Major evidence that low carb diets not needed for long term weight loss/maintenance success

[Jingthing]

As it's obvious that LOW CARB diets are still quite popular (and also controversial) I thought this item was worthy of a thread. LOW CARB diets are an option and they CAN work for long term weight loss / maintenance success but here is some very strong evidence that they are not a NECESSITY (in general).

Here goes. Hold on to your seats:

There was much more similarity in the strategies used

for weight-loss maintenance. We found four strategies that

were common to a large proportion of NWCR participants.

These were: 1) eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet; 2) eating

breakfast almost every day; 3) frequent self-monitoring;

and 4) engaging in high levels of physical activity.

a. Dietary Composition: In general, NWCR participants

reported eating low-calorie diets that are moderately

low in fat and high in carbohydrates.

See that? HIGH IN CARBS. Not low. HIGH.

Also of course low carb diets can often be high fat as well, so if using a low carb diet there is a clue here to avoid going too fat on it. Most of the successful long term were also on LOWER FAT diets.

http://www.lifeafterdiets.com.au/resources/NWCR_Overview.pdf

This is perhaps the largest group of SUCCESSFUL long term weight losers / maintainers ever studied in the world and the study has been going for over TWENTY years. Those years included times when LOW CARB diets were super trendy, which makes this finding even more amazing. If you can point to a larger sample study of success cases going for a longer time, please do!

To be clear, this is not an indictment of low carb diets or suggesting they can't be successful. In fact this same organization has a paper that concludes that it IS possible to achieve weight loss and maintenance success with low carb diets but cautions about low carb diets that are too high fat. However, it does deeply challenge any DOGMATIC low carb dieters who in any way suggest their way is the only way. Because really without any doubt at all: IT IS NOT.

In my view of this, I suggest any dogmatic messages about low carb being the holy grail be forevermore REJECTED.

You know, its common and perhaps a part of human nature, for some people to have an experience themselves that seems positive and conclude they have discovered the answer for everyone. Also sometimes trying to CONVERT people to their belief system.

For example I've had what seem like amazing results with garcinia cambogia supplement but I can cite no long term studies of people doing what I'm doing, so the LAST thing I would do is suggest my experiment basically as a holy grail for everyone.

A study like the one cited provides some strong clues about what is likely to work for lots of people though, and with good long term EVIDENCE.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[chiang mai]

So the answer is not necessarily low carbs, it's to watch total calories and engage in high levels of physical exercise, sounds revolutionary!

[Jingthing]

So the answer is not necessarily low carbs, it's to watch total calories and engage in high levels of physical exercise, sounds revolutionary!

Basically, and also low fat.

In the article you can get a lot more details about what this successful group are mostly doing.

For example, the BREAKFAST everday finding sounds like an old wives tale that might be for real.

A thing you might possibly be missing is that group is really special.

The vast majority of people who try to lose weight can succeed at losing the weight, but the majority who lose weight are NOT successful in MAINTAINING the loss.

This group is succeeding in that more rare area of success.

Which makes information from them much more credible than information from people who have only LOST weight.

The goal really is not weight loss so much as losing the weight for the LAST TIME!

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[h90]

Come on Jingthing that is almost silly.....

if you eat less than you need you'll get slim. If you eat as much as you need you keep your weight.

If you take your calories mostly from sugar but won't eat too much in total, you may feel bad half the time but you won't gain weight.

Low carbs is only a trick to diet or keep your weight without feeling hungry all the time. To make it easier. Loose weight with no pain.

You also maintain your weight by eating 2 Big Mac and a big coke for dinner but nothing else. And diet by reducing to 1 Big Mac. Just 2 hours later you'll start to feel hungry again and the next 22 hours will be hell.

With low carbs you get the same much more comfortable.

[Jingthing]

Low carb is a choice. If it helps you, great go for it, there is no evidence in the study suggesting going that route will be a hindrance to long term success, with a caveat that this organization has concerns about higher fat diets (based on their results).

I find it interesting that a large majority of these more rare long term success cases are NOT on low carb programs especially during a era of low carb diet fads. If you don't, fine. Again, it doesn't mean that higher carb is the ONLY way either.

Yes food choices matter to satiety. With my current program, I have greatly increased VEGETABLE intake. I also eat a fair amount of healthy fats for satiety -- olive oil, avocado, and almonds. Yummy!

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[chiang mai]

Sometimes too much knowledge can be dangerous, when it comes to diets I think common sense can prevail in many cases. I confess to having had a very poor understanding of the composition of my food intake at a time when I needed to loose twelve kilo's, I was successful not because I followed a special regime but because I did all the no-brainer common sense things: exercise, ditch all refined carbs, eat low glycemic vegetables, no food after 6pm, snack on carrots and celery, ditch all the soft drinks and fruit juices, limit portion size and so on. I don't know if in the first instance that represented a low carb low fat, high fat low carb or high low whatever, but I can tell you that it worked a charm.

Today, as a result of the holidays, I am 4 kilo' s over my target weight but my blood glucose levels are spot on, tomorrow I shall revert to my more stringent list of common sense foods and actions and within a week my four kilo's will be history, I guarantee it. Moral of the story: probably not worth trying to analyze the detail too much, just get the big high level actions right.

[Jingthing]

CM, my reaction to your post is you are in high percentile of nutrition awareness of people in the world. So I find it really funny to hear the advice don't bother learning stuff from someone who obviously knows quite a bit based on your choices. Perhaps you are modest.

[chiang mai]

Perhaps I am now JT but a year ago when I was starting to come to grips with weight loss diet and diabetes I was on the other end of the spectrum, Today I still don't really know what my fat intake is whether it's high low or medium, but i do at least know how to find out what it is if I wanted to (I sure didn't one year ago). But that's actually my point, I don't feel the need to go into that level of detail because I've taken care of the big items which are common sensicle (!) - cakes, pastries, cookies, soft drinks, sandwiches, burgers - replaced with lean chicken, lean pork, fish, broccoli, spinach, oatmeal and almonds, like I said, it's a no brainer.

[h90]

Sometimes too much knowledge can be dangerous, when it comes to diets I think common sense can prevail in many cases. I confess to having had a very poor understanding of the composition of my food intake at a time when I needed to loose twelve kilo's, I was successful not because I followed a special regime but because I did all the no-brainer common sense things: exercise, ditch all refined carbs, eat low glycemic vegetables, no food after 6pm, snack on carrots and celery, ditch all the soft drinks and fruit juices, limit portion size and so on. I don't know if in the first instance that represented a low carb low fat, high fat low carb or high low whatever, but I can tell you that it worked a charm.

Today, as a result of the holidays, I am 4 kilo' s over my target weight but my blood glucose levels are spot on, tomorrow I shall revert to my more stringent list of common sense foods and actions and within a week my four kilo's will be history, I guarantee it. Moral of the story: probably not worth trying to analyze the detail too much, just get the big high level actions right.

My father had a huge belly and the doctor found a lot fat in his liver and told reducing weight is the only thing. (I think he must have been around 65 (+/-5).

That was years ago and he is still very slim, complete flat belly.

He complete ignorant to such topics and don't want to speak about things like that...he never discussed it in the family, he never checked his weight, never did some exercise (beside the usual repair the house things).

Only one time when my mother asked him, he told he just ate half of what he would eat normally from every dish. Than a bit more after he was slim.

His only knowledge is: You eat too much you get fat. You eat less and you get slim.

Maybe it makes things easier if you don't think about food all the time.

[chiang mai]

There's a lot to be said for that approach h90, getting rid of fatty liver is I think one of the simplest ways to massively improve a persons health, trouble is that few people know how to do it and doctors don't always tell you! I had moderately fatty liver for a couple of years but doctors never passed comment on it, after my physical they'd say, "oh, you have fatty liver" and I would wait for an "and" that never came! It was only after I had lost 12 kilo's and was subsequently told that I no longer had fatty liver that I realized what the answer. (Note: I've always been tall and lean hence the 12 kilo's I gained then lost wasn't anything unusual from appearance hence no imperative to diet)

[h90]

There's a lot to be said for that approach h90, getting rid of fatty liver is I think one of the simplest ways to massively improve a persons health, trouble is that few people know how to do it and doctors don't always tell you! I had moderately fatty liver for a couple of years but doctors never passed comment on it, after my physical they'd say, "oh, you have fatty liver" and I would wait for an "and" that never came! It was only after I had lost 12 kilo's and was subsequently told that I no longer had fatty liver that I realized what the answer. (Note: I've always been tall and lean hence the 12 kilo's I gained then lost wasn't anything unusual from appearance hence no imperative to diet)

I guess my father had luck....his doctor, I wouldn't call him a good doctor for something difficult but he direct says things.

If you are too fat, than he tells it.

And the doc himself is thin, as thin as possible (bone+skin)...

He told: Don't drink any alcohol, reduce weight 20 (??) kg, come back in 3 (?) month to check it.

(to tell don't drink alcohol in Austria is even worse than telling to reduce 20 kg).

He didn't drink any alcohol, reduced 20 (? I am not sure on the exact figures) kg, He checked the blood and maybe some ultrasonic. The fat liver was gone, blood OK.

Doc told to keep that weight but he can drink alcohol again.

Problem fixed.

Keep things simple.......

But yes, if the doc wouldn't have told, there would be a lot problems with the liver by now....

[Jingthing]

Perhaps I am now JT but a year ago when I was starting to come to grips with weight loss diet and diabetes I was on the other end of the spectrum, Today I still don't really know what my fat intake is whether it's high low or medium, but i do at least know how to find out what it is if I wanted to (I sure didn't one year ago). But that's actually my point, I don't feel the need to go into that level of detail because I've taken care of the big items which are common sensicle (!) - cakes, pastries, cookies, soft drinks, sandwiches, burgers - replaced with lean chicken, lean pork, fish, broccoli, spinach, oatmeal and almonds, like I said, it's a no brainer.

I am with you on that. Some people feel the need to get super anal about weighing everything, calorie counting, etc. That's one approach. Another approach is focus on foods you learn are health promoting, eat mostly those, and cut portions on questionable foods like pasta. In some foods you don't really have to worry even about portions at all. It's not like anyone is going to OVERDOSE on broccoli! I suppose you could gain weight on all broccoli diet if you tried really hard. Then you could contact Fox News and they would have a field day.

Of course some people may need the measuring devices. You have to be HONEST with yourself about portions. It's easy to rationalize. Personally, I have learned that HAD been my biggest problem, not realizing my portion sizes were just too big. Before I was actually eating pretty well as far as content of foods, but I had been in serious DENIAL about the importance of portion sizes. Probably the most major change in my current years long process has been real and dramatic portion size cutting on the questionable foods, like bread, pasta, red meat (sorry low carb people), and even some fruits like oranges (I used to addicted to them, eating 3 or 4 a day, now 1 a day some days).

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Perhaps I am now JT but a year ago when I was starting to come to grips with weight loss diet and diabetes I was on the other end of the spectrum, Today I still don't really know what my fat intake is whether it's high low or medium, but i do at least know how to find out what it is if I wanted to (I sure didn't one year ago). But that's actually my point, I don't feel the need to go into that level of detail because I've taken care of the big items which are common sensicle (!) - cakes, pastries, cookies, soft drinks, sandwiches, burgers - replaced with lean chicken, lean pork, fish, broccoli, spinach, oatmeal and almonds, like I said, it's a no brainer.

I am with you on that. Some people feel the need to get super anal about weighing everything, calorie counting, etc. That's one approach. Another approach is focus on foods you learn are health promoting, eat mostly those, and cut portions on questionable foods like pasta. In some foods you don't really have to worry even about portions at all. It's not like anyone is going to OVERDOSE on broccoli! I suppose you could gain weight on all broccoli diet if you tried really hard. Then you could contact Fox News and they would have a field day.

Of course some people may need the measuring devices. You have to be HONEST with yourself about portions. It's easy to rationalize. Personally, I have learned that HAD been my biggest problem, not realizing my portion sizes were just too big. Probably the most major change in my current years long process has been real and dramatic portion size cutting on the questionable foods, like bread, pasta, red meat (sorry low carb people), and even some fruits like oranges.

I was real anal about it and counted calories.. i still weigh my food at home (out of habit an keeping the portions the same)

But when i was on a holiday i kept my weight (even decreased a bit) by making the right choices (mostly low carb)

I see low carb as something that can work but not needed in all situations.

[robblok]

Question.. pardon my ignorance.. red meat.. does that mean beef or just beef that is not well done ?

[Jingthing]

I am not against people being anal about measuring portions and calorie counting. It's not a bad thing but it is a tedious thing. If that's what people need to do, so be it, but if you can find good results other ways, more casually just LOOKING at portions and knowing big from small, it's just seems more pleasant. Easy for me to say now, really I HAD been in denial that I had a portion size issue for years, and now I have learned.

Also some things are obvious with common sense -- french fries have lots of calories, a raw onion very few. You know the french fries are not going to promote weight loss!

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[robblok]

I am not against people being anal about measuring portions and calories. It's not a bad thing but it is a tedious thing. If that's what people need to do, so be it, but if you can find good results other ways, more casually just LOOKING at portions and knowing big from small, it's just seems more pleasant.

Also more practical if you can judge it by looking.

But i prepare most of my meals at home and it just comes natural to weigh my foods and plan my meals accordingly. I know how much meat i have and how many days it will last me. Same for oats and milk, but I am a really organised individual (maybe over the top)

I need to have certain things in stock I make sure i never run out of stuff. I know when I need to buy new vegetables for my juicing and how much i still have ect. (oh i dont weight the veggies i juice)

[Jingthing]

Question.. pardon my ignorance.. red meat.. does that mean beef or just beef that is not well done ?

Red meat includes beef, lamb, pork, goat, etc.

Personally, I feel going more veggie is a good thing to do for many people, it's also associated with changing to more thin type gut bacteria profiles, but I couldn't be a dogmatic full vegetarian.

[robblok]

Question.. pardon my ignorance.. red meat.. does that mean beef or just beef that is not well done ?

Red meat includes beef, lamb, pork, goat, etc.

Personally, I feel going more veggie is a good thing to do for many people, it's also associated with changing to more thin type gut bacteria profiles, but I couldn't be a dogmatic full vegetarian.

JT with red meat do they mean not well done ? or even if well done it still counts to the group of red meat ?

Been a question of me for a long time... if it is about how well done it is then I almost never take red meat. Otherwise.. yes I eat pork and beef (not lamb or goat)

[Jingthing]

I am not against people being anal about measuring portions and calories. It's not a bad thing but it is a tedious thing. If that's what people need to do, so be it, but if you can find good results other ways, more casually just LOOKING at portions and knowing big from small, it's just seems more pleasant.

Also more practical if you can judge it by looking.

But i prepare most of my meals at home and it just comes natural to weigh my foods and plan my meals accordingly. I know how much meat i have and how many days it will last me. Same for oats and milk, but I am a really organised individual (maybe over the top)

I need to have certain things in stock I make sure i never run out of stuff. I know when I need to buy new vegetables for my juicing and how much i still have ect. (oh i dont weight the veggies i juice)

I use rice noodles a lot in cooking, and sometimes I amaze myself how little I use now per serving (yes I can feel it in my hand) compared to the amount I used to think was an OK portion! I can only estimate the difference, perhaps 1/4 or even 1/5. On the other hand, I just tend to throw in MORE vegetables. I really wish I had learned all this earlier in my life, but oh well, can't turn back the clock.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Question.. pardon my ignorance.. red meat.. does that mean beef or just beef that is not well done ?

Red meat includes beef, lamb, pork, goat, etc.

Personally, I feel going more veggie is a good thing to do for many people, it's also associated with changing to more thin type gut bacteria profiles, but I couldn't be a dogmatic full vegetarian.

JT with red meat do they mean not well done ? or even if well done it still counts to the group of red meat ?

Been a question of me for a long time... if it is about how well done it is then I almost never take red meat. Otherwise.. yes I eat pork and beef (not lamb or goat)

It has nothing to do with the cooking style, raw to well done all the same. It's the type of meat. Non-red meats would include fish, seafood, and chicken.

[Jingthing]

That documentary (Weight of the Nation) I mentioned on another thread has some really good info about fatty liver syndrome, and yes it's a very serious health problem to have it and it impacts a significant percentage of fat people.

The GOOD NEWS from that program was that with relatively minor weight loss, like 10 percent off an obese person, weight loss to normal weight not needed, the fatty liver problem usually reduces significantly.

With fat issues, there are the health issues and the cosmetic issues. An obese person losing 10 percent hasn't really solved their cosmetic or social issues of being fat, BUT they can greatly improve on the health part.

I think this consciousness is really positive ... that pretty much ANY weight loss and keeping it off is really desirable regardless of how dramatic that weight loss actually is. Not saying of course that if a 300 pound man loses 2 pounds is anything, but starting at probably 10 percent, yes it is SOMETHING.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[robblok]

Question.. pardon my ignorance.. red meat.. does that mean beef or just beef that is not well done ?

Red meat includes beef, lamb, pork, goat, etc.

Personally, I feel going more veggie is a good thing to do for many people, it's also associated with changing to more thin type gut bacteria profiles, but I couldn't be a dogmatic full vegetarian.

JT with red meat do they mean not well done ? or even if well done it still counts to the group of red meat ?

Been a question of me for a long time... if it is about how well done it is then I almost never take red meat. Otherwise.. yes I eat pork and beef (not lamb or goat)

It has nothing to do with the cooking style, raw to well done all the same. It's the type of meat. Non-red meats would include fish, seafood, and chicken.

Thanks JT been struggling with that definition. Now i know.

[robblok]

I am not sure about low carb.. but I am sure about cutting out sugars and that taking a big load of carbs could cause insulin problems. So I still say it has it uses.

[Jingthing]

Yes I agree. Strictly limiting carbs like processed bread, pasta, white rice, etc. is a no brainer. You want to make more of your carbs unprocessed type. Radical pretty much NO carb "diets" are another level, not for me.

[h90]

That documentary (Weight of the Nation) I mentioned on another thread has some really good info about fatty liver syndrome, and yes it's a very serious health problem to have it and it impacts a significant percentage of fat people.

The GOOD NEWS from that program was that with relatively minor weight loss, like 10 percent off an obese person, weight loss to normal weight not needed, the fatty liver problem usually reduces significantly.

With fat issues, there are the health issues and the cosmetic issues. An obese person losing 10 percent hasn't really solved their cosmetic or social issues of being fat, BUT they can greatly improve on the health part.

I think this consciousness is really positive ... that pretty much ANY weight loss and keeping it off is really desirable regardless of how dramatic that weight loss actually is. Not saying of course that if a 300 pound man loses 2 pounds is anything, but starting at probably 10 percent, yes it is SOMETHING.

I got told, that fatty liver is one big problem.

But fatty liver and heavy drinking is a killer....And in my home country that is just what people do.

Fatty liver and 2 liter wine per day finish off the liver......+ the believe that fat people can drink more alcohol without problems.

[Jingthing]

To clarify the language from the article about the success cases. They were saying MODERATELY high carb food intake. That's not the same as saying they were carb loading all the time. Moderate. So don't get carried away.

Another way to look at that is they were not consciously on a low carb or no carb program.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Jingthing

[A1Str8]

Those people who do those studies and researches, are obviously not going to advocate that low carb diet is good since the entire society was made to believe that it's all about carbs. They tell you that most of your calories daily should come from carbs and and that it is supposed to be the main source of energy. But why? Who says it? These are just studies made by people who get paid to say what they say therefore it's irrelevant. To me real proof is what matters. There is Dr Mauro DiPasquale for example. He is a world champion powerlifter who also happens to be a nutritionist. The man holds an honors degree in biological science and a medical degree in nutrition. His life achievements and his expert knowledge speaks for itself. No studies, no bullshit, just stuff that's proven to work. Like the diet that was created by him and proved to be effective. On the other side there was this guy, Vihjalmur Stefansson. The man lived with the Eskimos for a long time and followed their diet that consists of meat(which contains only fat and protein) only. He didn't just survive, he remained a well built healthy man with minimum excessive body fat. After he went back home, nutritionists didn't believe him so he agreed to do it again for a year straight. The results were the same. What those wannabe smart asses said? It's impossible. Well it is possible since he fu_kin did it. Anyway I am not advocating eating only meat or eating no carbs, but a low carb diet has been proven to work over and over again. It's a fact that there is no such thing as a balanced diet and the seven basic foods along with other things suggested by the smart asses are plain bs. The human body is something that we still don't understand.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[chiang mai]

Will you please quantify "low carb diet" in terms of numbers, carbs vs fat vs protein?

[robblok]

Those people who do those studies and researches, are obviously not going to advocate that low carb diet is good since the entire society was made to believe that it's all about carbs. They tell you that most of your calories daily should come from carbs and and that it is supposed to be the main source of energy. But why? Who says it? These are just studies made by people who get paid to say what they say therefore it's irrelevant. To me real proof is what matters. There is Dr Mauro DiPasquale for example. He is a world champion powerlifter who also happens to be a nutritionist. The man holds an honors degree in biological science and a medical degree in nutrition. His life achievements and his expert knowledge speaks for itself. No studies, no bullshit, just stuff that's proven to work. Like the diet that was created by him and proved to be effective. On the other side there was this guy, Vihjalmur Stefansson. The man lived with the Eskimos for a long time and followed their diet that consists of meat(which contains only fat and protein) only. He didn't just survive, he remained a well built healthy man with minimum excessive body fat. After he went back home, nutritionists didn't believe him so he agreed to do it again for a year straight. The results were the same. What those wannabe smart asses said? It's impossible. Well it is possible since he fu_kin did it. Anyway I am not advocating eating only meat or eating no carbs, but a low carb diet has been proven to work over and over again. It's a fact that there is no such thing as a balanced diet and the seven basic foods along with other things suggested by the smart asses are plain bs. The human body is something that we still don't understand. Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

There is proof enough that it can be done I agree.

JT is talking long term, i think in our current society its hard to go low carb and that is why statistics still don't show it as working. Also I doubt many people go real low carb for a real long time. So it won't come up in the satistics. I believe it can help a lot in loosing weight, not sure if it is practical long term but that is the same with many food programs.

I believe low carb helps well if you are insulin resistant.

[stedyedy]

Well I think ormus is something thats really missing in the diets of people,theres a man david hudson whos been testing and perfecting the making of this substance for 12yrs,funded by the billionare that built bejing hospital for free in celebration for the 2011 olympics,and now he knows why officials wont welcome it into the periodic table(ormes)and as the fifth state of matter because humans would eat it and become superconductors and obtain the halo and live for a thousand years ask any scientist that knows it and youll see a profound look come over there face because they know exactly what its doing when its in this state,now he knows what the pile of dust was in the hands of egyptians serving it to humans and giant figures in the hyrogliphs were,the mana that fell from the sky for the israelites and moses was,it cant be stopped this is why gold is so expensive .

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Edited January 13, 2014 by stedyedy