Weight Loss: Focus on Cutting Calories
Sometimes I get sick listening to people groan on about how great THEIR diet is over another diet--whether it's low carb, low fat, high protein, or whatever!
So, I found the results of a new study of interest. They concluded as long as your diet cuts back on calories it will lead to weight loss. Researchers said this:
Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
So, this means no matter what proportions of fat, protein or carbohydrate your diet contains you should still lose weight.
The study was carried out by researchers from the Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies (POUNDS LOST) study, and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
As you know, we've had an explosion in different diets over the last few years, but one of the main problems has been the lack of prolonged studies to compare these plans with each other.
In this study 811 overweight participants were randomly assigned to one of four diets for two years:
- Low-fat, average protein: 20 percent fat, 15 percent protein, 65 percent carbohydrate.
- Low-fat, high protein: 20 percent fat, 25 percent protein, 55 percent carbohydrate.
- High-fat, average protein: 40 percent fat, 15 percent protein, 45 percent carbohydrate.
- High-fat, high-protein: 40 percent fat, 25 percent protein, 35 percent carbohydrate.
The diets had similar foods and met heart healthy guidelines, being low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and high in fiber. Participants were required to attend group and individual counseling sessions for two years, they were also given individual targets for their daily calorie intake, and were encouraged to do moderate levels of exercise, such as brisk walking, for at least 90 minutes per week.
So, what did the results show?
After six months, participants on each diet had lost on average 6 kg. This was about 7 percent of their starting weight. However, most began to regain after twelve months. After two years the average weight loss was 4 kg, and in fact was very similar, regardless of the carbohydrate, fat, or protein content of their diet.
It was noted that:
- Weight loss in those on 15 percent protein was similar to those on the 25 percent protein.
- Weight loss in those on 20 percent fat was similar to those on the 40 percent fat.
- Weight loss in those on 65 percent carbohydrate was similar to those on the 35 percent carbohydrate.
- 14 to 15 percent of participants lost at least 10 percent of their initial body weight over the 2 years.
- Attendance at counselling sessions, satiety, hunger, and satisfaction with the diet were similar in all groups.
- Attendance at counselling sessions was strongly linked to weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended).
- All the diets reduced risk factors, such as reduced triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, and increased HDL cholesterol.
- They also reduced their waistlines by 1 to 3 inches by the end of the study.
The results from this study indicate that as long as you follow a calorie reduced diet, the nutritional approach you choose seems to matter little, i.e. the proportions of fat, protein or carbohydrate you choose.
To me this demonstrates the importance of choosing a plan you can stick with for life, rather than some quick-fix solution.
Something else that's pretty clear from this study is how difficult people seem to find losing weight and keeping it off long-term. Each of these individuals received counseling, and yet still struggled to lose and maintain their weight loss over the two years.
What are your thoughts on this study? Why do you think the participants regained some of their weight again at two years despite being given a robust diet and counseling from experts?
40 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Losing fat is all about what you put in your mouth. Having a muscular or toned body is a combinatin of both diet and exercise.
I agree with the outcome of this study, regardless of the accuracy (I am saying that because I know a lot of people like to pick apart how accurately studies are done), because all the diets listed limit calories one way or another. Even when someone is doing a high fat diet, they will cut back on calories because they feel fuller quicker than someone on a low cal diet.
In order to lose fat, you need to find a way of eating that you can stick with forever just like the author said. I feel the reason people gain the weight back is that they picked an unrealistic change in diet in the first place. People need to be able to indulge every once in a while; however, that is not expressed enough to someone who is on a "diet." There seems to be an all or nothing approach. If they fall off, they tend to fall off for good...or at least until they decide to try another "diet." I love the 80/20 approach to eating which Denise Austin was very good at promoting. Too many diet plans don't allow for the occasional stray. Too rigid=unsuccessful.
Reply"So, this means no matter what proportions of fat, protein or carbohydrate your diet contains you should still lose weight."
While I agree that it's all about calories, I wouldn't go so far as the statement you make above. Technically, you may still lose weight even if you come up with some outrageous macro-nutrient ratio. But if you want to compare low-carb vs. moderate carb, most studies indicate that at least SOME protein is needed. But again, I think you make the important point that total calorie is much more important than trying to avoid insulinogenic foods.
It's unfortunate that people like Steven Taubes can make a name for himself using highly selective research without understanding why the research he used was so poorly set-up. According to Taubes, I can lose weight eating 3,500 calories per day just as long as I stick to certain foods like meats, veggies and avoid certain starchy carbs that will spike my insulin levels. Unfortunately, I can list 4-5 WELL-CONTROLLED studies that show he is flat out wrong.
ReplyMelanie, get ready for a storm of replies from the low-carb Talibans/Steven Taubes disciples.
ReplyGary Taubes?
ReplyOh boy, I can't believe another Diet Blogger is pushing the "all calories are the same". We know it's about refined carbs and sugar. Gary Taubes showed studies that you can feed people unlimited amounts of fat/protein and they will lose weight. Stop peddling this pro-carb nonsense.
Reply"Gary Taubes showed studies that you can feed people unlimited amounts of fat/protein and they will lose weight."
Uh, no he didn't. If you're just being sarcastic, then I apologize for misreading your post, but Taubes is a fraud.
Taubes writes well and his arguments SOUND convincing. Except that he's cherry picked his data to the nth degree picking 1930's textbooks to a make a point and data from the 1980's when the MOST RECENT well-controlled studies say something completely different.
His basic premise stems from a 1980 PNAS report saying that the obrese eat the same or less than lean people. Therefore, he concludes, it can't be calories making people fat. it MUST be something else.
Unfortunately, this was BEFORE they realized that self-reported caloric intakes are completely wrong and that the obese systematically underreport their food intake. But he NEVER addresses the data on mis/under-reporting. He had his data point and ignored everything between 1980 and 2008 on the topic.
Also, below is a quote from Bray's review. If you've read the book, then you'll understand what Bray is referencing. Basically, Bray is saying that self-reporting of calories is wildly inaccurate...which is what Taubes relies on. In well-controlled studies where calories are controlled, the results contradict Taubes' conclusions.
"We now know that the data used in the Diet and Health
ReplyReport were wrong and that obese people eat more food
energy than do lean ones. The answer to this apparent
paradox came from a new technique for measuring total
daily energy expenditure (17). This technique allows us to
measure total energy expenditure over an interval of
7–10 days and cannot be influenced by the subjects’ food
intake. As information obtained from this technique began
individuals do not eat more than lean ones do. The data for
to appear, it was compared with the information from food
records. The data showed that normal-weight people
underreport what they eat by 10–30%. This means that
dietary food-intake records underestimate energy expendi-
ture by nearly a quarter. For overweight people, the degree
of underreporting is higher, varying from 30% to 50%.
Thus, food records as a measure of ‘real’ calorie need are
unreliable, as for any individual you do not know how
much he or she actually underreports. Moreover, underre-
porting seems to be higher for dietary fat (18). When food-
intake records are used, the greater discrepancy reported by
the obese would make their data closer to those of normal-
weight people who underreport less. The data on energy
requirements based on doubly labelled water measure-
ments from many laboratories were compiled in the Rec-
ommended Dietary Intakes (19), one of the sources that are
not cited in Good Calories, Bad Calories. Table 2 compiles
some of these data. The body mass index (BMI) is 5–7 units
higher in the overweight group than in the normal-weight
group and the overweight men expend 300–500 calories
more per day than do the normal-weight men, meaning
that they must eat more food just to maintain their weight.
The women are even heavier, with a 6- to 10-unit BMI
difference and energy expenditures that are 100–500
calories more per day. To maintain this extra weight the
women have to eat enough food to provide this extra
energy."
Pfffft. You haven't refuted anything that Gary Taubes showed in his book. He cited multiple studies showing that fat & protein had no effect on weight gain, but the opposite! In fact it's carbohydrates and sugar that cause heart disease NOT steak.
ReplyArrow, please reread my post. Taubes took selective studies from 1930 to 1980 and didn't realize their limitations until AFTER he was dead set on his conclusions. He basically ignored every modern study that showed controlling calories are more important than eating a high-protein diet.
ReplyI agree that you need to find a plan you can live with instead of hopping on whatever diet bandwagon is popular. I personally have an appetite that rivals that of "Man vs. Food"s Adam Richman...I could probably tackle some of those challenges he does and do pretty dang well. For this reason, I tend to eat lots of foods that are high in water and fiber and complex carbs and lower in fat. I suppose I'd have to call it a high carb/moderate protein diet, but I also try to avoid most processed foods and I get plenty of exercise.
I'm not 100% sure, but I would guess that people regained some weight because they stopped watching their portions as carefully. It happens pretty easily; you get cocky thinking you can eyeball servings and gradually the servings get a bit bigger and you regain a little weight.
ReplyIf you went low-carb you could keep the weight off without exercising a ton.
ReplyEvery person has to find what works best for them and I don't think low carb is the only way. I eat approximately a 40-30-30 diet & that can vary from day to day but equals out to about that over a week & I have done fine. It does not work for all so people need to keep trying to find what works for them both food & exercise wise.
As for why they gain it back.. people don't want to do the hard work it takes to keep the weight off. Ya still have to eat decent at least 80% of the time & keep moving, not sitting.
ReplyThe problem with a high carb diet is that you have to do TONS of exercise to keep it off. Why not just low-carb and do less exercise? Life is too short to be so consumed with workouts.
ReplyI am not on a high carb diet. And the carbs I eat are veggies & things like that along with oatmeal & whole grains. Not everyone works the same way! Do you consider 35-40% carbs high? I don't. And I like to eat the carbs in my food diet so why should I give them up if I still stay fit & at a healthy if not above average weight for my age category. And my body fat is excellent for my age.
By the way, I love lifting weights! I am not a fan of cardio but even if I did not have to do it, it is important for heart/lung health.
My way is not for all & neither is yours.
ReplyI don't look at it as "having to" exercise. I do it because I like it. If I didn't like to work out, I wouldn't and I'd eat a lower carb diet. But, since I like both carbs and working out, I'm keeping both in my diet.
ReplyYeah because all of us love running 2 hours a day...
ReplyArrow can you NOT read what she said, or are you just a complete m-o-r-o-n!
No one who knows what they're doing will workout for 2 continuous hours a day. That's called over-training, which means it will do more HARM than good, and I certainly don't see any harm being done.
This might be a hard concept to grasp for ya... but given enough, you *might* see the light.
ReplyThe thing is, there's a lot of people out there who don't know what they're doing, especially when they have tv shows like the Biggest Loser as their template for starting a program. That show has over-training down to a T.
ReplyYeah, because all of us look forward to living the rest of our lives without potatoes and bread.
ReplyOnce you get used to going without, it's really not so bad and it simplifies cooking, one less side dish to worry about.
And I still make allowances for an occassional splurge...the local italian place, pizza, ice cream....
Really it's no different than the healthy choices everyone else makes day in and day out in the course of their lives. I just have a different idea of what constitutes healthy choices.
ReplyI personally would prefer to run every day than deprive myself of the occasional baked potato or bowl of pasta. But that's just me, which is kind of my point, it's our own individual choice to make. Besides, exercising makes me feel much better mentally and physically than never eating pancakes again would.
ReplyI agree.. I do a bit more to allow myself to not only eat more for my age & height BUT to enjoy those special treats when I want to. And yes, a life without carbs is no fun to me!
If you are a low carb person, go for it. I don't care if that is your thing & it works for you. BUT, don't assume it is for everyone else.
ReplyI agree...to a point. You can eat nothing but candy bars all day, and lose weight since you are consuming only 800 calories a day. But is it HEALTHY? No. I think people need to consider their health and what is good for their body rather than focus on nothing but calorie consumption.
ReplyI always wonder about this weigh loss , coz' weight loss never been take effect on me.
ReplyIt is just a kind of tips, always follow tips from professionals.
ReplyWhere this study goes out the window is that it doesn't compare a truly low-carb diet to any of the other diets listed.
All the diets listed were very moderate/balanced in one way or another...they all straddled the middle.
A truly low-carb diet is intended to be unbalanced with maybe 15% or less of the calories coming from carbs. A true low-carbers' ratio might look like this: 70-20-10 (fat, protein, carb) give or take 5% depending on the day. I'd like to see this sort of ratio compared to the other diets.
I do find the adherence to the diets in the study interesting, especially since they were all moderate, probably with the intent that a moderate diet would help people adhere more easily.
ReplyThey don't do that study because they think a true low-carb diet is unpalatable to most people.
ReplyMusajen and Arrow,
Do a Google search for the following:
Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061
Basically what the study shows is that if calories and protein intake are identical, there is little to no metabolic advantage (in terms of fat or weight loss) to full blown ketogenic diets. They work at least as well, mind you, but not better.
ReplyMusajen, can you give me an example for what you'd eat on an average day with a 70-20-10 ratio?
ReplyBreakfast: 3 whole eggs cooked in butter, 2 slices of bacon, 1/2 cup of blueberries with 2 tbsp of whipping cream or coconut milk.
Lunch: spinach salad with mushrooms, walnuts, avocado, a couple strawberries, 6 oz. grilled chicken sliced, and olive oil and vinegar.
Supper: sirloin steak (6-8 oz) on grill, patty pan squash sauteed in butter with some bacon pieces and basil, sauteed mushrooms.
Some days I eat a spoonful of coconut oil. And some days I have some almond butter for an afternoon snack with celery sticks or an apple quarter.
Usually my calories range between 1,800 and 2,200 and my fat intake is 65-75% of my daily calories. I don't track this often, but will check-in ocassionally look to make sure my percentages are still in line.
ReplyOh, I try to keep my carbs to 50g or less during the day.
ReplyHow are you suppose to do any form of exercise with low carb diets; you wouldnt be able to maintain it. Makes no sense, stop with the low-carb preaching, please.
ReplyJust like anyone else...get up and move. There's an energy lag the first week or two being low-carb while the body adjusts but it goes away. You really don't need carbs to fuel activity, even intense or long duration activity.
ReplyThis is not my area of expertise, but being a product of an interdisciplinary experience has led me to read a lot of research in this field. Here are some of the most probable truths:
1) Weight loss should probably not be the crux of evaluation of effectiveness of a nutritional plan. Neither should cholesterol.
2) For most people, avoiding processed foods seems to be key. There is a stark difference between TRUE whole grains and processed carbs
3) The presence of proteins + fruits + vegetables with a great abundance of the latter two seems to be a large factor in health.
4) Weight streamlining is a function of living a healthy lifestyle and regular (daily) physical activity (vigorous but not necessarily intense)
Everything else is just marketing, just someone trying to promote the one factor that they believe in and/or are making money from. Stop the physiological game playing.
ReplyAlso, reporting on one study at the exclusion of other contradictory studies, even at the exclusion of contradictory case studies, doesn't prove your point.
It just SOUNDS and LOOKS like you prove your point.
ReplyI haven't had a chance to pick through the study in its entirety but it does seem to reflect most of the other long-term studies. A couple of things that stood out for me (and again - just after a cursory reading)
What wasn't surprising...
1. Looks like calories are crucial (no surprise).
2. In accordance with other long-term studies, the results were pretty p!ss-poor - if you put me on a diet and told me I would only lose 10 lbs in 2 years - I would run to the nearest 7-11 and get a tub of Ben and Jerry's, throw away the lid and repeat until dead (exaggerating)
3. The initial weight loss after 6 months + subsequent stall is another tell-tale of long-term studies - this one is no exception. This is usually most common in low carb treatment arms.
4. Those who attended counseling more often did better than those who didn't attend regularly.
What surprised me...
That protein disparities didn't make much of a difference. This contradicts other studies that show higher protein being superior for fat loss. Although I haven't scoured the data for actual numbers.
It just goes to show that the best diet really is the one you can stick to long term.
I'll also second Kwame's bullet points. As well, I'll agree with Spectra and Jody's takes on exercise.
I don't think we should tweaking our diets towards eating as little calories/carbs as possible to avoid exercise. By the same token I don't agree with the idea of trying to out-exercise an overly indulgent diet. There's a happy medium in there for everybody.
ReplyYour last paragraph was BRILLIANTLY stated, Mike! 'nuff said.
ReplyThanks Kwame!
ReplyYeah, because all of us look forward to living the rest of our lives without potatoes and bread.
ReplyAs long as you don't go mad on carbs, fat and sugar I can't see the problem with a varied diet. I do try and avoid processed foods but we do need carbs, fat and sugar to function properly so cutting them out almost completely seems foolish to me.
Eat lots of fresh fruit and veg and exercise every 48 hours and you won't want to eat heavily processed rubbish
ReplyDing, ding, ding! We have a winner. Not everyone buys the diet industry propaganda for pro high-carb diets. Why are they trying to kill us?
Reply