> CONCLUSIONS
>
> Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful
> weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they
> emphasize.
> The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
> clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
> course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
> at group sessions were similar for all diets.There are ranges of protein, fat, carbs that is possible to lose weight on. Some of them are just more effective than others.
> By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a
> diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0
> and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and
> those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in
> those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a
> diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all
> comparisons)
[...]
> The principal finding is that the diets were equally successful in promoting
> clinically meaningful weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss over the
> course of 2 years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance
> at group sessions were similar for all diets.It may become more prevalent that the notion of eating consistently will change too. You cannot eat at a deficit for any period of time without getting pretty severe diminishing returns as your body adapts to its in vs out. 5:2 is a very simple model of calorie cycling, just an unsustainable on.
Protein and calories have the same calorie content per gram, so if you hit your protein macros then there is no downside to eating carbs, and actually for active people your gains and recovery will suffer dramatically from lack of carbs. Overloading on protein has the same downsides as overloading on carbs in simple calories in vs out terms.
I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
I'm not sure I entirely buy into the if it fits your macros (IIFYM) way of thinking, but it's not a bad strategy for a lot of situations.
Monounsaturated fat is a much better choice as it is nearly as effective as saturated fat at promoting hormone biosynthesis. The problem with saturated fat is that it triggers expression of genes for fat storage, and the effect is particularly pronounced in visceral tissue (which is the least healthy place to store it!).
"If it fits your macros" is bullshit, because there is a definite difference between sugar and other carbs, and a definite difference between saturated fat and other fats. Try going on a diet where all your carbs come from sugar, and almost all your fat comes from saturated fat and see how you look and feel.
The fat one I find interesting:
> I think it's fairly common knowledge now that fats are largely good (saturated fats help with testosterone regulation for example) even though food producers seem to be wilfully slow in catching up (low fat items being filled with sugar thus making them far more unhealthy).
While these things mostly go over my head, I could get my better half (PhD in nutritional epidemiology) to make a comment. Her answer:
"Saturated fats are not accepted to be healthy by the scientific community. Unsaturated fats are healthy, reduce cardiovascular risk, and promote satiety, so eating some is good, even if they have a higher calorie count per gram"
That being said, this comment mostly targets a healthy diet to prohibit e.g. cardiovascular diseases. While those usually correlate to reducing weight to a normal level, they might not be the same :)
Why? Because this is plain wrong.
Here some links that are worth checking out on this subject:
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009...
Article backed with research: http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-satu...
A personal story: http://grassfedcrossfit.com/what-a-diet-of-70-saturated-fat-...
Some more info: https://www.bulletproofexec.com/podcast-16-everything-you-ne...
Luckily, my significant other is (which is there the quote came from).
Her answer: "The first article shows no association of saturated fats with cardiovascular disease. No association does not mean healthy." and "Substituting polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats has been shown to lower ldl and is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease. This comes from both robust randomized controlled trial evidence, and data from prospective cohort studies"
I think the whole idea is that people agree that unsaturated fats do have health benefits. There is no clear evidence that saturated fats do. They might not actively cause harm, but they also don't have comparable benefits to health.
IIFYM is a misleading acronym, it was born out of frustration with people asking "can I eat x? can I eat y?", it it meant to mean "If it fits your protein, carbs, fat, fiber and micronutrients".
Counting calories is like keeping tracking of your spending. It won't solve your problems, but it will highlight areas of concern. If you're caloric intake goal is 1800, and you're consistently eating 2000, calorie counting will help you figure out where you can drop those 200 calories.
Similar to weight measurements, if you're losing weight at a consistent rate (~1-2 lbs/week), you can stay the course. If you flat line or start going up, it's good time to start reviewing what you're doing.
Of course, the situation is nuanced. For example, you could eat 1800 calories worth of cookies, or your weight gain could be caused due to the growth of muscle (which does happen).
At the outset, however, those 2 practices will get the machine going.
We've also seen studies that say that this is actually gives you an increased risk of regaining weight, once you lost it.
It really seems that the old recommendations: Everything in moderation, exercise and balanced diet are the best. Every "shortcut" modern diets present seems to fail in one way or another.
I think the issue is that we've created a culture where a people who loss weight, what ever the method, sets out to write a book or blog, detailing their new found wisdom. It's all anecdotal, proof is retrofitted to fit the result and claims are never properly verified or tested on a broad cross section of people. These weight loss anecdotes sells because we want them to work. Have you ever seen someone ask another person: "How did you loss all that weight?" and then their disappointment when the answer is "I eat less and workout". That's not what people want to hear, they want you to say that you just eat a lemon and half a pound of bacon every Tuesday.
Eat less that you burn, and try to get your basic nutrient requirement meet - That every single healthy diet summed up.
People can lose weight and achieve goals using a wide variety of dietary programs (or none at all, if you throw in exercise).
If the hacker diet works for somebody, that's great. If not, they're plenty of other stuff to try.
That being said, people still will.
Incorrect. Eating at a consistent caloric deficit over a significant period of time will result in weight loss [1]. Any diet which incorporates that will 'work', different strategies of adhering to the deficit will allow different people to be consistent, which is the key to prolonged weight loss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
It's a very basic approach but if you stick to the math... you will lose weight.
A focus on nutrient dense foods will make you feel fuller and will be better for your nutritional status and disease risk.
Nop, you can still eat enough calories to gain weight while running a marathon every day.
Eating at a caloric deficit isn't independent of eating micronutrient dense food.
False. Say you're eating 3000 calories a day and you exercise for an hour per day and burn 500 calories, but your caloric maintenance is 2300 calories. So you're at 2500 calories but you need to eat less than 2300 to lose weight. [1]
If you do not know how many calories you are eating, and your maintenance level you will not be able to ascertain the correct level to lose weight. You can exercise all you want, but if you're eating more than you're burning you will not lose weight.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics and it in practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763382/
>A bit of regular exercise will work for all but the most silly examples.
I do not think it's wise to make such a large and unsubstantiated blanket statement, as I have mentioned prior it comes down to how much you are consuming and burning each day, over a prolonged period of time. It is also not helpful to say 'a bit of regular', that statement is hazy and it's impossible to know what you actually mean.
GI becomes irrelevant once you eat more than once every 24 hours, which for most people is the norm. [1]
This is a classic example of an underdamped control system leading to oscillations. It happens because the bandwidth of the control system isn't sufficient for the bandwidth of the input. As an engineer if I faced this problem I typically would try and increase the bandwidth of the control system to solve the problem. But that's not really an option in the human body (yet) so the only real solution is to try and control the bandwidth of the input.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_system#/media/File:Seco...
The more you control the input bandwidth (excess sugars) the less you're going to end up with oscillations and I suspect that those oscillations are what help people really put on weight. Eat too much sugar, it gets stored into fat and a sugar crash. That sugar crash presents as "false" hunger, so you eat again. Probably you eat too much sugar again, and so the cycle repeats.
There's probably a lot of variation from human to human on the insulin control system bandwidth, and there's a lot of variation in the diet different people choose to eat. So if one person has high bandwidth and generally good diet, perhaps it only makes a difference like you've suggested. Someone with low bandwidth and a terrible diet might see substantial improvements by doing nothing more than cutting large quantities of high GI food from their diet.
From what I understand about modern nutritional science, this is not all that useful without having a look at e.g. the amount of carbohydrates and the glycemic index of the food you eat.
It seems that most studies agree that losing wait is most successful with a low carb + high protein diet. Most other approaches going with higher carb content usually just lead to insulin spikes and make you feel hungry at unnecessary times. Unless you like suffering, have impressive self control and don't mind what bloodsugar does to your body, that's probably not a good idea.
If you really want to eat carbohydrates, at least make sure you get a good amount of fiber with them, so it slows down their intake and reduces the amount of insulin your body fires off in response.
I would say the behavioural part (tracking weight etc) is probably a good idea. The actual diet part of this should probably be discarded.