-Diablo's Journal, 21 February 2018

Low cal is the winner 

It’s important to look at multiple studies and who published/funded the study. 

As usual you make a good pt. 

This contradicts earlier recent studies. It is important to know not only who conducted the test but also how the data was analyzed. I am suspicious of this finding having gone both routes. 

For a list of recent studies, see Blog.VirtaHealth.com - they have posted a list, as well as summaries of their own. 

Thanks for the link Diablo...great information. A couple of points that came from reading the overview of the study; both the low fat and low carb groups were instructed to consume high-quality whole foods and drinks. Specifically, they were instructed to “maximize vegetable intake ... minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours, and trans fats; and ... focus on whole foods that were minimally processed, nutrient dense, and prepared at home whenever possible.” I want to emphasis that both groups were instructed to "minimize intake of added sugars, refined flours and trans fats..." all three which are recognized as health and diet adverse contributors. Also, the authors of the study noted "decreases in added sugar and glycemic load for both groups and a decrease in glycemic index for the low-carb group." Finally, the biggest take away for me is the emphasis on sustainability versus diet type. I agree with the article's authors...this is where the rubber hits the road; "There is no 'best diet'. Both low-fat and low-carb diets can work for weight loss; the healthy diet that will work for you is the one you can stick to." Many times people assume that their diet works for everyone without recognizing that we are all individuals with different social and environment pressures, couple those with individual age, hormonal or mobility factors, what works for one might not work for another and vice versa.  

Note; nowhere in the study were either group instructed to eat twinkies :-) 

As I've seen here on FS and with folks in my circle of friends LCHF is sometimes the only thing that "works" for them. For others, (myself included) a balanced diet is more sustainable. However, even with a Balanced diet I have to follow the authors' advice and avoid (not abstain) consuming high GI carbs and transfats to maintain a healthy diet.  

If you read Dr Phinney 's analysis (posted at the VirtaHealth website), he concludes keto has a small metabolic disadvantage (that is, less efficient use of calories) than the standard diet, which would translate to a small amount less weight gained or more lost, on LC. 

I have combined clean eating with LCHF and it helps tremendously with chronic inflammation. 

Whole food plant based is the first thing that's really worked for me. I don't have the willpower for calorie restriction. Keto always made me feel sick. WFPB has been so easy. I eat a ton of food, literally about 8 pounds a day. I don't track calories or macros. I don't watch portion sizes. I fill my plate to the point of overflowing & then I often have seconds. Of course, what good would a giant meal be if I didn't have dessert afterwards, too? With all that, the pounds are falling away really easily. I wish I had known about this 20 years ago. 

The biggest take away should be that CICO is the reason we lose weight, not low carb or low fat. I have always told people to use the diet that they can adhere to while dispelling myths. It's obvious that you should make is a priority to eat whole foods. I think it was Alan Aragon who mentioned an 80/20 nutritious vs. treats. Steven, you post like I am advising people to disregard good nutrition. A twinkie a day is not going to hurt you. Just don't make sweets a majority of your calories. 

Diablo, while I agree that the reason we lose weight (for all diets) is creating an energy deficit, how we (as individuals) get there really determines sustainability and how easy it is for each of us. However, your assertion that the biggest takeaway of the study relates to CICO and weight lose is very puzzling as the articles authors titled this "Low-fat vs Low-carb?" NOT "Is CICO the reason we lose weight?". Also, the authors of the review help you and I determine what the takeaway should be (with big letters); as they ask the question "What should I take away from this?" Their highlighted answer, and I quote; "There is no 'best diet'. Both low-fat and low-carb diets can work for weight loss; the healthy diet that will work for you is the one you can stick to."  

Also, as I noted in my previous post both groups were instructed to limit added sugars and both the Low-fat and Low-carb groups exhibited lower glycemic loads (which easily limits total energy input) while fat % remained virtually the same in the Low-carb group. Note also that no specific calorie input or calorie expenditure targets were in the participants diet instructions as noted in this and other articles relating to this study. Please read The New York Times article referencing this same study and their article title reads (and I quote) "The Key to Weight Loss Is Diet Quality, Not Quantity, a New Study Finds".  

Here is another article by abc news referencing this same study titled "Eating 'better' is better than counting calories for weight loss, study finds". While CICO is important, the authors of the article you quoted, the authors of the New York Times article, the authors of the abc news article and myself agree that the study's main focus is on what we eat. Oh ya, and yes I do think that at times you do tell folks that CICO is more important than what we eat. 

Agree 

Nutrition expert Mark Haub lost weight and improved all health markers with a vending machine diet by counting calories, so yes, calories are the most important. You can eat healthy foods and still be obese. I see examples of that daily on here and in person. Vitamins and fiber do matter, I never said otherwise. Low-calorie replacements can make a difference, I never said they don't. If someone can eat a certain way that allows them to reach their calorie goals, they should stick to it. Also, the reason I said CICO is what matters, in the end, is because it does, whether you reach you CICO goals via low fat or low carb, it matters not, as long as you're reaching your CICO goals. 

Ahh, finally the twinkie diet...a 10 week experiment with one subject, to prove that by restricting the quantity of food (even junk food) you can lose weight, which also proved that by losing weight our health markers improve. Sustainability and long term health were far from being proven by this very short experiment with one highly motivated subject and one in which Haub himself does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet. Sure it proves that calorie restriction works for weight loss, not in dispute, but this very short study with one subject sure doesn't prove that eating junk food is sustainable or long term healthy or that this method of reaching a calorie deficit is more important (or efficient) than other methods. The Lo-fat vs Lo-carb study's biggest take away was that neither diet was best, with the authors' conclusion that the best diet is one that you can stick to for the long run...their conclusion is one that I agree with too...for weight loss it really only matters what works best for the individual... whether calorie counting IIFYM (which I do), Lo-carb, Lo-fat, LCHF, Palio, vegan, Intermittent Fasting, etc, etc. Long term health is a totally different consideration as bad food choices (just like smoking) over time will catch up with us due to increased risks of heart disease, cancer, diebetis, etc.  

Diablo and others...why I care enough to post these Too Long Don't Read posts is a personal matter. I saw my father, a big framed, very strong farmer get taken by type 2 diabetes in his mid fifties, died at 71 with the last fifteen years very poor quality of life. He got that way by not "worrying" about what he ate, if he had a "do-over" he would for sure have done some things differently. I am very encouraged and happy for others here on FS that are reversing tyoe 2 DB, increasing insulin sensitivity or improving a metabolic condition by diet or diet & exercise....in the end we do control our long term health risks, that is an important message for me.  

You have done nothing to disprove that a healthy bodyfat level is the most important factor of health. It is number one number 2 being nutrition. Also, do you really think that by incorporating some less nutritious options you're setting yourself up for disease? That despite exercise and a healthy body fat level you're inevitably headed for T2 diabetes because of a daily twinkie or 2? I'm pretty sure T2 diabetes risk goes up with obesity and an overall terrible diet. Let me ask, was your father at a healthy weight? You should read insulin an undeserved bad reputation by James Krieger. Again, I never said someone's diet should consist of Twinkies and Twizzlers but you sure make it sound like that is the case. It's not all or nothing. Moderation.