Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the you-can-pry-my-cereal-from-my-cold,-dead-hands dept.

News 588

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports on a new study (abstract) showing that low-carb diets have better health benefits than low-fat diets in a test without calorie restrictions. "By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity. While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat. They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,' Dr. Mozaffarian said. 'Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that's a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.' ... In the end, people in the low-carbohydrate group saw markers of inflammation and triglycerides — a type of fat that circulates in the blood — plunge. Their HDL, the so-called good cholesterol, rose more sharply than it did for people in the low-fat group. Blood pressure, total cholesterol and LDL, the so-called bad cholesterol, stayed about the same for people in each group."

cancel ×

588 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What they don't tell you (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805665)

Eating a balanced diet and getting plenty of exercise is better than any fad diet.

Re:What they don't tell you (5, Funny)

jandersen (462034) | about a month ago | (#47805697)

So, in a word: a low fad diet?

Re:What they don't tell you (3, Insightful)

Wootery (1087023) | about a month ago | (#47805849)

A low fad lifestyle, strictly speaking.

Re:What they don't tell you (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month ago | (#47806253)

A low fad lifestyle, strictly speaking.

Don't forget though, that the high carbohydrate/low fat diet is in itself a fad.

And veganism is completely unnatural and artificial for humans. We're designed for protein, fat, complex carbs, starchy carbs, sugar, and small rocks, in that order.

Re:What they don't tell you (4, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | about a month ago | (#47805843)

Easy to make such glib statements, but the whole point is to find out what is the ideal balanced diet. Both the groups in this study were eating all the things you'd include in your balanced diet, however the low carb group took a greater proportion of their calories in the form of fat, whereas the low fat group too a greater proportion in the form of carbs.

Re:What they don't tell you (-1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month ago | (#47806285)

No they didn't. The low carb people did not bulk up on fat. A balanced diet is a balanced diet. You need carbs. Period. The amount is the problem. People over eat. You need to eat proper portions. There was nothing new in this study.

Re:What they don't tell you (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a month ago | (#47806387)

They took a greater proportion from fat. Instead of 30 fat 30 carb 30 protein, they took 30 fat 20 carb 30 protein, 33% fat instead of 30% fat and 22% carb instead of 30% carb.

The fat group did the same, but with fat. I imagine the total intake was scaled for similar caloric intake--at the very least, for similar satiation (i.e. neither group went hungry for a year). They said no calorie restrictions.

Re:What they don't tell you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806389)

I've heard of essential fatty acids and essential proteins... but there's no such thing as an essential carb. Ask yourself why that is.

Re:What they don't tell you (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about a month ago | (#47806137)

Were is the science that backs your theory?

Re:What they don't tell you (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month ago | (#47806299)

Check a biology text book.

Re:What they don't tell you (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a month ago | (#47806359)

Because a balanced diet, according to the USDA, has minimal fat and a high load of grain. Our recommended balanced diet is primarily starch, and a minimum of fat.

The diet is unimportant... (5, Informative)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47805667)

Simply eat what your body needs... beyond that, exercise. That is why people are getting fat. Not because they're eating too much but because they're not doing anything.

Look at what Michael Phelps ate. Something like three pizzas a day or something. And he was in great health at the time. Won Olympic gold medals and everything.

The diet is the wrong way around to solve a problem. Which is how to stay healthy without exercising. Now maybe there is a diet that does that but most of them say "oh and exercise"... well, if you exercise the rest isn't important.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (4, Insightful)

Shaman (1148) | about a month ago | (#47805687)

Anyone that has tried to exercise and eat what they want can tell you that it doesn't work. You also need to eat fairly cleanly. Phelps is like 7 feet tall, extremely active, very muscular and was taking both legal and not-so-legal supplements. You can't equate the nutrition needs of someone working out 2+ hours a day doing high-impact strength and endurance training with your average person.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (2, Interesting)

BringsApples (3418089) | about a month ago | (#47805887)

When people have a strong will, they are healthy. It's what it takes to have a strong will, that's the secret to life. Health is the result of living in some sort of self-designed balance between activity and rest - but there's more that's going on than activity or rest, because there's a part of us that's never active, and never at rest. Sometimes simply directing your will to do some job (temporary or not) will give you an insight into health and what it is.

All this hyped-up talk about what to eat is only to sell you something. If you want to be healthy, then you need to not only be active, but have your will in it. Once you get your goal in mind, and direct your attention to it, more than just your health will improve.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806133)

The reason rates of obesity and associated afflictions like diabetes have skyrocketed in the past 30 years, is not because Americans' willpower has somehow become more lacking. It's because of the atrocious job the authorities have done in demonizing fat, and encouraging a high carb low fat diet. Fat does not make you fat carbs do by triggering an insulin response that converts the sugars in the blood stream into fat to be stored in cells.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (4, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a month ago | (#47806309)

The reason rates of obesity and associated afflictions like diabetes have skyrocketed in the past 30 years, is not because Americans' willpower has somehow become more lacking. It's because of the atrocious job the authorities have done in demonizing fat, and encouraging a high carb low fat diet. Fat does not make you fat carbs do by triggering an insulin response that converts the sugars in the blood stream into fat to be stored in cells.

That and the fact that we subsidize corn and soy at the federal level. Processed foods like Cheetos and Hot Pockets end up being cheaper than healthier foods. So people on a budget (most Americans) can stretch their dollar by buying cheaper food that is higher in simple carbs and salt but not very nutritious.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806363)

And how does making a hyped up bullshit post about strong will help people in general?

This study has two groups of people taking two different diets. No requirement the people to be particularly strong willed. One group fared significantly better.

You on the other hand say puke-worthy stuff like "When people have a strong will, they are healthy.". Your abysmal post belongs on those "healing crystals" sites or similar. Not on slashdot.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

jonnythan (79727) | about a month ago | (#47806397)

Yeah, no. You absolutely do not need to eat cleanly. The idea is silly.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (5, Funny)

rcharbon (123915) | about a month ago | (#47805695)

All Michael Phelps did was eat, sleep, exercise, and do bong hits. The typical Slashdotter, with his monitor tan, should not use him as a guideline.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47805751)

I'm not using him a guide. Anyone that did that would die absent his exercise regime. The guy was sucking down something like 12000 calories a day.

My point was that it isn't so much what you eat as whether, how much, and how you excise. Its not the food.

Take in the basic things you need to keep your body healthy... but the nature of that food and the quantity aren't that important. What is important is that you stay active enough to metabolize it in a healthy fashion.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805859)

I'm not using him a guide. Anyone that did that would die absent his exercise regime. The guy was sucking down something like 12000 calories a day.

My point was that it isn't so much what you eat as whether, how much, and how you excise. Its not the food.

Take in the basic things you need to keep your body healthy... but the nature of that food and the quantity aren't that important. What is important is that you stay active enough to metabolize it in a healthy fashion.

Yes, if you exercise maniacally you can eat absurd amounts of food and stay lean. But if you eat very few calories, you can be a couch potato and remain lean as well. To say that one is more important than the other is ridiculous. If you want to be in the best health, eat reasonably and get some daily exercise.

Furthermore, it's reasonable to ask what sort of diets lead to optimal health for a given exercise level. If you get a reasonable amount of exercise and limit your caloric intake to an appropriate level, you won't be overweight absent some rare health malfunction, regardless of whether you eat low fat, low carb or regulate both types of calories equally, But it doesn't follow from not being overweight that you'll be perfectly healthy. It may very well be that one type of diet generally leads to a more healthy outcome over the long term. It's not denying the need for exercise to ask the question of how different types of diet affect health.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (3, Interesting)

SQLGuru (980662) | about a month ago | (#47806195)

If the equation to be healthy is (and I'm not arguing that it isn't)

Caloric Intake == Exercise (or at least approximately equals)

You are assuming that people want to maximize the Caloric Intake variable. I think most of us are trying to minimize the Exercise variable instead. To do so, we are looking for the maximum Caloric Intake that requires the least amount of Exercise so that we can still be healthy. Low-carb seems to be better at this than Low-fat.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47806263)

You can't do that though and remain healthy. The body assumes a baseline of exercise. It needs the exercise to remain healthy indifferent to caloric intake.

So once you're exercising enough to remain healthy INDIFFERENT to caloric intake... you now need more calories to support the exercise.

At which point you're eating what people ate about 50 years ago and not any fatter.

End of discussion.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806199)

but you are totally and utterly wrong, which any google search would tell you. Also any fool knows how much exercise relates to calories. Its not as much as you think. Calorie controlled intake is by far the dominant factor in weight control for the vast majority of people, excepting you know, olympic athletes.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month ago | (#47806333)

It is what you eat. If you are over weight, then change you diet and do not exercise, you will lose weight. By reducing the amount of calories you intake by eating a balanced diet, you will achieve a proper fat set point and your optimal weight for that level of calorie intake and activity level.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805735)

Yeah, agreed.

Many of these "diets" are trying to allow people to stuff their faces and lose weight or maintain it without having to exercise.

I'm currently training for the fall season and eating just healthy - fruit for desert on most days, cook my own meals, and staying away from packaged foods (except pasta).

I'm losing fat, gaining muscle, and weight dropped a little - the ice cream/wine gut is disappearing. And I'm 50.

People ask what my secret is and I say there's no "secret". I'm not eating shit and exercising.

Too simple (5, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a month ago | (#47805765)

That is a bit too simple. Lots of modern food contains so much energy that our internal alarm switches are blown off-line. Therefore, you don't feel full anymore and you keep eating. That is called Insulin resistance (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) It is hard to overeat on apples. It is easy to overeat on sweets.

Off course, the food industry just loves to create food that makes you keep eating, because that will also make you buy more of it. That is why even organic meat contains sugar and all kinds of syrup nowadays. The first step to a healthy life is to eat real food.

Re:Too simple (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47805885)

That is why even organic meat contains sugar and all kinds of syrup nowadays.

Uh, what? Only processed foods, and then frankly, almost none of them. The lack of unnecessary ingredients is part of the draw to most Organic brands. Only the fake-ass organics like "O" (Safeway's brand) are full of bullshit like that.

Re:Too simple (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about a month ago | (#47805995)

" It is hard to overeat on apples."

It's because fruit has a built in regulation system, eat 8 apples, and your system will do a high pressure speed purge out the other end. I ate 2 pints of blueberries once... I spent the evening on the toilet afraid to leave it.

Re:Too simple (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a month ago | (#47806409)

+1 Graphic

Simply ignore studies ... (2)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month ago | (#47805769)

Interestingly, you are using a topnotch athlete's condition to apply to the rest of us. In the criticisms so far applied, they left out age.

More appropriately, try cutting down on carbs and focus less on fat.

Re:Simply ignore studies ... (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47805905)

no, I was making an extreme example to make a point and some people have a very hard time dealing with arguments made with a sledgehammer.

The point I made is that exercise can make a 12 thousand calorie diet of pizza healthy.

Once you understand that... and I hope you NOW understand that... you understand that the diet itself is only healthy in context with the exercise. And that the exercise is probably a great deal more important then what you're actually eating.

Does that mean you can just eat chocolate cake all day? Probably not, there isn't enough in chocolate cake to keep a man alive. But assuming it had all the vitamins and minerals... you could live on it just fine for your whole life so long as you exercised properly.

It goes back to that stupid super size me documentary where the fool sat there, over ate at mc donalds, and didn't exercise. Shockingly he got fat. Never mind he would have gotten fat eating practically anything else like that.

Many alternative studies have been done where people eat the same thing and if anything lose weight. Famously, a school teacher ate at McDonalds every day for about a year as a school project. The kids managed his diet and he exercised. The teacher started out fat and got more healthy. Why? mostly exercise.

Re:Simply ignore studies ... (4, Insightful)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month ago | (#47806157)

Bulldust.

I can walk on a treadmill for an hour or simply avoid two thin slices of wheat bread. They are calorie-equivalent.

Weight-loss is best accomplished by reducing caloric intake. Trying to exercise weight off is fruitless.

Exercise is great for muscle toning, avoiding injury, increasing balance, beefing up air intake, and strengthening the heart.

It's a huge mistake to think weight-loss can be accomplished by exercise.

It's a huge mistake to think that wellness can be accomplished by diet.

The two should be used together to work on two separate issues.

Re:Simply ignore studies ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806261)

correct, the other guy doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about.
the benefits of exercise, which are huge, relate much more to cardiac condition, fitness etc

calorie intake is much more effective in losing weight than exercise because as you say, it is much easier to drop a few hundred calories than do the equivalent HUGE amount of exercise. You need to run something like 10K to equate to a single chocolate bar for example.

Re:Simply ignore studies ... (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47806399)

Wrong, it isn't just the exercise. Its the muscle mass.

It isn't enough just to walk a little. you need to build some muscle so your baseline metabolism goes up. That muscle needs to be sustained with a constant extra supply of energy. If you stay in bed all day you will still burn some calories. If your body is very fit then your baseline metabolism will probably be a great deal higher.

Exercise is not magic pixie dust (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#47806191)

no, I was making an extreme example to make a point and some people have a very hard time dealing with arguments made with a sledgehammer.

Using an irrelevant example to hammer home a point isn't really a very good persuasion tactic. Yeah if we could all work out for hours a day that would be great. Problem is that the real world has other constraints that make maintaining a healthy weight difficult. Your basic point (exercise more) is a good one. You don't need hyperbole to make it.

The point I made is that exercise can make a 12 thousand calorie diet of pizza healthy.

Healthy? Not so much. Just because you can burn the calories doesn't mean that pizza magically becomes health food. The proportions and composition of the food matters for health. I assure you that the guys riding the Tour De France who burn 7-10000 calories per day aren't eating pizza as a diet staple.

Does that mean you can just eat chocolate cake all day? Probably not, there isn't enough in chocolate cake to keep a man alive. But assuming it had all the vitamins and minerals... you could live on it just fine for your whole life so long as you exercised properly.

Live? Probably. Healthfully? Probably not. Odd are you would end up with all sorts of not so fun physical problems.

It goes back to that stupid super size me documentary where the fool sat there, over ate at mc donalds, and didn't exercise. Shockingly he got fat. Never mind he would have gotten fat eating practically anything else like that.

You are aware that others have attempted to replicate his "findings" without success. Basically that "documentary" was a bunch of made up bullshit as far as we can tell. If using an irrelevant example is bad, using a false example is worse.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a month ago | (#47805773)

He was also young and a world class athlete. Telling people to be like Phelps isn't very helpful. From my experience, solving weight issues is easier through diet than exercise. Food, mostly high fat and high sugar food, is everywhere. We live in a world of super overabundance, and it's hard for many people to turn down cupcakes and brownies at every turn. If you looked up the calories for all those things you've been eating, you'd know you can't just work off an extra 2 or 3 thousand calories each and every day. Learn to say no to things you know are bad for you. You still need to be active, but you don't need to be an Olympian athlete.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a month ago | (#47805969)

I think the problem is that most people lie or are overestimating how much exercise they do. The human body is a pretty remarkable machine, we are very efficient when walking and running. Our biology is designed for it. So you won't burn that many calories by going for a walk or a slow jog. I find it amazing how slow some people can jog, and still think like they are getting a good work out.

From a quick Google search, it looks like 10,000 steps a day will burn 3500 Calories A WEEK. That's only an extra 500 Calories a day. That can easily be offset by eating unhealthy throughout the day.

I'm with you about what you are saying about diet. People need to eat a reasonable amount of Calories, but they shouldn't be putting their body at a deficit, and only eating 1000 or 1500 Calories a day. But exercise is a big part, because everybody will cheat on their diet from time to time. You have to exercise to use up the extra energy. Also, exercising keeps your lungs, heart, bones and muscles healthy. Eating just the right number of Calories to keep you thin, but you won't be healthy.

The diet is unimportant... (2, Interesting)

gumper23 (700105) | about a month ago | (#47805795)

I recently lost 40+ pounds in ~6 months using Atkins and no exercise (just started exercising this week). I'm 46.

My takeaways:
1. If calories in calories burned, you'll lose weight.
2. The hardest part about that is controlling appetite.
3. The best way to control appetite is with a low carb diet.

This is the second time I did Atkins. The first time (10 years ago), I lost 60+ pounds in 6 months and I exercised 5 days a week. A guy at my gym had a shirt that read "Look great naked! 90% diet, 10% exercise" and the shirt was right. Diet is much, much more important that exercise when it comes to weight loss.

So, uh, no - diet isn't unimportant - it's the *most* important thing for weight loss - at least in my personal experience.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a month ago | (#47805925)

I can back this up. I've had the exact same experience. Induction/ketosis is probably the greatest single body hack ever invented. I lose a pound a day so long as I stay on it, though I have fallen off multiple times and it takes me a few days to get back on.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

hodet (620484) | about a month ago | (#47806003)

How do you handle eating low carb for extended periods? Meat, cheese, eggs, pork rinds. I knew a guy that lost 100lbs eating like that. Other things as well, not just those foods, but the key was to keep his carbs at about 30gm as day.

I am lucky, high metabolism and eat a healthy diet anyway, but I could not imagine eating heavy type foods like that in those quantities.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a month ago | (#47806205)

While I cannot vouch for the Atkins diet as I've not tried it, each of the many times I've done p90x and lost weight, I've found it's about the 80/20 rule as well. You can only burn so many calories actively exercising. Though it is important, you'll fight a very uphill battle unless diet is healthy as well.

One "trick" I found when trying to control appetite when you are getting proper nutrition is to eat foods that satiate you, keep you full. Drinking lots of water, eating carrots and apples, etc. They fill you up with very few calories and then adding protein and some complex carbs will keep you fuller longer.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

DogDude (805747) | about a month ago | (#47805809)

No, you have it backwards. A single soda is about 300 calories, which would take most people about 2.5-3 miles of running/walking to burn off. It's relatively impractical to think that one can exercise off the calories consumed from a bad diet. It's much easier to change one's diet.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47805943)

Then why were people from 50 years ago not hugely fat? Because they were not eating all your little hipster diets and they were not fat.

Diet is very important. (4, Informative)

danaris (525051) | about a month ago | (#47806181)

Then why were people from 50 years ago not hugely fat? Because they were not eating all your little hipster diets and they were not fat.

The lack of understanding betrayed by this is almost ludicrous.

They didn't need to eat a "hipster diet" 50 years ago to avoid getting hugely fat, because an enormous part of the problem is the percentage of our food today that is processed, and the percentage that contains vast amounts of sugar (and particularly high fructose corn syrup). Which is exactly what (many of) the "hipster diets" strive to emulate.

I realize that on Slashdot, where people tend to be highly math-oriented, it's a popular fallacy to believe that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, studies like this one have been coming out for years now showing that that's simply not true.

Some kinds of energy are easier for our bodies to extract from food than others. Some kinds of food make our bodies feel more full than others. And our bodies need more in terms of nutrition than just calories—so, contrary to one of your other posts, no, a 12 thousand calorie diet of pizza cannot be healthy, unless the toppings on that pizza are very carefully selected to provide the nutrients that our bodies actually need.

It would be nice if nutrition were a simple formula, where you could just calculate calories in minus calories expended and come out with a nice, pleasing mathematical formula. But the human body isn't a spherical body in a vacuum, and "calorie" isn't a unit of nutrition, no matter how much you try to make it so.

Dan Aris

Re:Diet is very important. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47806349)

This "feeling more full" idea is only relevant if people eat more calories if they don't feel full. If you eat a pre packaged processed meal and regardless of feeling full or not just stop there... then that aspect doesn't matter.

If we talk about calories in... the feeling full aspect only matters if you increase the calories in.

As to a calorie not just being a calorie... if you were interested in surviving... as in not starving to death... a calorie would actually be a calorie.

Do different calories get processed differently? Yes. High density food... food that has a lot of energy in it per unit volume tends to not be processed well by the body if you're sedentary. If however you are active, then you can eat high density food and not feel like a slug afterwards.

Try it. Spend a day being active all day... swimming or something. And then go home for a big meal. Then try again about a week later spending the entire time being very inactive... only this time do not be active on that day and eat the same meal. You will not feel as good about it. The food will sit in your stomach.

If people were more active they could eat pretty much what they want within reason.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a month ago | (#47806061)

I agree with your statement but what people *need* to understand about exercise is that its not really about the calories you burn while you are doing its about your overall metabolism.

If you say go hiking most weekends in summer and cross country skiing most weekends in winter, you are going to have a great deal more muscle tissue on your legs are arms than someone who spends their weekends in front of their xbone. You will also have cardio-pulmonary development to support sustained high output.

That muscle tissue and elevated metabolism is going to sit there burning more calories during the week while you sit in the office at your desk. So in the context of exercising to lose weight its not really about the energy expenditure in performing the direct act, its about about turning your body to "run hotter".

Re:The diet is unimportant... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805863)

You couldn't be more wrong. Diet is everything and you can lose weight and stay lean without any form of exercise. Sure, people who train a lot will burn off excess glucose that will never be turned to fat, but for most people it's not a sustainable lifestyle. Plenty of people pick up exercise, signup to gym because that's what their government or doctors tells them, and yet obesity epidemic still rages on. To prove the absurdity of your point, look at the rate of obese children as young as few years old. It's their fault for being fat because the don't hit the gym every day, right? People are getting fat because they eat food that their body never evolved to handle in these quantities. Low activity only makes things worse, but is not the root cause.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805865)

lol i lost 120lbs on a low carb/high fat diet (not high protein, like every idiot and his mother thinks a low carb diet is) with zero exercise and zero change in activity level.

the great thing about a low carb/high fat diet is that it satiates you so much more than carbs ever could, you naturally eat less calories. it also has the added bonus of greatly improving your lipid panel and decreasing your risk for heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases.

but yeah, do a bit of exercise and keep eating all that sugar, i'm sure you'll be fine. /sarcasm

Re:The diet is unimportant... (2)

haruchai (17472) | about a month ago | (#47805901)

Up until my late twenties, that worked fine for me but the further into my 30s, the more I had to watch how much I ate and when despite keeping active.
A young man's metabolism can be a wonderful thing, but it doesn't last forever.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806025)

adding cocaine to your diet will bring back that calorie burning....

Not easy (2)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#47805945)

Simply eat what your body needs... beyond that, exercise. That is why people are getting fat. Not because they're eating too much but because they're not doing anything.

That's not nearly as easy as you so casually make it sound.

Look at what Michael Phelps ate. Something like three pizzas a day or something. And he was in great health at the time. Won Olympic gold medals and everything.

Michael Phelps is a professional athlete who worked out at a high intensity for 3-6 hours every day. I assure you that no one reading this is doing workouts anywhere close to what he did because it is not our job. You could not find an example which is less similar to the life most people have or want to have. I had a coach in college who was an Olympic gold medalist. I've seen what it takes up close and I'm pretty sure you haven't. It's not glamorous and it is very draining both physically and mentally. Guys like that can eat that much because they are burning 4-5000 calories per day. Nobody with a desk job is likely to be able to do that. Most people who would even try would burn out very quickly. Pretty much nobody is going to do it without a carrot like an Olympic medal sitting out there to motivate.

Years ago I was a division 1 college athlete so I've actually done workouts like what Mr. Phelps did and guess what? I don't have the time or the motivation to work out like that anymore. Most people have no appreciation for how hard it is because they only see game day from the comfort of their couch. When you get past about 30-35 years old the body doesn't recover like it used to and frankly your desire to go out and torture yourself diminishes significantly. Work out more? Love to except I have a job, a family, community responsibilities, and at my age the amount I can do isn't what it once was because stuff breaks on me. He'll I even actually coach the sport I played in college at the high school level and I can't find time to work out much. I'm supposed to pile on 3+ hours of exercise a night on top of a full time job and other commitments and still get any sleep? If you can do it my hat is off to you but I haven't met many people who can.

Eat less, exercise more? Yeah that's the core of it but it is NOT easy.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

cwarrior (2594465) | about a month ago | (#47805953)

When people exercise only without eating cleanly, they might lose "x" amount of weight. When people eat cleanly and workout rigorously, they lose "4x" amount of weight (depends on level of exercise). When people eat cleanly without exercising, they lose "3x" amount of weight. When it comes to weight loss, exercise is important, but eating right is much more important. I'm a long distance runner, and the saying "you can't outrun the fork" is truth.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47806045)

You do realize you just made all that up... right?

I repeat my standing point that prior to modern times people were not fat and often ate lots of carbs. In fact, carbs are the staple calories of the entire modern world and have been for thousands of years.

Wheat, Rice, Potatoes, Maize... notice a pattern here?

That is what the modern world has been eating since the dawn of recorded time. Carbs. Where they fat? Nope.

What changes? The food? Nope. The activity? Yep. So... logically what caused this issue?

The activity.

End of discussion.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806245)

Nonsense. The processed garbage that most people eat was not around prior to "modern times". You didn't have obscene amounts of sugar - and now, corn syrup - pumped into everything. In fact, sugar wasn't even available except as luxury for the wealthy until the 18th century.
On top of that, our modern crops like modern high-yield, semi-dwarf strains of wheat, created through extensive genetics manipulations starting in the 60s and 70s have little in common with the wheat that was grown before. Add to this the fact that industrial farming methods deplete the nutrients in the soil where food is grown and fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today, and your statement that food hasn''t changed is absurd.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month ago | (#47806371)

You certainly are an active troll. Site your sources because unless you are nutritional anthropologist, you haven't the foggiest idea what people's diets where.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

hodet (620484) | about a month ago | (#47805973)

It's math. Burn more calories than you consume. Impossible when watching 40hrs or TV a week stuffing your face with crap.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about a month ago | (#47805983)

The other problem is that cheap food is full of crap and calories that are not needed. all foods should have the calories and servings printed in large print on the front.

Many poor people will eat an entire box of mac and cheese dinner for a meal, that is 1450 calories if prepared with skim milk or powdered milk. That is an UNGODLY amount of calories for a single meal, and they will feel hungry in 1 hour because it's all empty calories with no fiber or substance to it.

If all someone eats is the pre-packaged processed crap in boxes, they will gain weight because a sane calorie amount of that meal is so small, they will over eat because they think they are eating a sensible meal but in reality the calorie count of the pre-packaged crap is sky high and not printed in big letters on the front.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47806209)

You clearly are not a consumer of cheap food. The point of those meals is that they have calories. The same people that buy them could very easily buy something as cheap or cheaper without calories.

The point of those meals is that they are very cheap and have a lot of calories. A single frozen pizza for example has all the calories you need to live for an entire day... if not more. And at a cost of about 5-8 USD.

As to this notion that people don't know how many calories are in the food... yeah they do. First, the information is clearly on the box. Second that is in large part why they are buying the food in the first place. People buy food because they are or anticipate being hungry.

Savvy?

As to poor people, you're assuming they're eating three meals a day. That mac and cheese meal might be half or all of their daily food. Forget this notion of "calories per meal" that's irrelevant to the body. What matters is calories versus work.

The body expends a certain amount of calories every day whether you do anything or not. That gives you a daily baseline burn rate. Labor in excess of breathing requires additional calories.

Saying someone is eating too much because they at 1400 calories in a meal ignores that they could be physically active or might not have eaten anything else for some time.

Unless you're talking calories versus work you're not talking about metabolism.

Further as to this attack on pre packaged food, the primary problem with such food is that it tastes poorly. Nutritionally there isn't a big problem with it. And the ongoing attack on it smacks of class-ism. We see this often with attacks on fast food restaurants because they have high calorie meals yet the high priced restaurants that have the same calories or more are not chastised. Why? Because its safe to criticize poor people or tell people they're doing everything wrong because they're poor. Never mind that the rich people are often doing the same thing in a more expensive way or have access to things that are unaffordable to poor people. Thus the poor people are being criticized for being poor.

If you don't have a lot of money and you are hungry... where are you going to get food? Think about it.

The arrogance of your position is frankly annoying.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month ago | (#47806377)

LMOL and people read the serving size and only eat that amount. Wow stop trolling.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806117)

While it's true that one can out-train a poor diet, the "easiest" method to lose weight is indeed reducing your consumption (e.g dietary restriction). While calories in vs calories out is simplistic and not a perfect model, it is pretty accurate on the whole, and it's a hell of a lot easier to avoid eating ~500 calories or so than it is to burn it off with training.

The reason low carb diets work is that fat is very satiating (as is protein), whereas there are tons of high carb dishes that leave one hungry/looking for more. Exercise has been shown to be muscle sparing, and also excellent at maintaining weight, but it is, for anyone not doing enormous amounts of volume, secondary to your food intake. If one is merely looking to lose fat, the easiest/most efficacious way is to simply eat less. This isn't easy, and there are lots of tricks to make it easier, but it is the truth of the matter.

Re:The diet is unimportant... (1)

kilfarsnar (561956) | about a month ago | (#47806243)

The diet is the wrong way around to solve a problem. Which is how to stay healthy without exercising. Now maybe there is a diet that does that but most of them say "oh and exercise"... well, if you exercise the rest isn't important.

That's really not true. You are correct that exercise is an integral part of being healthy. But what you eat is just as important. If you do an hour of cardio a day and weight train, but eat McDonald's french fries and milkshakes you will not realize the benefits of your exercise. Will you be better off than someone who eats the same but doesn't exercise? Sure, but you will not be better off than the person who exercises and eats lean meats, whole grains and lots of fruits and vegetables. The lean meats are optional as long as you get complete protein from some other source.

Somalia knows this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805693)

Don't eat anything (nutritious), you lose weight really fast.

The important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805711)

Is butter a carb?

Re:The important question (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a month ago | (#47805933)

No, it's fat, same as heavy cream. This is what makes Atkins awesome.

The unpopular opinion (1)

hejman08 (2461596) | about a month ago | (#47805743)

There are several diets out there- particularly Keto, that people have had a lot of success with. In just 2 months I almost lost 30 pounds (call it water weight all you want) and it was a low carb, high fat diet. My bad cholesterol even went down a couple points, and I still feel like I have my muscles. There is a lot of research supporting this idea out there, if you realize that the FDA is probably bought out by people who make high-carb, high-profit foods.

Re:The unpopular opinion (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about a month ago | (#47806069)

There are several diets out there- particularly Keto, that people have had a lot of success with. In just 2 months I almost lost 30 pounds (call it water weight all you want) and it was a low carb, high fat diet. My bad cholesterol even went down a couple points, and I still feel like I have my muscles. There is a lot of research supporting this idea out there, if you realize that the FDA is probably bought out by people who make high-carb, high-profit foods.

The old school food triangle is garbage. Schools feed kids based on guidance from the govt and look what we get. Sugary sodas, high carb grains, meal replacement candy. None of this is for your health. The real problem is that none of it in combination is good for anything but heart disease and diabetes.

The studies on lchf have been out for a while and really put the pressure on the whole concept of shutting down glycogens and generating ketones. As noted in the study, bad cholesterol dives while good cholesterol spikes. I once saw a list of the most unhealthy processed foods [epyk.com] that basically has every food group in a single meal. If you ate just one of these a day I think you are certain to die in ten years. Start with fresh meats, fish, nuts, creams and veggies. Leave the carbs for last. Live a long and healthy life.

People seem to forget that those who are 40 today have a good chance of living to 100. Do you want to spend the last 30 years of your life getting heart surgeries, popping blood pressure pills and overprescribed pharmaceuticals? You're just supporting an industry that thrives on your disabilities. Ditch them and the whole damned system of intolerance they offer.

Empty Calories (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about a month ago | (#47805745)

Though just one sample (in my case) isn't significant, this is also my personal experience. Since I started avoiding bread, potato (not sweet potato), rice, pasta and sugar, I've lost a lot of weight. Part of the reason though, is that these foods are all over the place and very cheap, whereas my sweet potato mash with chicken breast and steamed green beans takes a little effort to produce.

So I do wonder if it's more about availability than it is the form of calories (the emptiness of many carb calories notwithstanding).

Re:Empty Calories (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47805781)

I absolutely packed myself with steak fried in butter, salads with massive wads of bleu cheese, and six-egg omelets with cheddar and some sort of pork product (usually sausage, sometimes bacon) for nine months of ass-sitting and lost ninety pounds. I've kept it off. The thirty more pounds I lost after that while working out and putting on muscle and eating pretty much the same stuff, but less steak and more fried chicken, I've pretty much put back on. But I'm eating "normally" now, including occasional fried food binges when the fair comes through or what have you.

Re:Empty Calories (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a month ago | (#47806039)

"fried chicken, I've pretty much put back on"

It's the crap on the outside of the fried chicken causing the problem. If chicken places would use a good soy based flour the carb content of fried chicken would drop like a stone. Buddy of mine created a batter for his out of soy that tastes better than anything I have ever had at a chicken joint.

Restaurants sneak in carbs because carbs are cheap.

Re:Empty Calories (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47806085)

Oh actually, I don't really eat fried chicken with breading. That's not because I won't eat it, it's because I can't find any worth eating. We used to have a broaster in town but the local supplier closed up shop. When I was on Atkins I was just frying chicken thighs in oil as a means of fast, complete cooking. Add soy sauce, powdered ginger, and powdered garlic for an easy asian-ish flavor...

I hate carbs ... (3, Funny)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month ago | (#47805771)

... they have that gasoline taste.

I hate carbs ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805951)

FYI, fat resembles gasoline a lot more than carbs do :)

The Swedish LCHF diet? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47805775)

I'm quite sure it flashed around here some time ago.

A change in diet - from what? (4, Interesting)

jandersen (462034) | about a month ago | (#47805789)

What kind of diet did they start from? If the participants were typical Americans, it was probably something that was very heavy in sugar and other refined carbohydrates; more so that in fat, if I'm not mistaken, so cutting down on carbohydrates is no doubt the most important improvement to the diet one could make. Cutting back on fat would probably be the next, big step.

It is sometimes hard to remember just how extreme the typical Western diet is; it is perhaps particularly visible to me, because I have completely stopped drinking sweet drinks (including fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks). Now I find I can't get through a whole glass of Coke - it's just too much, but only a few years ago I could drink whole liters of the crap.

As others have remarked, there is no need to follow any special diet, just stop eating and drinking crap. Of course, with the selection available, that in itself is actually not easy.

Re:A change in diet - from what? (4, Insightful)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a month ago | (#47805871)

The whole point of studies such as this is to find out exactly what is the crap that you need to avoid, really. That part certainly isn't common knowledge.

Re:A change in diet - from what? (1)

hodet (620484) | about a month ago | (#47806063)

I would think fruits, vegetables, grains and meat/protein products that come from one mother are good stuff. Water is the only beverage your body needs. The rest starts bordering on crap.

Re:A change in diet - from what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806109)

I would think

Studies like these are how we end up with less of the 'I would think' and more of the 'we are pretty certain and here is why...'. You probably are right of course - but that's not the same as knowing for sure. Nor does it give any kind of thought about in what kind of ratio's one could best eat food. Lots of grains with a few vegetables is probably not so good as few grains with lots of vegetables.

Re:A change in diet - from what? (1)

trout007 (975317) | about a month ago | (#47806033)

This is just my personal experience but I went from eating a heavy refined sugar and carbs to a high fat diet and everything improved with the exception of LDL.

Re:A change in diet - from what? (1)

loom_weaver (527816) | about a month ago | (#47806049)

Perhaps they meant a change from the old food pyramid:

http://www.powerprooatmeal.com... [powerprooatmeal.com]

Growing up the mantra I remember that the mantra was to avoid fat at all costs because duh... eating fat would make you fat. However, you could eat pretty much as much grain as you want (with no distinction made for refined grains and/or sugar).

Re:A change in diet - from what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806225)

Thanks, doctor. Any citation to back any of what you said up? No? Cool.

How much? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about a month ago | (#47805815)

The abstract lists significant % changes for the low-carb group - but doesn't show the numbers for the low-fat group. If the change is significant but tiny then it may as well be insignificant.

It's easier than that (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about a month ago | (#47805817)

Just restrict calories. I lost the most weight doing that. I was eating 2200 calories a day and I was never hungry except when I woke up in the morning. After mastering the calories, I went to restricting sodium and increasing protein while decreasing carbs. Just one step at a time. It eventually became habit. Exercising is a must to maintain (or increase) lean tissue. The net result should be fat loss.

Re:It's easier than that (2)

tmosley (996283) | about a month ago | (#47805967)

No, it isn't. Restricting calories leaves you hungry, which is utterly ruinous. Low carb, high fat decreases your appetite naturally. After being on low carb for a few months, I am completely satisfied by a small salad and a small steak, where I used to be and eat like a big tubby fat-ass.

Calorific value? (1)

motd2k (1675286) | about a month ago | (#47805831)

More important than either of these is the calorific value of the relative diets. Both of them (low carb / low fat) ultimately work by restricting the types of food, and therefore the calories, that are consumed - just via different methods. Claiming that fat is bad is simply false.

Re:Calorific value? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47805913)

More important than either of these is the calorific value of the relative diets. Both of them (low carb / low fat) ultimately work by restricting the types of food, and therefore the calories,

No, in fact, that's the opposite of what this study shows. I'm not surprised you got this wrong, because you are simply parroting the prevailing thinking, but it is plain wrong and this study shows that. Of course, so did the ketogenic/Atkins diet, but you ignored that so it's not surprising that you're ignoring this.

Irony: Holding forth with an obsolete opinion as a reply to an article about a study which proves your opinion obsolete. You may try again, but you have failed abjectly and you're spreading bullshit misinformation to make yourself appear relevant.

Re:Calorific value? (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a month ago | (#47805979)

Read up on ketosis. You lose a LOT more than you should because you change your body's system of metabolism to one that focuses on burning ketones, which can't be recycled back into fat. I lose a pound a day, no exercise, and eating until satisfied.

Re:Calorific value? (1)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | about a month ago | (#47806075)

They didn't do caloric restriction here. Apparently, a low carb diet allows people to lose weight better than a low fat diet. People ate how much they wanted. Whether it is because they ate fewer calories or because the body processes the food differently is irrelevant for the conclusion that low-fat works better.

Also, a claim of this study was that fat is *not* bad for you, and better than high carb.

Personal mistakes vs. governmental ones (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about a month ago | (#47805841)

People who avoid carbohydrates and eat more fat, even saturated fat, lose more body fat and have fewer cardiovascular risks than people who follow the low-fat diet that health authorities have favored for decades [emphasis mine -mi], a major new study shows.

A person can choose to eat this or that and it is his own responsibility. But, when the government decides, what's good for you (based on some "settled" science [wsj.com] ), it not only affects citizenry's opinion and makes us less responsible for ourselves, it also leaves millions directly controlled by the government — such as pupils in government schools [nytimes.com] — without choices at all.

Now, I don't doubt, that some of the stuff removed from schools by our omni-scient and caring Congressmen [usda.gov] will never be considered good for anyone again. But they still force fat-free chocolate milk on kids, for example, in seeming contradiction to this new study. Maybe, both ought to be available — and parents, rather than the Federal government, be allowed to control the children's nutrition?

Sadly, the movement seems to be in the wrong direction. Some parents are already being punished for children eating incorrectly [yu.edu] . And though in this case (200+ pound 8 year old), it is fairly obvious, that the parents are, indeed, screwy, it is likely to be a "poster-boy" for future interventions in cases less and less obvious.

Personal mistakes vs. governmental ones (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806269)

If the government is providing food directly, such as in the case of school dinners, then they should absolutely attempt to provide a healthly diet based upon the scientific consensus. Just because the science isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw it away and let anyone decide what's healthly.

Now you could certainly make the arguement that no one should be able to decide what someone else eats, and in most situations that's a great point. But in the case of school dinners it's inevitable that someone else will decide what the children eat, in that case it may as well be done based on evidence and reasonable policy not the whims of someone who's only qualification is that they had a child.

Please stop spreading such drivel (0)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a month ago | (#47805861)

A healthy diet can't be summarized in a sentence. The healthiest diet is what your body needs, and what your body needs depends on your individual body chemistry, your environment, your lifestyle, and probably a half a dozen other factors. That's why dietitians are not all unemployed (although they may not always be totally trustworthy, they can probably provide you with something better than low carb or low fat).

Re:Please stop spreading such drivel (1)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | about a month ago | (#47806089)

That's why they tried it on 148 people, and why they're posting average results, for average people. I am curious as to the outliers though.

What is essential (3, Informative)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a month ago | (#47805881)

Polyinsaturated fats (omega 3 and omega 6) are essential. The body cannot produce them, and they are required for major functions. Cutting fat means starving the body for something it needs

On the other hand, carbs are just fuel, and we can create glucose from amino acids if we need some.

A diabetic perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47805963)

Myself a type 2 diabetic. The reduction in carbs has done more then any medicine in reducing my blood glucose numbers. People eat far too much carb and many times those portions are two or three times what one person should eat. I personally believe our obsession with over eating of carbs eventually contributes many of us not only to large weight gains, but also other long term health issues such as diabetes. Portions in America are out f control and our more sedate lifestyles only add to the problem. If we were more physically active, the added carbs would not be such a issue. People don't need fad diets and pills. They need to eat only what their bodies need. Unfortunately, many are eating portions sizes that would be for two or three people not one. The scariest part of this is that even younger people are packing on pounds at alarming rates. When at their ages they should easily handle even some excess off calorie intake. This just proves that even perfectly healthy younger people are dooming themselves down the road to conditions like diabetes, heart disease and other health issues early in life.

Does anyone know if its possible (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a month ago | (#47806015)

Does anyone know if its possible to eat a low carb diet as a vegetarian?

My weight loss diet last January (4, Interesting)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a month ago | (#47806057)

A couple months ago, I posted a detail of the diet I was on during January. [slashdot.org] I'll repost it here. It isn't the best argument that a high-fat diet causes weight loss, because of how radical it was. And it was short-term only. But it did work.

=======================
Let me tell you the long version of my one month diet. The short version is I lost 30 pounds in 31 days, and never felt any different.

On January 1st, I started a month-long diet plan. I had scrambled eggs in the morning, with mushrooms, onions, red bell peppers, and breakfast sausage mixed in them. I sauted the vegetables first in butter, added the sausage, and then the eggs, with some salt and seasoning. I made four days worth at a time, using eight eggs and half a package of sausage. So on average I had two eggs and two ounces of sausage. The calorie count was about 600 calories.

For dinner I had a salad. For a good salad, start with a big bowl. The ones I used hold a quart or more. Shred four leaves of iceberg lettuce, add a couple leaves of romaine, throw out the stalk part (or eat a couple as I'm making the salad). Add half a large tomato, diced, handful of chopped onion, sliced hard-boiled egg, shredded cheese, halved black olives, a few croutons, and small amount of ranch dressing. I prefer Thousand Island, but would have used too much, so went with Ranch, which I don't actually like. If the wife had made chicken the previous night, add a piece of chicken, sliced or pulled. Calories without the egg or chicken was about 100 calories, and is what I had half the time. With an egg add another 80, and with chicken add 300.

So for a month, Jan 1st to 31st, with only a couple exceptions, I had 1000 calories or less a day. The biggest exception was because I was out of town with my wife for a doctor visit one day. I ate a healthy dinner, but a few more calories than a salad. The other exception was a salad at Wendy's for lunch, also out of town, and a salad for dinner at home. Also, for a snack during the day, I would have eight to ten black olives, or a banana. I ate a banana on five or six days, and the black olives on fifteen to twenty days. The other days, I had nothing more than scrambled eggs and a salad.

To round that out, I drank at the most, a quart of water a day. One glass in the morning after breakfast, small sips during the day when my mouth was dry, and one glass after dinner. Again, the two exception days, I had diet soda or tea with the meals. With the salad of course, I got some more liquid, but the water my body used was simply provided by breaking down the fat cells. And I broke down a lot of fat cells. When I got up in the morning and used the toilet, my urine was a very dark orange. That was from the debris, solids and liquids, of unneeded cells.

During that month, I never felt tired, worn out, or light headed. I went from 230 pounds to 200 pounds. I did the same work I do all the time, fixing computers, crawling under desks, carrying them out to the car and back, installing network printers, etc. I didn't go to the gym at my apartment complex, or do any other workout.

As for hunger, I am always hungry anyway. I usually snack whenever I have the chance between jobs, tv shows, slashdot flamewars, and am still always hungry. So going a month being slightly more hungry wasn't really noticeable. Really, it's more boredom than hunger to begin with anyways.

Of course in the five months since I went off the diet, I regained some of the weight. Eight pounds in the first two weeks, as the depleted-but-surviving fat cells refilled with water. But that means I managed to destroy twenty-two pounds of them in one month. I want to go back on the diet, and get well below 200 pounds, but just haven't yet. Maybe now that my daughter's finished school, I can plan my life a bit more again.
--

*not* a low fat diet (2, Interesting)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a month ago | (#47806149)

"The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal governmentâ(TM)s dietary guidelines."

This is not a low-fat diet. The 30% recommendation was an incredibly tepid compromise: the standard American diet is around 35% fat. So this its along the lines of telling peoople "Oh, you smoke 35 cigarettes a week? Try to keep it to 30."

For comparison, the Ornish plan is around 10% calories from fat.

So this study compared a high-fat, high-sugar diet (no restrictions on an America's sugar intake == high sugar) with a higher-fat, no-sugar diet. The usual crap research that people tout as showing low-carb diets useful.

The comments in this thread are embarrassing. (5, Insightful)

BradMajors (995624) | about a month ago | (#47806189)

Someone posts a scientific article about dieting and everyone posts their wild unproven theories about dieting.

If I wanted to read wild speculation by uninformed nobodies I can find that elsewhere.

Re:The comments in this thread are embarrassing. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806357)

Strange, when I want to read wild speculation by uninformed nobodies I usually come here.

plants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47806267)

Animal products are the new tobacco. Watch what doctors and nutritionists actually do themselves. As they continue to research diet and health (not just weight, but actual health), the researchers slowly but surely quit eating animal products and factory processed foods. They end up with a nutrient-dense (not calorie dense) plant-based, low oil/fat, organic diet, and they or someone in their family learns to cook. Because it's still very difficult to find a healthy meal at a restaurant (where "hyper palatable foods" rule -- and yes, Google is your friend).

What happened to the researchers working the tobacco issues was that all the researchers quit smoking. Even the ones doing research for Big Tobacco and published all those misinformation and misdirection pseudo-science papers about how tobacco was either good for you or at least not bad for you. They all quit. Then the doctors quit. And after four or five decades, most of the consumers had quit. But people still smoke which just proves the power of consistent marketing.

Food is going to make tobacco look like a walk in the park. But history is indeed repeating itself. Right now, the researchers are eating less and less meat, diary, eggs, sugar, and salt. Ask them. Talk to them. Doctors too. Ask your doctor(s) what s/he actually eats.

What you aren't going to find, is researchers and doctors following the diet in this study. Because they know it's ridiculous, and they know it's unhealthy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?