4 ms·

The second paragraph contradicts itself. Here's the first two paragraphs: > Anyone who has ever been on a diet knows that the standard prescription for weight

The second paragraph contradicts itself. Here's the first two paragraphs: > Anyone who has ever been on a diet knows that the standard prescription for weight loss is to reduce the amount of calories you consume. > But a new study, published Tuesday in JAMA, may turn that advice on its head. It found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year. People who switch to plenty of vegetables and whole foods may not be counting calories, but they're still consuming far fewer calories. Have you ever looked at how few calories are in vegetables? Most of the calories in any vegetable dish you consume are probably coming from added oil. And eating "whole foods" also means avoiding the heavily-processed caloric foods you would be eating otherwise. Weight loss comes from calorie reduction. Exercise is really important too of course, in particular to maintaining your weight post-loss, but all you really need to lose weight is to reduce your calorie intake. I can personally attest to that, having lost 75lbs in 4 months now using nothing more than calorie restriction¹, and the program I'm doing this through has a very high success rate (which is to say, as long as you actually stick to the program, you're guaranteed to lose a significant amount of weight). The overall point of the article is still fine, which is that you really don't need to calorie-count in order to lose weight, and focusing on that can make people unhappy. In general it's more effective to simply tailor your diet so the foods you're eating are less caloric (and probably healthier in other ways too). But I am disappointed that the article led with the completely incorrect implication that weight loss does not come from reducing the calories you consume. ¹It's a medically-managed weight loss program through Kaiser Permanente, 960 calories per day (using meal replacements) for 16 weeks with regular bloodwork and doctor visits, then 1200 calories per day (with partial meal replacements) for another 16 weeks (assuming you don't hit your weight goal). I'm currently in the 1200 calorie portion.

nardi 9y ago
I disagree with your characterization of the quoted text. It says the “standard prescription” is to reduce calories, and that the new study may change that. A prescription is an instruction from your doctor. That text is saying that doctors may start telling you to eat more vegetables and whole foods rather than cutting back on calories. I do not believe it is implying that weight loss is disconnected from calories consumed. From later in the article: Dr. Gardner said it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they weren’t conscious of it. The point is that they did this by focusing on nutritious whole foods that satisfied their hunger.
- eridius 9y ago
  Right, the rest of the article is ok. My quibble is with the implication in the first two paragraphs. It says the standard prescription is to reduce the amount of calories, and then says the new study "turn(s) that advice on its head", implying that calorie reduction isn't the solution after all. But it still is! It's just a question of how you go about doing it. There's nothing about "reduce the calories you consume" that means you must exercise strict portion control and calorie-count and go to bed hungry. It just means reduce your calorie intake. And a great way to do that is to change the types of food you're eating. The important takeaway from the study here is that by adjusting your diet, you can reduce your calorie intake without feeling like you're eating less, which is a lot more sustainable than calorie-counting (and leaves you a lot happier too). But the key point here is still reducing your calorie intake. If you're adjusting your diet, you need to pick a diet that does in fact result in fewer calories. If you switch to mostly vegetables, but liberally douse your veggies with lots of oil and butter, you're not actually reducing your calories.
  - msla 9y ago
    The article has to be special to get readership. If people knew it was the same old, same old said in a different way, nobody would care. The problem is that CICO (Calories-In/Calories-Out) is the only possible way to lose (or gain) weight. Literally every valid, non-pseudoscientific diet is going to be another way to get to reduced caloric input in a sustainable fashion, because sustaining a caloric deficit is genuinely difficult.

nardi 9y ago

I disagree with your characterization of the quoted text. It says the “standard prescription” is to reduce calories, and that the new study may change that. A prescription is an instruction from your doctor. That text is saying that doctors may start telling you to eat more vegetables and whole foods rather than cutting back on calories. I do not believe it is implying that weight loss is disconnected from calories consumed. From later in the article: Dr. Gardner said it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they weren’t conscious of it. The point is that they did this by focusing on nutritious whole foods that satisfied their hunger.

eridius 9y ago
Right, the rest of the article is ok. My quibble is with the implication in the first two paragraphs. It says the standard prescription is to reduce the amount of calories, and then says the new study "turn(s) that advice on its head", implying that calorie reduction isn't the solution after all. But it still is! It's just a question of how you go about doing it. There's nothing about "reduce the calories you consume" that means you must exercise strict portion control and calorie-count and go to bed hungry. It just means reduce your calorie intake. And a great way to do that is to change the types of food you're eating. The important takeaway from the study here is that by adjusting your diet, you can reduce your calorie intake without feeling like you're eating less, which is a lot more sustainable than calorie-counting (and leaves you a lot happier too). But the key point here is still reducing your calorie intake. If you're adjusting your diet, you need to pick a diet that does in fact result in fewer calories. If you switch to mostly vegetables, but liberally douse your veggies with lots of oil and butter, you're not actually reducing your calories.
- msla 9y ago
  The article has to be special to get readership. If people knew it was the same old, same old said in a different way, nobody would care. The problem is that CICO (Calories-In/Calories-Out) is the only possible way to lose (or gain) weight. Literally every valid, non-pseudoscientific diet is going to be another way to get to reduced caloric input in a sustainable fashion, because sustaining a caloric deficit is genuinely difficult.