4 ms·

Why these studies do not support your conclusion: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 As has been menti

by neild 16y ago

Why these studies do not support your conclusion: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20679559 As has been mentioned by other posters, this study demonstrated that carbohydrate restriction was as effective as extreme calorie restriction (as low as 1200kcal/d!) in causing weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction was better at improving just about every indicator of cardiovascular health that exists--triglyceride levels, HDL levels, blood pressure, etc. The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.) 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663066 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663066 This study is dealing with low glycemic index diets, not low-carb diets. It is largely irrelevant to the discussion. (Note that frucose, a carbohydrate, has a very low glycemic index.) 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 This study deals with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), not carbohydrate-restricted diets in general. I note also that the "high fat" diet in this study only included 35-45% of calories from fat, and about 45% of calories from carbohydrates. In other words, this study does not appear to contain any low-carbohydrate diets, and is again irrelevant to the discussion. 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571327 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571327 This study appears to concern the use of the drug orlistat for weight maintenance following weight loss. Orlistat: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000175 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000175 Leaving aside the rather scary warnings about liver damage, it appears that orlistat is used in conjunction with "an individualized low-calorie, low-fat diet". This paper does not appear to have any relevance to a discussion of carbohydrate-restricted diets. (Except, perhaps, as an argument for the scary side effects of the alternatives.) 5. The link for this is wrong. This appears to be the right one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125573/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125573/ The "final nail" in the coffin of carbohydrate restriction, as you put it, appears to be a study comparing a fat-restricted/calorie-unrestricted diet with a calorie-restricted diet. Carbohydrate-restricted diets do not make an appearance. End result: Four irrelevant studies, one which supports carbohydrate restriction as a superior alternative to calorie restriction for weight loss and cardiovascular health.

timr 16y ago
"The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.)" The abstract of the paper made it clear that attrition was high in both groups -- neither cohort could maintain their diets. Also, you're doing a fair amount of selective quoting. From the abstract, right before the part you quoted: "There were no differences in weight, body composition, or bone mineral density between the groups at any time point." In other words: neither group lost more weight than the other, at any time point. Which was the OP's point. Also, the following papers were trivial to find: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064 "Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868 "After 6 months, individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets had lost more weight than individuals randomized to low-fat diets....This difference was no longer obvious after 12 months....Triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets....but total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-fat diets" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364 "There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507345 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507345 "Variability in dietary weight loss trials may be partially attributable to differences in hormonal response. Reducing glycemic load may be especially important to achieve weight loss among individuals with high insulin secretion. Regardless of insulin secretion, a low-glycemic load diet has beneficial effects on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations but not on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration." Confused? You should be. What a quick perusal of the evidence tells me is that a) despite what you may have read on the internet, the question is far from settled, and b) if there is any conclusion to be made, it's that low-carb diets may have some positive benefit on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but don't seem to have any net benefit when it comes to weight control.

by neild 16y ago

timr 16y ago

"The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.)" The abstract of the paper made it clear that attrition was high in both groups -- neither cohort could maintain their diets. Also, you're doing a fair amount of selective quoting. From the abstract, right before the part you quoted: "There were no differences in weight, body composition, or bone mineral density between the groups at any time point." In other words: neither group lost more weight than the other, at any time point. Which was the OP's point. Also, the following papers were trivial to find: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15148064 "Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868 "After 6 months, individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets had lost more weight than individuals randomized to low-fat diets....This difference was no longer obvious after 12 months....Triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets....but total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-fat diets" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364 "There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507345 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17507345 "Variability in dietary weight loss trials may be partially attributable to differences in hormonal response. Reducing glycemic load may be especially important to achieve weight loss among individuals with high insulin secretion. Regardless of insulin secretion, a low-glycemic load diet has beneficial effects on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations but not on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration." Confused? You should be. What a quick perusal of the evidence tells me is that a) despite what you may have read on the internet, the question is far from settled, and b) if there is any conclusion to be made, it's that low-carb diets may have some positive benefit on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but don't seem to have any net benefit when it comes to weight control.