The definitive study on dietary fat and weight



R

[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)

Guest
The largest, best, and most definitive study on the relationship
between dietary fat intake and weight has just been published in the
most recent edition of JAMA.

Howard, B.V., et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7
years. The women's health initiative dietary modification trial. JAMA
295:39-49, 2006 (January 4, 2006).

There is a lot of stuff in it of secondary importance which I'll let
others talk about.

But there is one particular finding of blockbuster importance. It is
absolutely and completely clear-cut and definitive. This was a study
in which subjects were randomized between a low fat/high carb diet and
no dietary intervention. Subjects were post-menopausal, obese women.
19,000 were assigned to the low fat diet. 29,000 were assigned to usual
diet.

The low fat diet didn't come close to achieving its goals (20% calories
as fat). There was no exercise. No caloric restriction. But none of
that is important. What is of supreme importance are the data shown in
Fig 5, which I photographed and have temporarily posted on one of my
websites:

http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg

Note that this figure shows results for nearly 50,000 women, followed
prospectively for 7 years.

The figure shows the mean weight change in kilograms graphed on the
ordinate and quintiles of change from baseline in percent dietary fat.
Low lowest quintile represented those subjects (nearly 10,000) who
reduced their percent of calories fat intake by 11% or more. The
highest quintile represented subjects who increased their percent
calories as fat intake by 3.2% or more. The three other quintiles were
between these extremes. Each quintile represented data from nearly
10,000 subjects followed 7 years.

Nole the perfectly linear relation between percent changes in percent
calories as fat and weight change, REGARDLESS of which group the
subjects were in. Those subjects who reduced fat intake lost weight
and kept it off. Those subjects who did not reduce fat intake did not
lose weight. Those subjects who increased fat intake (though not,
obviously, to the ketotic range) gained weight. These trend line
relationships were highly significant (P2<0.001).

These data are perfectly consistent with the data from the U Pittsburgh
registry of people who successfully lost 15 kg and kept it off at least
5 years. These subjects, on average, ate a diet comprising
approximately 24% fat and close to 60% carbohydrate, if memory serves.

These data obviously do not imply that the best diet for everyone is a
fat restricted diet. These data are, however, definitive in a
population sense.

There can be no more serious argument. Body weight is unequivocally
related, in a highly significant fashion, to dietary fat intake, with
higher levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight gain and
lower levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight loss.

One might argue that these data only apply to obese post-menopausal
women, and I'm sure that the cult promoting carbohydrates as the true
cause of obesity will do so.

But I agree with the conclusions of the authors:

"There is no reason to assume that these findings cannot be
extrapolated to younger individuals and both sexes...because trends
showed that weight loss correlated with fat reduction, it is likely
these data can be extrapolated to persons who achieve lower fat and
higher carbohydrate intake."

A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.

- Larry W
 
<[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
< study text cropped>

> "There is no reason to assume that these findings cannot be
> extrapolated to younger individuals and both sexes...because trends
> showed that weight loss correlated with fat reduction, it is likely
> these data can be extrapolated to persons who achieve lower fat and
> higher carbohydrate intake."
>
> A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.

While I do think that fat reduction does lead to weight loss, and that
low-carbing isn't the best way to loose weight I do not support the
conclusion that this data can be extrapolated from women to men or from
post-menopausal to pre-menopausal women without further data.

Low molecular carbohydrates and fat are both contributors to the obesity
problem (since there are studies on both sides showing effects), just making
recommendations for one of them does not seem to be the best way to solve
the problem.
 
[email protected] wrote:
: The largest, best, and most definitive study on the relationship
: between dietary fat intake and weight has just been published in the
: most recent edition of JAMA.
:
: Howard, B.V., et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7
: years. The women's health initiative dietary modification trial. JAMA
: 295:39-49, 2006 (January 4, 2006).
: [...]
:
: Nole the perfectly linear relation between percent changes in percent
: calories as fat and weight change, REGARDLESS of which group the
: subjects were in. Those subjects who reduced fat intake lost weight
: and kept it off. Those subjects who did not reduce fat intake did not
: lose weight. Those subjects who increased fat intake (though not,
: obviously, to the ketotic range) gained weight. These trend line
: relationships were highly significant (P2<0.001).

Thanks for posting. One important point which was not even mentioned in the
study, is obviously the effect of low fat diet to insulin sensitivity. One
could expect a low fat diet to increase blood glucose and insulin levels but
that is not necessarily the case as some studies show:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12894958&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15321807&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

--
Juhana
 
x-no-archive: yes

Joe the Aroma wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.
>>
>>- Larry W
>
>
> I thought it was calories that caused weight gain?
>
>

Every study finding lack of weight gain for low fatters necessitated
calorie restriction.

Compare that to low carbers in the same studies who don't have to
restrict calories, and who lose more weight, and this is important,
without experiencing hunger. Many studies have demonstrated the link
between hunger and overeating triggered by dietary glycemic load.

I doubt anyone with a scienfific bent (or stock in the sugar/grain
market) is buying.

Susan
 
Susan says:

>>Compare that to low carbers in the same studies who don't have to
restrict calories, and who lose more weight, and this is important,
without experiencing hunger. Many studies have demonstrated the link
between hunger and overeating triggered by dietary glycemic load.<<

I don't insist on a one size fits all diet strategy, and neither should
you.

Low carb as a diet for the masses had its day. Two years ago, it the
the next great thing.

Everyone was buying into it. We all know people who lost weight, but a
year later gained it all back. Today, the Jack in the Box commercials
are trumpeting "Bread is back!"

Dansinger's study showed this to be true for each of 4 diets. Some
people stayed with the diets. Those that did kept the weight off.

I'm sure that the people who stuck with the diets were those for whom
the diets worked and who liked the diets. Which just proves that the
best thing is to individualize the diet for each person, based on
lifestyle, exercise, food preferences, and individual results.

None of this, however, diminishes the monumental importance of this
JAMA study.

There is a clear and undeniable relationship between fat consumption
and weight loss and weight gain, on a population level (though
obviously not on the individual level, which is why diet MUST be
individualized.)

On a population level, the higher the fat/lower the carbs, the less
weight loss and the more weight gain.

The myth that carbs cause obesity is finally and irrefutably
demolished.

What causes obesity is lack of exercise and too many calories. Higher
fat diets, taken in an ad libitum setting, have more calories, until
you get to the point of ultra high fat intake and ketosos, which is a
diet which can't be followed by the vast majority of people living in
the real world. If it works for you. Great. If Pritikin works for
you. Great also.

Here's to the demise of Diet Naziism.

Rest in peace.

- Larry W
 
"[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

>There can be no more serious argument. Body weight is unequivocally
>related, in a highly significant fashion, to dietary fat intake, with
>higher levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight gain and
>lower levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight loss.

Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small percentages
of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen the
study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how this
says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt.

>One might argue that these data only apply to obese post-menopausal
>women, and I'm sure that the cult promoting carbohydrates as the true
>cause of obesity will do so.

Oh come on.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Susan says:
>
>>>Compare that to low carbers in the same studies who don't have to
> restrict calories, and who lose more weight, and this is important,
> without experiencing hunger. Many studies have demonstrated the link
> between hunger and overeating triggered by dietary glycemic load.<<
>
> I don't insist on a one size fits all diet strategy, and neither should
> you.
>
> Low carb as a diet for the masses had its day. Two years ago, it the
> the next great thing.
>
> Everyone was buying into it. We all know people who lost weight, but a
> year later gained it all back. Today, the Jack in the Box commercials
> are trumpeting "Bread is back!"
>
> Dansinger's study showed this to be true for each of 4 diets. Some
> people stayed with the diets. Those that did kept the weight off.
>
> I'm sure that the people who stuck with the diets were those for whom
> the diets worked and who liked the diets. Which just proves that the
> best thing is to individualize the diet for each person, based on
> lifestyle, exercise, food preferences, and individual results.
>
> None of this, however, diminishes the monumental importance of this
> JAMA study.
>
> There is a clear and undeniable relationship between fat consumption
> and weight loss and weight gain, on a population level (though
> obviously not on the individual level, which is why diet MUST be
> individualized.)
>
> On a population level, the higher the fat/lower the carbs, the less
> weight loss and the more weight gain.
>
> The myth that carbs cause obesity is finally and irrefutably
> demolished.
>
> What causes obesity is lack of exercise and too many calories.

Actually couldn't we simply say calories period?

>Higher
> fat diets, taken in an ad libitum setting, have more calories, until
> you get to the point of ultra high fat intake and ketosos, which is a
> diet which can't be followed by the vast majority of people living in
> the real world. If it works for you. Great. If Pritikin works for
> you. Great also.

Nods. A reasonable position.
 
x-no-archive: yes

Joe the Aroma wrote:

> Actually couldn't we simply say calories period?
>
>
>>Higher
>>fat diets, taken in an ad libitum setting, have more calories, until
>>you get to the point of ultra high fat intake and ketosos, which is a
>>diet which can't be followed by the vast majority of people living in
>>the real world. If it works for you. Great. If Pritikin works for
>>you. Great also.
>
>
> Nods. A reasonable position.
>
>

Pediatrics 1999 Mar;103(3):E26 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

High glycemic index foods, overeating, and obesity.

Ludwig DS, Majzoub JA, Al-Zahrani A, Dallal GE, Blanco I, Roberts SB.

Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's
Hospital,Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically in
recent years. However, the role of dietary composition in body weight
regulation remains unclear. The purpose of this work was to investigate
the acute effects of dietary glycemic index (GI) on energy metabolism
and voluntary food intake in obese subjects. METHODS: Twelve obese
teenage boys were evaluated on three separate occasions using a
crossover study protocol. During each evaluation, subjects consumed
identical test meals at breakfast and lunch that had a low, medium, or
high GI. The high- and medium-GI meals were designed to have similar
macronutrient composition, fiber content, and palatability, and all
meals for each subject had equal energy content. After breakfast, plasma
and serum concentrations of metabolic fuels and hormones were measured.
Ad libitum food intake was determined in the 5-hour period after lunch.
RESULTS: Voluntary energy intake after the high-GI meal (5.8 megajoule
[mJ]) was 53% greater than after the medium-GI meal (3.8 mJ), and 81%
greater than after the low-GI meal (3.2 mJ). In addition, compared with
the low-GI meal, the high-GI meal resulted in higher serum insulin
levels, lower plasma glucagon levels, lower postabsorptive plasma
glucose and serum fatty acids levels, and elevation in plasma
epinephrine. The area under the glycemic response curve for each test
meal accounted for 53% of the variance in food intake within subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of
high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that
promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are
needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body
weight regulation.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Controlled Clinical Trial
PMID: 10049982 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Nutr Rev 1999 Sep;57(9 Pt 1):273-6 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Comment in:
Nutr Rev. 1999 Sep;57(9 Pt 1):297.
Glycemic index, cardiovascular disease, and obesity.

Morris KL, Zemel MB.

Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996, USA.

Although Americans have decreased the percent of energy they consume
from fat, obesity and obesity-related comorbidities have progressively
increased. Less attention has been paid to the role of carbohydrates,
especially carbohydrate source, in these metabolic diseases. However,
recent epidemiologic studies demonstrate consistently higher rates of
cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes in individuals deriving a
greater percentage of energy from refined grains and simple
carbohydrates than from whole grains. Differences in the metabolic
response to carbohydrates can be classified by glycemic index (GI), the
blood glucose response to a given food compared with a standard
(typically white bread or glucose). Classification of carbohydrates as
"simple" or "complex" is of little use in predicting GI, because GI is
influenced by starch structure (amylose versus amylopectin), fiber
content, food processing, physical structure of the food, and other
macronutrients in the meal. Low-GI diets have been reported to lower
postprandial glucose and insulin responses, improve lipid profiles, and
increase insulin sensitivity. Moreover, high-GI diets stimulate de novo
lipogenesis and result in increased adipocyte size, whereas low-GI diets
have been reported to inhibit these responses. Thus, the GI of dietary
carbohydrates appears to play an important role in the metabolic fate of
carbohydrates and, consequently, may significantly affect the risk of
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial
PMID: 10568336 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The citation
Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S.,>"Low Carbohydrate
Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular>Risk in Obese
Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial,"Journal of>Adolescent
Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

Is available from>sciencedirect.. The Vol 26, issue #2 issue is a
supplement with a>whole bunch of abstracts from an Annual Meeting for
the society of>adolescent health.. The article is not published that
I could>find..

more accurately the caloric intake of the eight kids on high>fat was
1830+-615 and those on the low fat was >1100+-297..
Still the significance is 0.03.. (not sure of how large the>difference
between the two diets are though just by looking at>significance) very
weak when you have 9 kids on each diet.. You>start to want to see
whether any of those kids was an outlier in how much>weight they
lost.. The difference in weight was significant at 0.05>(barely?)

the abstract can be found here:>
http://www.accessv.com/~joemende/ketogenic.jpg

Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9. Related Articles, Links


Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition,
glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese
hyperinsulinemic men and women.

Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM.

Department of Physiology, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether varying the protein-to-carbohydrate
ratio of weight-loss diets benefits body composition or metabolism.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effects of 2 weight-loss
diets differing in protein-to-carbohydrate ratio on body composition,
glucose and lipid metabolism, and markers of bone turnover. DESIGN: A
parallel design included either a high-protein diet of meat, poultry,
and dairy foods (HP diet: 27% of energy as protein, 44% as carbohydrate,
and 29% as fat) or a standard-protein diet low in those foods (SP diet:
16% of energy as protein, 57% as carbohydrate, and 27% as fat) during 12
wk of energy restriction (6-6.3 MJ/d) and 4 wk of energy balance (
approximately 8.2 MJ/d). Fifty-seven overweight volunteers with fasting
insulin concentrations > 12 mU/L completed the study. RESULTS: Weight
loss (7.9 +/- 0.5 kg) and total fat loss (6.9 +/- 0.4 kg) did not differ
between diet groups. In women, total lean mass was significantly (P =
0.02) better preserved with the HP diet (-0.1 +/- 0.3 kg) than with the
SP diet (-1.5 +/- 0.3 kg). Those fed the HP diet had significantly (P <
0.03) less glycemic response at weeks 0 and 16 than did those fed the SP
diet. After weight loss, the glycemic response decreased significantly
(P < 0.05) more in the HP diet group. The reduction in serum
triacylglycerol concentrations was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in
the HP diet group (23%) than in the SP diet group (10%). Markers of bone
turnover, calcium excretion, and systolic blood pressure were unchanged.
CONCLUSION: Replacing carbohydrate with protein from meat, poultry, and
dairy foods has beneficial metabolic effects and no adverse effects on
markers of bone turnover or calcium excretion.

PMID: 12816768 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Kopp W.
High-insulinogenic nutrition--an etiologic factor for obesity and the
metabolic
syndrome?
Metabolism. 2003 Jul;52(7):840-4. Review.
PMID: 12870158 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12870158&dopt=Abstract>

the author writes:

"This report postulates a critical role for the quantity and quality
of dietary carbohydrate in the pathogenesis of obesity and the
metabolic syndrome. Significant changes in human nutrition have
occurred during the last 10,000 years, culminating in the current
high-glycemic/high-insulinogenic nutrition. A high insulinogenic
nutrition represents a chronic stimulus to the beta cells that may
induce an adaptive hypertrophy and a progressive dysregulation of
the cells, resulting in postprandial hyperinsulinemia, especially in
genetically predisposed subjects. Significant evidence suggests that
postprandial hyperinsulinemia promotes weight gain and the
development of insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome. The hypothesis
is able to explain the current epidemic of obesity and the metabolic
syndrome in most industrialised countries, as well as some of the
genetics of obesity, including the extreme high incidence of obesity
and the metabolic syndrome in certain ethnic groups."

--

Susan
 
>>Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small percentages
of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen
the
study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how
this
says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt. <<

Jim, you don't understand the data (not your fault; you can't without
access to the full text).

Forget about diet. The data from figure 5 shows that diet, per se,
doesn't matter. In fact, the average fat intake for the so called "low
fat" intervention group ended up being 30% calories as fat (compared to
the target goal of 20% calories as fat). In contrast, the control (non
intervention group) consumed an average of 38% calories as fat. Yes,
there was a very modest (but highly significant) difference in weight
favoring the "low fat" diet group. But the purpose of the study was
not to compare diets for weight loss. These were primarily cancer,
heart disease, etc. studies. There was, for example, no attempt to
restrict calories. There was no exercise program. But this is not
what's important about the study (in this context).

What's important is this: There were 50,000 women followed
prospectively for 7 years. Some of the women on the intervention group
significantly reduced their fat intake. Also, some of the women in the
NON-intervention group, for whatever reason, significantly reduced
THEIR fat intake. Now, it didn't matter which group the women were
assigned to. Those that reduced their fat intake the most lost the
most weight. Those that increased their fat intake the most gained
most weight. And there was a perfectly linear relationship in between.

These were 50,000 free living women, prospectively followed, eating all
sorts of diets. Some exercised. Some didn't. Some probably went on
"diets" on their own. Some didn't. So obviously there is a lot of
heterogeneity and background noise.

But what shines through, loud and clear, is this:

Cut through all the noise and there is a perfectly linear relationship
between weight loss to weight gain and dietary fat.

Carbohydrate does NOT make you fat! What makes you fat is too many
calories for the level of exercise you are getting in your life, and,
just as common sense would tell you, fat is more calorie dense, less
filling, on average less satiating (or whatever, it truly doesn't
matter, when you look at the forest, rather than the trees).

Type II diabetes is, overwhelmingly, not a genetic disease but a
lifestyle disease. Caused by a pathologic lack of exercise and
caloric/exercise imbalance. The way to prevent diabetes is not to sit
on your couch and gorge on fat; it is to get the amount of daily
exercise for which the human body was designed and to fuel that body
with a well balanced variety of nutritious foods, most definitely
including an abundance of healthy carbohydrates and not containing an
excess of harmful carbohydrates or harmful fats and, for the average
person, containing less fat, rather than more fat.

- Larry W
 
Susan, what precisely is your point?

That too much sugar is bad for you? The low glycemic foods are, on
average, to be preferred over high glycemic foods? You are preaching
to the choir.

Per capita sugar intake increased by about 10 Kg per year between the
late 70s and mid 90s, during a period of time when per capital calorie
intake increased slightly and per capita exercise (objectively document
by nationalized physical fitness testing in school children and
military recruits) plummeted.

So people started putting sugar in their whole milk and stopped
exercising.

And they got fat and diabetic.

None of the above in anyway negates the monumental importance of the
JAMA study of 50,000 women.

Some of the women ate "good" carbs. Some ate "bad" carbs. Some ate
"good" fats. Some ate "bad" fats. Some exercised. Some didn't. So
there is obviously a lot of background noise.

But, clear as a bell, there was an inverse linear relationship between
changes dietary fat intake and changes in body weight. You may never
see such a clear and striking relationship in any large population
study in another 10 years. The dose response relationship between
dietary fat intake (on a population basis) and weight change is about
as clear as the dose response relationship between incidence of lung
cancer and cigarettes per day smoked.

- Larry W
 
Susan quotes a study

>>"This report postulates a critical role for the quantity and quality
of dietary carbohydrate in the pathogenesis of obesity and the
metabolic syndrome. Significant changes in human nutrition have
occurred during the last 10,000 years, culminating in the current
high-glycemic/high-insulinogenic nutrition. A high insulinogenic
nutrition represents a chronic stimulus to the beta cells that may

induce an adaptive hypertrophy and a progressive dysregulation of
the cells, resulting in postprandial hyperinsulinemia, especially
in
genetically predisposed subjects. Significant evidence suggests
that
postprandial hyperinsulinemia promotes weight gain and the
development of insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome. The
hypothesis
is able to explain the current epidemic of obesity and the
metabolic
syndrome in most industrialised countries, as well as some of the
genetics of obesity, including the extreme high incidence of
obesity
and the metabolic syndrome in certain ethnic groups." <<

Comments: The "low fat" diet was 27% calories as fat. Hardly low fat.
Carbohydrate quality wasn't controlled. The diets were isocaloric (ie.
controlled and forced feeding) and not ad libitum. All successful
diabetes prevention studies have been based on fat restriction and not
carbohydrate restriction. Postprandial blood sugars were significantly
lower in the prospective, randomized study previously quoted on insulin
resistant women when they ate 49% carbohydrates than when they ate 11%
carbohydrates. Postprandial triglycerides (probably more important
than fasting, though seldom measured) are higher on higher fat diets.

There has been a greater than 10 Kg per year per capita increase in
sugar intake in the US at a time when overall caloric intake has
slightly increased and exercise has plummeted. Americans have added
sugar to their whole milk and stopped exercising. These are the causes
of the diabetes epidemic.

- Larry W
 
Susan:

>>>Several studies have shown that high-carbohydrate low-fat diets
lead
to high triglycerides, elevated serum insulin levels, lower HDL
cholesterol levels, and other factors known to raise the risk of
coronary artery disease. (See Liu GC; Coulston AM; Reaven GM. Effect
of high-carbohydrate low-fat diets on plasma glucose, insulin and
lipid responses in hypertriglyceridemic humans. Metabolism, 1983 Aug,
32:8, 750-3. *

All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.

When people eat a diet rich in "good" carbs, low in total fat and
especially low in "bad" fat, and exercise, they lose weight, improve
their lipids, improve their blood pressure, and lessen their insulin
resistance.

The true pathologies behind the obesity and diabetes epidemics are lack
of exercise and explosive increase in sugar intake, in a setting of
overall increased caloric intake.

- Larry W
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small
>>>percentages
> of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen
> the
> study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how
> this
> says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt. <<
>
> Jim, you don't understand the data (not your fault; you can't without
> access to the full text).
>
> Forget about diet. The data from figure 5 shows that diet, per se,
> doesn't matter. In fact, the average fat intake for the so called "low
> fat" intervention group ended up being 30% calories as fat (compared to
> the target goal of 20% calories as fat). In contrast, the control (non
> intervention group) consumed an average of 38% calories as fat. Yes,
> there was a very modest (but highly significant) difference in weight
> favoring the "low fat" diet group. But the purpose of the study was
> not to compare diets for weight loss. These were primarily cancer,
> heart disease, etc. studies. There was, for example, no attempt to
> restrict calories. There was no exercise program. But this is not
> what's important about the study (in this context).
>
> What's important is this: There were 50,000 women followed
> prospectively for 7 years. Some of the women on the intervention group
> significantly reduced their fat intake. Also, some of the women in the
> NON-intervention group, for whatever reason, significantly reduced
> THEIR fat intake. Now, it didn't matter which group the women were
> assigned to. Those that reduced their fat intake the most lost the
> most weight. Those that increased their fat intake the most gained
> most weight. And there was a perfectly linear relationship in between.
>
> These were 50,000 free living women, prospectively followed, eating all
> sorts of diets. Some exercised. Some didn't. Some probably went on
> "diets" on their own. Some didn't. So obviously there is a lot of
> heterogeneity and background noise.
>
> But what shines through, loud and clear, is this:
>
> Cut through all the noise and there is a perfectly linear relationship
> between weight loss to weight gain and dietary fat.
>
> Carbohydrate does NOT make you fat! What makes you fat is too many
> calories for the level of exercise you are getting in your life, and,
> just as common sense would tell you, fat is more calorie dense, less
> filling, on average less satiating (or whatever, it truly doesn't
> matter, when you look at the forest, rather than the trees).
>
> Type II diabetes is, overwhelmingly, not a genetic disease but a
> lifestyle disease. Caused by a pathologic lack of exercise and
> caloric/exercise imbalance. The way to prevent diabetes is not to sit
> on your couch and gorge on fat; it is to get the amount of daily
> exercise for which the human body was designed and to fuel that body
> with a well balanced variety of nutritious foods, most definitely
> including an abundance of healthy carbohydrates and not containing an
> excess of harmful carbohydrates or harmful fats and, for the average
> person, containing less fat, rather than more fat.
>
> - Larry W

Protein is more sating than both carbs and fat, personally.
 
>>Protein is more sating than both carbs and fat, personally. <<

Thanks, Joe. I agree with you 100% that protein is more satieting for
you, personally. It may well be that protein is more satiating for the
average person. But it is not true for everyone. For example, in
people who are exercising regularly, protein intake is not an efficient
way to replete muscle glycogen. With depleted muscle glycogen, eating
turkey slices or tuna or a hamburger patty won't dull the appetite.
Nor will fat intake.

I remember a Hawaii ironman broadcast a few years back. There was a
top triathlete who had a Zone Diet endorsement contract. In the middle
of the race, someone handed him a bottle of Zone Diet special 40-30-30
replacement drink. He said, no, give me Gatorade. Now that was an
embarrassing moment for someone!

That's the whole point. You have to individualize, based on personal
biology and lifestyle.

- Larry W
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>Protein is more sating than both carbs and fat, personally. <<
>
> Thanks, Joe. I agree with you 100% that protein is more satieting for
> you, personally. It may well be that protein is more satiating for the
> average person. But it is not true for everyone. For example, in
> people who are exercising regularly, protein intake is not an efficient
> way to replete muscle glycogen. With depleted muscle glycogen, eating
> turkey slices or tuna or a hamburger patty won't dull the appetite.
> Nor will fat intake.

For me something has done exactly that. It's wonderful.

> I remember a Hawaii ironman broadcast a few years back. There was a
> top triathlete who had a Zone Diet endorsement contract. In the middle
> of the race, someone handed him a bottle of Zone Diet special 40-30-30
> replacement drink. He said, no, give me Gatorade. Now that was an
> embarrassing moment for someone!

Indeed, a high protein diet is not optimal for certain conditions. Fat and
carbs give you energy. If you're trying to lose weight, you want to take in
less energy than you are expending, to reach into those fat cells. One way
or the other, you must take in less energy than you spend.

> That's the whole point. You have to individualize, based on personal
> biology and lifestyle.
>
> - Larry W

Agreed.
 
Hey, Joe (I like your name, being a coffee lover).

One of the greatest things which has happened in diet research is the
finding that black coffee is actually a health food. It does all sorts
of things, including being a richer source of anti-oxidants than
blueberries. Topic for another thread. The infamous Dr. Willett
himself was recently quoted as saying "if you are drinking 5-6 cups of
coffee per day, I'd be hard pressed to think of a reason why you should
cut back."

For those who think that I'm Pritikin's poodle, this was one of the
things he "prohibited" in his diet/exercise plan. He was a visionary,
but he didn't get it completely right. No disrespect at all.

Among black coffee's other benefits, for me, personally, it is very
"satiating." When I get some hunger cravings, and I don't want to eat,
for whatever reason, I just pour out a little Starbucks from my thermos
bottle, feel contentment warm me over as it goes down, and then get
back to work, duly anti-oxidized in the bargain.

- Larry W
 
"[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

>>>Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small percentages
>of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen
>the
>study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how
>this
>says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt. <<
>
>Jim, you don't understand the data (not your fault; you can't without
>access to the full text).
>
>Forget about diet. The data from figure 5 shows that diet, per se,
>doesn't matter.

I used the term only to mean what was consumed--nothing more.

> In fact, the average fat intake for the so called "low
>fat" intervention group ended up being 30% calories as fat (compared to
>the target goal of 20% calories as fat). In contrast, the control (non
>intervention group) consumed an average of 38% calories as fat. Yes,
>there was a very modest (but highly significant) difference in weight
>favoring the "low fat" diet group. But the purpose of the study was
>not to compare diets for weight loss. These were primarily cancer,
>heart disease, etc. studies. There was, for example, no attempt to
>restrict calories. There was no exercise program. But this is not
>what's important about the study (in this context).
>
>What's important is this: There were 50,000 women followed
>prospectively for 7 years. Some of the women on the intervention group
>significantly reduced their fat intake. Also, some of the women in the
>NON-intervention group, for whatever reason, significantly reduced
>THEIR fat intake. Now, it didn't matter which group the women were
>assigned to. Those that reduced their fat intake the most lost the
>most weight. Those that increased their fat intake the most gained
>most weight. And there was a perfectly linear relationship in between.
>
>These were 50,000 free living women, prospectively followed, eating all
>sorts of diets. Some exercised. Some didn't. Some probably went on
>"diets" on their own. Some didn't. So obviously there is a lot of
>heterogeneity and background noise.
>
>But what shines through, loud and clear, is this:
>
>Cut through all the noise and there is a perfectly linear relationship
>between weight loss to weight gain and dietary fat.

....in the context of a high-carb diet, at least.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate what you are saying. i think i understand
just fine. But I'm betting that the "heterogeneity" of the diets followed by
the participants was pretty minimal with respect to % CHO. I'm sure some
lost weight with an Atkin's diet, but the graph you show is driven by the
bulk of the participants, who, if they are anything like modern Western
human beings, ate mostly diets with % kcal CHO > 50%.

I think your graph is important, and it should certainly be acknowledged
that it is a major bit of evidence in support of reduction of fat in the
"population's" diet. But low-carbers have written for a long time that
fat-restriction was important in a high carb diet, not that I have believed
the logic behind their arguments.

I like the graph, though, and I certainly see its meaning and importance.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
 
"[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

>When I get some hunger cravings, and I don't want to eat,
>for whatever reason, I just pour out a little Starbucks from my thermos
>bottle, feel contentment warm me over as it goes down, and then get
>back to work, duly anti-oxidized in the bargain.

I hit my La Pavoni and pull a couple of shots of espresso. I do add some
steamed skim milk, though.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
 
"[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

>All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
>an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
>quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.

I regard the first point as a flaw, but far from a fatal one. The third may
be irrelevant for the purposes of the studies.

The second is important, i think.

>When people eat a diet rich in "good" carbs, low in total fat and
>especially low in "bad" fat, and exercise, they lose weight, improve
>their lipids, improve their blood pressure, and lessen their insulin
>resistance.

What is your concept of a "good" carb? Does a decent (all whole grain, dense
and tasty) loaf of whole-wheat bread count?

Are you mostly referring to low glycemic load?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back