Psycho-Babble Substance Use | about substance use | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: low-carb vs. low-fat (evidence) » Susan J

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 13, 2003, at 9:03:40

In reply to Low-Carb vs. Low-Diet » Larry Hoover, posted by Susan J on September 10, 2003, at 12:26:29

> And when you have massive hunger, it's really hard not to cheat and eat a little bit more...Did that study account for folks who cheated on their diets, even a little bit?

Here's an abstract of one of the studies Taube mentions. All patients were hospitalized, so there would be no cheating (I'd presume). Discussion below....

Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8.

Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Nov;64(5):823-5.

Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.

Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G.

Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets that were equally low in energy but widely different in relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult, obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32% protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45% carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate. Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip circumference were seen in both groups, and the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in response to the higher-carbohydrate diet. The results of this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient composition, that determined weight loss in response to low-energy diets over a short time period.

Glucose, insulin, cholesterol and triglycerides all improved on the low-carb diet. Emphasis. High-fat = lower cholesterol and triglycerides. Does that not contradict the political message that fat restriction will improve those parameters?

Secondly, as Taubes indicates, the low-carb (high fat) dieters lost more weight than the other group. The error bars (the statistical spread) does not overlap ("There was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing either 15% (8.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate."), which means that the groups were distinct. Why it was not reported as a significant group difference is not explained, but without the full text, I can't examine the statistical methodology. It meets the definition of a significant difference, on its face.

Bottom line: We've been lied to. The USDA created the Food Pyramid to increase grain consumption, and then the mythical health benefits were fabricated. That's my belief of what happened, anyway.

Lar

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Substance Use | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:257208
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20030903/msgs/259594.html