So sayeth this new CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/25/best.diet/index.html):

The dieting world screams with contradictory advice: Carbs are evil; carbs are good for you. "Good fat" is healthy; "good fat" has tons of calories.

Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center put four popular diets -- high carb, high fat, low-fat and high protein -- to the test to see which of the regimens resulted in more weight-loss success.

After two years of monitoring the participants, "all the diets were winners," said study co-author Dr. Frank Sacks, a professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health. "All produced weight loss and improvements in lipids, reduction in insulin.

"The key really is that it's calories. It's not the content of fat or carbohydrates, it's just calories," said Sacks. The findings are published in the latest edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.

This somewhat seems to go in line with some of the diet plans I've seen on JSF. Ca$on for instance, consumed high amounts of carbs throughout his diet and lost bunches of weight because of that and his high-intensity, full-body workouts three days a week. Others, like Deja, have diets somewhat higher in fat and are seeing progress, too.

Should be interesting to read this actual study, though to be honest I'm not very good at interpreting scientific literature for myself.

I thought the whole fat loss = calories in Vs calories out was basically common sense?

But good to know they actually did a study on it. Especially for people who think a specialy named diet will be their salvation.

I am assuming that by 'diets' they refer to eating below maintenance, in which case the calorie thing makes sense. But in the case of building muscle I think carbs win for that one.

What I'm reading in this story is basically they're saying ignore stupid fad dieting and focus on the basic, most common-sense approach. It sounds exactly like what I read here every.single.day.

I'm glad that a mainstream, national media organization like CNN has written this article.

HOWEVER, they already are still following this idiotic guy who weighs 150 pounds who is trying to "show his abs" by doing 500 crunches a day (down from 1,000 like Christina Aguilara or Britney Spears or something ... apparently he couldn't keep the pace. I doubt they could either without amphetamines).

The approach that works best for a person is the one where they feel the best. It's that simple. Some people need carbs to feel good, others don't. The point is that you need to figure out what works best for you. What has worked for me, and what I think makes the most sense, is nutrient timing (aka the Precision Nutrition approach developed by Berardi and co.). The idea is that you need to earn your carbs but it's not a low-carb approach by any means.

This is one study by the way. Another study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229) has shown that low carb and a Mediterranean diet are superior to low fat diets for weight loss, for improvements in blood lipid profile and for glucose control. They purposely restricted calories for the Mediterranean and low fat group but not for the low carb group.

This somewhat seems to go in line with some of the diet plans I've seen on JSF.

It's pretty much along the lines with very old science that goes all the way back to starvation studies done with conscientious objectors during the Second World War. A Calorie is pretty much a Calorie.

the only reason I ever ate lower fat diets was because they are calorie dense...

It's pretty much along the lines with very old science that goes all the way back to starvation studies done with conscientious objectors during the Second World War. A Calorie is pretty much a Calorie.

Now before I type my thought...I am no pro at this stuff nor have a good education on it.

I agree with Zenpharaohs. "A calorie is pretty much a calorie" and you can mix up the percentages of fats, carbs, and protein's all you want. Why did I choose 60% carbs, 20% protein, and 20% fat?

What types of foods have carbs in them? Fruits, Vegetables, and grains are high in carbs therefore I would rather eat more of those foods than others. :whistle:

i think for people with a lot of fat to lose..... lowering calories.... regardless of the macro breakdown.... is going to result in fat loss.

but i think macros definitely get more important when one gets to a lower bodyfat percentage and is trying to lose those "last few lbs".

i definitely agree with christy that finding an approach that makes u feel great is key. :tucool:

A lot of these studies rely on self reporting of compliance, which is suspect at best.

Also, as J_W said, there are studies showing many different results on different types of diets and related exercise plans.

So I would not put a ton of value on this. Experiment for what works for you.

The "low carb" diet is far from being low-carb. They had them loading up on plenty of carbs, including bagels! The study shouldn't be considered reliable, at least for comparing to a low-carb diet.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/no-winner-in-major-diet-study/#comment-227103

Anytime I see:

"Person x lost some weight, about 9lbs",

I tend not to bother reading on as most of these don't mention lean mass or fat loss, just a loss of weight. For those people who want to lose weight, sure go for it. Not for me.

Still doesn't take away from the 'fact' that there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of fat in your diet, and that there IS a difference between good carbs and bad carbs.

Just because the study says that calories are really all that matters, it doesn't mean you can indulge in junk food, as long as you're within your limits for weight loss, and still expect to properly lose weight.

There is a reason low carb diets work for lots of people. Specifically Atkins. The majority of the carbs most people(generalizing here)....eat, are from unhealthy sources. THAT is a problem within itself.

Gary Taubes might have a thing or two to say about the article as well.

So sayeth this new CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/25/best.diet/index.html):



This somewhat seems to go in line with some of the diet plans I've seen on JSF. Ca$on for instance, consumed high amounts of carbs throughout his diet and lost bunches of weight because of that and his high-intensity, full-body workouts three days a week. Others, like Deja, have diets somewhat higher in fat and are seeing progress, too.

Should be interesting to read this actual study, though to be honest I'm not very good at interpreting scientific literature for myself.

I've been on both sides of the coin. I've pumped high carb(complex)/protein and I've also done low-carb/high protein with varying amounts of fat. In the end it's always been, "too much of a good thing, is a bad thing" for me. After 5 years of being on the forums I've learned from trial/error and from the helpful tips of all the members what works and what doesn't.

I think in the end it's really up to the individual as to what really makes your furnace go. I'm fortunate, like others to know exactly what I can/can't eat and what results will come of it. Now it's all about consistency without getting bored.

I've tallied up both of my diets and in the end I realized that they were both way low on the calories than what I used to eat, thus causing a deficit and so on.

I'd be interested in finding out more about this study...

Anytime I see:

"Person x lost some weight, about 9lbs",

I tend not to bother reading on as most of these don't mention lean mass or fat loss, just a loss of weight. For those people who want to lose weight, sure go for it. Not for me.
From the FOXNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500565,00.html) link from the other thread on this:

Another study volunteer credits keeping a food diary for his 22-pound success. Termini said before participating in the study he would wolf down 2,500 calories a day. "I was just oblivious to how many calories I was having," said the 5-foot-11-inch Termini, who dropped from 195 to 173 pounds by sticking to an 1,800-calorie high-fat, average protein diet.
:blank:

Sometimes I just bang my head when I read these studies. Most of them are so ridiculously poorly designed. Did nobody tell that person that he was assigned to an amount of calories that should have resulted in fairly rapid weight loss, not that he was being coached on a reasonable amount of calories for a person his size to be eating for the remainder of his life?

Plus, I can't comment on the results on "high protein" vs average protein, or whatever until I see exactly what numbers they used. Typically in studies like this, anything over 20% of calories is usually considered high protein.

I actually have an appointment to be a participant in one. I'm supposed to go and get my blood and urine tested on Saturday, but after looking through their materials and the format of their "food diary" (complete joke), I almost feel irresponsible for having agreed to participate.

I actually have an appointment to be a participant in one. I'm supposed to go and get my blood and urine tested on Saturday, but after looking through their materials and the format of their "food diary" (complete joke), I almost feel irresponsible for having agreed to participate.

Definitely let us know more about this.

I also think that the design of most of these studies is ridiculous. I wish we'd see some studies that take into account the presence or absence of weight training in conjunction with various types of macronutrient breakdowns and calories levels. So compare for instance low carb with weights to low carb without weights, low fat with weights to low fat without weights and so on.

There is much anecdotal evidence of what happens when you cut calories drastically and don't eat enough protein - usually while doing lots of cardio. We've had so many people come on these boards who ended up skinny fat by doing that. If all that mattered was calories, then that should have never happened. Like Foley says, if all you do is compare scale weight, then it's not applicable to people who want to transform their body composition and their look. Sure, if you want to just be lighter, then it's relevant, but how many people truly just want to look like a small fat person as opposed to a large fat person? :blank:

The media jumping on these studies just reinforces the idea that all you have to do is create a caloric deficit and you'll end up with the body of your dreams.

Great piece on NPR about this very study (click on "listen now"):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101242464

Since fats, carbs and proteins are all part of the necessary matrix for good nutrition...how the hell could it make sense to go off on a tangent, consuming only one thing as the be-all and the end-all?

Since fats, carbs and proteins are all part of the necessary matrix for good nutrition...how the hell could it make sense to go off on a tangent, consuming only one thing as the be-all and the end-all?

There is only one thing to say away from.

Junk food.

Everything else should be part of a healthy diet.