, stupid! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 02-25-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

View: Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
Source: CNN
posted with the TFP thread generator

Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question
Low-fat? Low-carbs? Answering best diet question

* Story Highlights
* Researchers test four diets for weight-loss effectiveness
* Dieting theories emphasize carbohydrates, proteins or fats
* No huge differences seen between diets, key is calorie reduction

By Madison Park
CNN

(CNN) -- The dieting world screams with contradictory advice: Carbs are evil; carbs are good for you. "Good fat" is healthy; "good fat" has tons of calories.

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center put four popular diets -- high carb, high fat, low-fat and high protein -- to the test to see which of the regimens resulted in more weight-loss success.

After two years of monitoring the participants, "all the diets were winners," said study co-author Dr. Frank Sacks, a professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health. "All produced weight loss and improvements in lipids, reduction in insulin.

"The key really is that it's calories. It's not the content of fat or carbohydrates, it's just calories," said Sacks. The findings are published in the latest edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the study, 811 overweight adults in Boston, Massachusetts, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, were assigned to one of four diets.

A quarter went on a carbohydrate-heavy diet, some on high-fat, others on low-fat and the remaining on high-protein diet. The four diets were not based on popular diets, Sacks said.

Regardless of diet, most participants had dramatic weight loss after six months, losing an average of 13 pounds.

According to Sacks' research, many of the 800-plus participants regained weight after a year, but about 80 percent of them lost at least eight pounds after two years. And 15 percent of the participants lost at least 10 percent of their body weight.

The study, funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, showed little difference in users' satiety, hunger or satisfaction with their diets.

Participants could attend individual sessions where dieticians educated them and group sessions where they discussed their experiences with one another.

Those who had better attendance in the sessions had stronger weight-loss results. "These findings together point to behavioral factors rather than macronutrient metabolism as the main influences on weight loss," according to the study. Macronutrients are the three main nutrients the body uses in relatively large amounts: proteins, carbohydrates and fats.

"No one of those diets are necessarily better than any other diet," Sacks said.

In an accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, Martijin B. Katan wrote the researchers' hypothesis is "plausible," but said the "differences in macronutrient intake were too small."

There was an underlying similarity between the four diets.

On average, the overweight participants had a 750-calorie reduction per day. An average-sized male who consumed 2,800 calories a day was prescribed just over 2,000 calories and a woman who ate 2000 calories a day was prescribed 1,250 calories.

All diets were compatible with American Heart Association guidelines, Sack said. The study did not give the participants food. For the first 10 days, participants received menus, then were assigned to create their own using the healthy food options.

Depending on their prescribed diet, participants ate a wide range of carbohydrates, fat and protein, derived from healthy foods, such as olive oil, pasta and nut butter.

From these results, Sacks recommends going with "the diet you feel most comfortable that is healthy, that appeals to you in terms of what foods are in it, that isn't a drastic crash diet. Whatever allows you to keep the calories down and not feel really deprived."

Calorie restriction can be done without feeling deprived, said Dr. Luigi Fontana, an associate professor of medicine at the Washington University who studies the effects of calorie restriction on longevity. But he warns against just halving a person's current diet.

"A lot of people think of calorie restriction like eating half a hamburger, half a pack of French fries -- that you can obtain by reducing in half your portions," Fontana said. "That's calorie restriction with malnutrition."

Dr. Melina Jampolis, the diet and fitness expert for CNNhealth warned against drastic measures like completely focusing on one macronutrient. "People want to be extreme," she said. "You say cut back on sugar, they cut it completely. The take-home would be that there is no markedly superior diet. If there was, people wouldn't stick with it anyway."

Cindy Moore, the director of nutrition therapy at Cleveland Clinic and a registered dietician agreed.

"People gravitate to the latest fads or trends, because they may have known someone who was successful in losing weight. That friend may have been in that early grace period of losing weight. The other thing is people think they need that magic bullet."

But a significant change in eating habits -- like cutting out an entire nutrient group like carbohydrates, proteins or fats, often can't be sustained.

Weight loss tends to be dramatic during the first few months. Brenda Driver, of Springfield, Missouri, was not involved in the study but says she lost 10 pounds in 10 days on the Atkins diet by eschewing all carbohydrates.

The 26-year-old and her fiance said they were "not looking at a crash diet, but want to jump start weight loss." The former vegetarians began eating meat again because of the high protein demands of the diet.

Driver said she's aware the Atkins diet is not an ideal long-term plan. Six years ago, she tried the diet for seven months and lost 45 pounds. She finally quit the diet because of her chocolate cravings.

This month, Driver and her fiancedecided to give the Atkins another try. "I want to rebel against the whole, 'you're-engaged-now-you-have-to-lose-weight,' " she said. But it would be nice to look slimmer in those wedding photos, she said.

"I'm approaching it as a temporary thing. Vegetarianism is where I want to be the rest of my life."

Moore said the basics of losing weight boil down to this: Limit the calories consumed so a person is taking in less than the body needs or increase activity to burn more energy.

The problem, she said is that, "People get discouraged if weight loss is really, really slow."

I don't know why this is such a revelation today. It's not about high carb, low carb, high fat, low fat, all protien, it's as simple as with the finances, you cannot take in more calories than you burn. It's that simple. I'm glad that someone is finally telling the truth here about the ideas of dieting. It's really just a simple process. Eat less calories, burn more calories than you take in and you'll lose weight.

It is pretty simple to even see, when a package of low fat chips is still 140 calories compared to regular chips which are 160 calories for 1.5 ounces.

Plan9 · 02-25-2009, 07:29 PM

So they're suggesting that self control and personal responsibility are required to maintain a healthy weight? Portion control?

That's preposterous in the world of Biggie size.

Baraka_Guru · 02-25-2009, 08:08 PM

The low-fat, low-carb thing always irritated me. I think it's because I learned a lot about nutrition at a young age.

It's true that not all calories are created the same (protein, carbohydrate, fat), but a calorie is a calorie, and we need to consider our daily intake vs. daily usage, for sure.

I'm currently boosting my own calorie intake a bit, mainly because of my current weight training program. If I don't boost it a bit, I won't optimize my muscle growth.

What is it...something like 3,500 calories in a pound of fat? Do the math there. You need to burn 3,500 calories above and beyond your body's needs before you drop a single pound of fat. This is why attempts at rapid weight loss isn't a good idea, because cutting too many calories can compromise your metabolism and end up burning something other than fat...like muscle. And this is counterproductive if you know about burning fat.

This is why realistic long-term goals are so important; it's also why people give up when they don't see results after a few days, or a few weeks, even. ---This is why people need to educate themselves.

stevie667 · 02-26-2009, 03:05 AM

I always thought the calories in protein were next to useless, because you'd have to be in serious deficit elsewhere before your body would resort to glucogenesis (sp)?

Would be awesome if someone could confirm/deny for me.

Baraka_Guru · 02-26-2009, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

I always thought the calories in protein were next to useless, because you'd have to be in serious deficit elsewhere before your body would resort to glucogenesis (sp)?

Proteins are important in many actions within cells. Think of all the enzymatic functions required to keep your metabolism going. Think of your immune system responding to certain conditions to ward off sickness. Think of the cell functions that do such things as grow tissue. Protein is crucial to all of that, and that's where many of the calories go.

Alternatively, if there is a glucose or glycogen deficit, the body will convert available protein to that instead. It will take much of it even before a lot of fat tissue on the body. If it needs protein simultaneously for other functions, and there isn't enough readily available, it might take it from muscle or other tissue. This is why many crash diets (and diets such as Atkins) cause the loss of muscle tissue along with fat tissue (let alone the loss of water weight in certain low-carb diets).

Glycogen is produced and used mainly in the muscles and liver.

This conversion of protein has a byproduct of nitrogen, which must be eliminated by the liver. Too much can cause it a lot of stress.

This is why it's important to balance your diet.

stevie667 · 02-26-2009, 11:57 AM

Right, so the calories in protein are counted in the fact that the protein itself is utilised in the body, instead of burnt for energy?

That makes more sense.

Zeraph · 02-26-2009, 02:18 PM

It's true that it's simple, but I think its gone largely unanounced (officially I mean) because of all the diet companies out there that make tons of money from selling the new fad. Just like cigarette companies have lobbyist so too does anything else that has high revenue. And I think they pay to purposefully squelch stuff like this.

MSD · 02-26-2009, 03:19 PM

So you're saying that if I simply eat less food than my body uses, I'll lose weight? BURN THE WITCH!

Willravel · 02-26-2009, 04:06 PM

Before we get in a horrible agreement match, let's put this into perspective. I average about 2,400-2,700 calories a day, and I don't start going into real starvation mode until my current diet drops below maybe 1600 calories a day. That said, there are certain circumstances in which increased calories per day could lead to my starvation. The now infamous large White Castle Chocolate Shake has about 1680 calories. That's a frigging ton. If I had two a day, my body would go into starvation mode. Why? It wouldn't fill me up (or it would make me sick). I'd lose weight. Sure, my cholesterol would shoot up, my arteries would clog, and I'd probably get diabetes in no time. But I'd lose weight at 3360 calories a day, which is an additional 800 calories on top of what I eat now.

It is of course important to make sure that your calorie count is within reason. It's good to make sure you're burning calories by digestion and exercise, and that eventually the amount of total burned calories and the amount you ingest are in the same direction. All of that said, the amount of calories isn't the whole game. Bear quantity in mind, by all means, but don't forget quality. In order to get 3360 calories, I'd need to eat about 61 apples a day. 15 pounds of apples in 15 hours. That's roughly 1 apple every 15 minutes from when I wake up to when I go to sleep. Imagine the doctors I'd keep away. My point is that calories are only chapter one in the anthology of health and fat-burning, so before we go nuts (as we've been known to do), let's at least add an asterisk after our triumphant proclamation that calories are the whole ball game:

Calories make you fat*

*for the most part, but don't totally discount lethargy and the quality of the calories, but yeah the calories are a big part of it.

ASU2003 · 02-26-2009, 04:10 PM

So, I can eat ice cream and chocolate instead of grilled chicken and unsalted nuts and not gain weight? That is if the portion amount has an equal amount of calories...

guccilvr · 02-26-2009, 04:20 PM

I'm not a big calorie fan.. sure they have their place.. but good calories and bad calories obviously exist.. people who eat 5 double cheeseburgers then order a diet coke amuse me..

stevie667 · 02-27-2009, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I'm not a big calorie fan.. sure they have their place.. but good calories and bad calories obviously exist.. people who eat 5 double cheeseburgers then order a diet coke amuse me..

Maybe they don't want the sugar? I order diet/zero/max drinks all over the place, because the sugar does hell with my teeth, but i can burn off fat and other carbs. Granted phosphoric acid is a bitch, but its one evil instead of two.

Plan9 · 02-27-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Maybe they don't want the sugar? I order diet/zero/max drinks all over the place, because the sugar does hell with my teeth, but i can burn off fat and other carbs. Granted phosphoric acid is a bitch, but its one evil instead of two.

Likewise. As the offical White-Guy-with-a-Tapeworm (TM) here at TFP, I don't drink "regular" pop because it is loaded with sugar and hurts my teeth. Also, things that are really fat dense like most fast food concoctions make me feel like puking. Then again, the pukey thing is kinda normal for me.

I eat a lot of healthy breakfast cereal, tuna, peanut butter, frozen/canned vegetables, and pasta... drink a lot of milk, water, and bourbon (when single). I can pack away like 2,700-3000 calories a day when I'm doing physical activity beyond curling textbooks and I've been 27" around the waist since 2001.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the key to success, no-duh-college-guy, is balance. The body processes things at different rates, right? Sugars go fast, fats take time... you need both in different amounts. Throw the balance off by too much or not enough of one and you're just as bad as eating too much in general. You might not bloat up like Oprah, but you're not fueling your body the way it should be and it'll show in your overall wellness.

Reminds me of a funny T-shirt I saw recently: A cupcake and a multivitaman = not breakfast.

guccilvr · 02-27-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Maybe they don't want the sugar? I order diet/zero/max drinks all over the place, because the sugar does hell with my teeth, but i can burn off fat and other carbs. Granted phosphoric acid is a bitch, but its one evil instead of two.

point taken, but in all fairness, most people who have the "supersize" diets generally aren't concerned about what they are eating sugar included. So they'll eat 2 supersize meals a day and then they'll have a "cupcake and a multivitamin" for breakfast and a diet coke thinking that they are doing themselves a favor..when in fact they are just doing even more damage in the end.

Calories are more than just a number.. people get so caught up with the number instead of paying attention to where the actual calories are coming from and where they will end up.

Baraka_Guru · 02-27-2009, 09:59 AM

Some calories help turn the body into a well-maintained furnace; other calories may turn it into a toxic dump site.

Lindy · 02-28-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I'm not a big calorie fan.. sure they have their place.. but good calories and bad calories obviously exist.. people who eat 5 double cheeseburgers then order a diet coke amuse me..

I'd like to recommend an excellent

book Good calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, who is a science journalist, not a diet doctor. The cover shows a picture of a slice of toast with a big pat of butter on it. This is not a diet book, but a history of nutrition over the ages and in different cultures. Has quite a bit of science in it, and is a fairly long book, but has a lot of useful information and will challenge a lot of assumptions. Worth the effort to anyone who might have more than a casual interest in food and nutrition. It should be available at Amazon.com and the usual other book type places.

Lindy

02-25-2009, 07:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
Plan9 Gorilla Cum Laude Location: Prime Self Blog Entries: 114	So they're suggesting that self control and personal responsibility are required to maintain a healthy weight? Portion control? That's preposterous in the world of Biggie size. __________________ "The days go on and on... they don't end. All my life needed was a sense of someplace to go. I don't believe that one should devote his life to morbid self-attention, I believe that one should become a person like other people." Formerly username "Crompsin."

02-25-2009, 08:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru Dracologist Super Moderator Location: Toronto, Canada Blog Entries: 89	The low-fat, low-carb thing always irritated me. I think it's because I learned a lot about nutrition at a young age. It's true that not all calories are created the same (protein, carbohydrate, fat), but a calorie is a calorie, and we need to consider our daily intake vs. daily usage, for sure. I'm currently boosting my own calorie intake a bit, mainly because of my current weight training program. If I don't boost it a bit, I won't optimize my muscle growth. What is it...something like 3,500 calories in a pound of fat? Do the math there. You need to burn 3,500 calories above and beyond your body's needs before you drop a single pound of fat. This is why attempts at rapid weight loss isn't a good idea, because cutting too many calories can compromise your metabolism and end up burning something other than fat...like muscle. And this is counterproductive if you know about burning fat. This is why realistic long-term goals are so important; it's also why people give up when they don't see results after a few days, or a few weeks, even. ---This is why people need to educate themselves. __________________ Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 02-25-2009 at 08:11 PM..

02-26-2009, 03:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
stevie667 Land Fishies! Location: Angloland	I always thought the calories in protein were next to useless, because you'd have to be in serious deficit elsewhere before your body would resort to glucogenesis (sp)? Would be awesome if someone could confirm/deny for me. __________________ This is a message from the Emergancy Broadcast System, please stand by...

02-26-2009, 11:57 AM	#6 (permalink)
stevie667 Land Fishies! Location: Angloland	Right, so the calories in protein are counted in the fact that the protein itself is utilised in the body, instead of burnt for energy? That makes more sense. __________________ This is a message from the Emergancy Broadcast System, please stand by...

02-26-2009, 02:18 PM	#7 (permalink)
Zeraph Eye See You Location: The Cosmos	It's true that it's simple, but I think its gone largely unanounced (officially I mean) because of all the diet companies out there that make tons of money from selling the new fad. Just like cigarette companies have lobbyist so too does anything else that has high revenue. And I think they pay to purposefully squelch stuff like this. __________________ "What silence can there be, what lack of sound compare to a snowfall from dark air falling quietly to sea?" luv ya

02-26-2009, 03:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
MSD Why would you ever want to be like me? Moderator Location: CT	So you're saying that if I simply eat less food than my body uses, I'll lose weight? BURN THE WITCH! __________________ If you catch the evil twin, then why would you keep it alive?

02-26-2009, 04:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter. Location: Behind the brick wall, inside the gray room, at the black desk. Blog Entries: 14	Before we get in a horrible agreement match, let's put this into perspective. I average about 2,400-2,700 calories a day, and I don't start going into real starvation mode until my current diet drops below maybe 1600 calories a day. That said, there are certain circumstances in which increased calories per day could lead to my starvation. The now infamous large White Castle Chocolate Shake has about 1680 calories. That's a frigging ton. If I had two a day, my body would go into starvation mode. Why? It wouldn't fill me up (or it would make me sick). I'd lose weight. Sure, my cholesterol would shoot up, my arteries would clog, and I'd probably get diabetes in no time. But I'd lose weight at 3360 calories a day, which is an additional 800 calories on top of what I eat now. It is of course important to make sure that your calorie count is within reason. It's good to make sure you're burning calories by digestion and exercise, and that eventually the amount of total burned calories and the amount you ingest are in the same direction. All of that said, the amount of calories isn't the whole game. Bear quantity in mind, by all means, but don't forget quality. In order to get 3360 calories, I'd need to eat about 61 apples a day. 15 pounds of apples in 15 hours. That's roughly 1 apple every 15 minutes from when I wake up to when I go to sleep. Imagine the doctors I'd keep away. My point is that calories are only chapter one in the anthology of health and fat-burning, so before we go nuts (as we've been known to do), let's at least add an asterisk after our triumphant proclamation that calories are the whole ball game: Calories make you fat* *for the most part, but don't totally discount lethargy and the quality of the calories, but yeah the calories are a big part of it. __________________ "So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private citizens will occasionally kill theirs." Elbert Hubbard

02-26-2009, 04:10 PM	#10 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: possibly ohio	So, I can eat ice cream and chocolate instead of grilled chicken and unsalted nuts and not gain weight? That is if the portion amount has an equal amount of calories...

02-26-2009, 04:20 PM	#11 (permalink)
guccilvr THE drama Super Moderator Location: NC USA Blog Entries: 56	I'm not a big calorie fan.. sure they have their place.. but good calories and bad calories obviously exist.. people who eat 5 double cheeseburgers then order a diet coke amuse me.. __________________ ...We were the victims of ourselves Maybe the children of a lesser god... the best thing about music..is when it hits you.. there's no pain. ~~Bob Marley~~ Have a question about TFP in General? CLICK THIS

02-27-2009, 09:59 AM	#15 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru Dracologist Super Moderator Location: Toronto, Canada Blog Entries: 89	Some calories help turn the body into a well-maintained furnace; other calories may turn it into a toxic dump site. __________________ Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot