Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Research surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories and still lose weight (ATkins vindicated)
Yahoo News ^ | Oct. 13, 2003 | DANIEL Q. HANEY

Posted on 10/13/2003 1:58:10 PM PDT by FairOpinion

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida - The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than those on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the contention — long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins — that people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts' surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories. That should have added up to about three kilograms (seven pounds). But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads, vegetables and unsaturated oils.

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design, conduct or analysis.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 10.3 kilograms (23 pounds), while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 7.6 kilograms (17 pounds). The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost nine kilograms (20 pounds).

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers," said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of data to suggest this shouldn't be true."

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atkins; calories; carbohydrates; carbs; lowcarbohydrates; lowcarbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: FairOpinion
Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

But isn't that the whole point of this diet? Why would one want a diet that one is more prone to cheat on because one is hungry all the time?

I think the exercise factor is often overlooked in these studies. On a normal-carb diet, one has much more energy and that is often used for exercise. I did a 12-mile walk on Saturday morning and I had enough energy left over to spend the rest of the afternoon doing yard work and chopping wood. Forget about having the energy to do that if I was on a typical low-fat diet, eating cottage cheese and celery sticks.

21 posted on 10/13/2003 2:28:22 PM PDT by SamAdams76 (208.0 (-92.0) Homestretch to 200)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: larryjohnson
Hear hear! 21 people? There's a definitive study.
22 posted on 10/13/2003 2:36:03 PM PDT by tsmith130
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grim
Where did you find the truffles?? The candy with the malt sugar gives me problems I would not like to discuss (but my daughters call them foofies).
23 posted on 10/13/2003 2:45:29 PM PDT by netmilsmom ( FReeper Jonathansmommie 's baby, Boy or Girl? The ultrasound could not tell. booooo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Reas later.
24 posted on 10/13/2003 2:52:23 PM PDT by dix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
The xylitol won't help you much there. Go to the Atkins web site for all kinds of dessert recipes that use Splenda (sucralose). Splenda has little effect on the digestive tract (at least for me) unlike the sugar alcohols. I can't eat any of that maltitol or lactitol candy, either.
25 posted on 10/13/2003 3:12:41 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually can eat more

Eat more calories not more by weight

fats have almost 2x the calories per gram than carbs or protein
26 posted on 10/13/2003 3:21:58 PM PDT by uncbob ( building tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Xylitol is the best for bulk sweeteners. Xylitol chewing gum and mints keep teeth squeeky clean and prevent tooth decay.

Give your guts two weeks to get used to increasing amounts of xylitol.
My guts have never been able to adapt to very much maltitol or lactitol, but I can tolerate xylitol just fine.

It bothers me a little that sucralose is chlorinated sugar.

27 posted on 10/13/2003 3:40:23 PM PDT by RazzPutin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
my husband was just diagnosed with sugar diebeties. When I contacted the hospital abiut their education class I mentioned something about it being so confusing with the "exchanges", etc. and the nurse said they don't do that as much anymore. They count carbs. When she said this I said if that's the case I'd just put him on the Akins diet. Her response was that I could do that but they recommended something he could stay on for life. (You can stay on Adkins) What surprised me is she didn't mention any negatives with the diet except she figured he'd give up.
28 posted on 10/13/2003 3:53:12 PM PDT by Conservative Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper; JenB; HairOfTheDog
Pinging my fellow low-carbers.
29 posted on 10/13/2003 5:27:06 PM PDT by ecurbh (Waiting on the doorstep for the cold starlight, there my pretty lady is, River-woman's daughter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: larryjohnson
extra loss was muscle

No it isn't. Several studies that compare low-carb with low-fat diets report that the low-carb dieters lose more weight from fat than low-fat dieters. Here are a couple (but IIRC there are more):


30 posted on 10/13/2003 5:30:04 PM PDT by jennyp (http://lowcarbshopper.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh
Thanks! More research vindicating that which I know from experience is true.

I've felt so much better in the six+ months I've been on Atkins. Even if I hadn't lost a ton of weight I'd be happy.
31 posted on 10/13/2003 5:31:13 PM PDT by JenB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: larryjohnson
extra loss was muscle

I wondered the same thing, since the article addresses only total weight loss, not what was lost. Kinda meaningless without that little data point.

This cought my attention, too: the calorie allotment was "1,800 for men"! Man, that sounds like some kind of starvation diet, unless these folks were real couch potatoes.

32 posted on 10/13/2003 5:33:34 PM PDT by absalom01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JenB
Yup, same here. My shrinking waistline (about 4" so far) is a testament to the fact that Dr. Atkins was right. I've been slipping a bit the past few weeks though, and may need to go back on induction a bit after the move.
33 posted on 10/13/2003 5:35:12 PM PDT by ecurbh (Waiting on the doorstep for the cold starlight, there my pretty lady is, River-woman's daughter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ecurbh
may need to go back on induction a bit after the move

I can sympathize. (I'm taking a break from moving right now). We've been hitting convenience food too heavily lately here- due to the move- and I feel awful. Can't wait to get back on track.

34 posted on 10/13/2003 5:44:48 PM PDT by Lil'freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NotQuiteCricket
The first time I've ever seen the laws of thermodynamics applied to dieting!

I've been 10-15 lbs overweight for the last year or so. About 3 weeks ago I decided to experiment with a no-carb (or nearly so) diet. Dropped five pounds in the first five days. Since then I've eaten like a pig and, even with a little cheating (the occassional light beer), I've dropped eleven pounds.

Atkins works and is much easier to maintain as you never have to go hungry. "Professionals" who say it doesn't are simply charlatans.

35 posted on 10/13/2003 6:26:43 PM PDT by Reverend Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
I can sympathize. (I'm taking a break from moving right now). We've been hitting convenience food too heavily lately here- due to the move- and I feel awful. Can't wait to get back on track.

Quick tip: When eating a hamburger, rip the bun off as you go along. You'll end up eating only 1/2 the bun.

Quick tip #2: Peanuts. :-)

36 posted on 10/13/2003 8:25:24 PM PDT by jennyp (http://lowcarbshopper.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
read later bump
37 posted on 10/13/2003 9:15:35 PM PDT by nutmeg (Rush Limbaugh: The Voice of Sanity during 8 years of the Clinton Reign of Terror)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
beef jerkey
38 posted on 10/13/2003 9:48:11 PM PDT by NotQuiteCricket (http://www.strangesolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Hard for them to swallow, huh?
39 posted on 10/14/2003 1:43:39 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The Atkins Diet will prevail!

Another viewpoint: Doctors' group urges Atkins diet ban*** "Research has clearly shown that high-protein, meat-heavy diets increase the risk of osteoporosis and kidney disorders and that low-fat vegetarian diets help prevent heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, and other health problems."***

40 posted on 10/14/2003 1:46:29 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson