Calories in and Calories Out

[maxlharris]

Originally Posted by Frank Hagan

Ever notice those studies that say people on diets all lose about the same over time? Low carb seems to have an advantage over about 6 weeks, but then at the end of the year, 10 people on a low carb diet, 10 people on a low fat diet and 10 people eating the food pyramid but with reduced caloric intake will all lose the same amount of weight. On average.

Not entirely correct. At the end of that year, about 7 people will still be low carbing, about 5 doing Food Pyramid and about 3 sticking with the Low Fat plan.

Also subsequent points raise further distinctions... the 7 LC dieters will retain more muscle mass than the 5 Pyramid Building Slaves and the 3 Ornish Game Hens. The scale is such a blunt instrument. The DEXA scan is so much closer to ideal, but the full length mirror really tells the entire tale. No way to do a study on the mirror, since it's subjective, but it is a better arbiter of success than the scale.

[Frank Hagan]

Originally Posted by mcsblues

But some (as you say) do much better. Could it be as simple as they are the ones who follow the plan? To me that is a much more likely reason than genetic variation. If you talk to Mike he will tell you how low carb had spectacular results for thousands of patients who were prepared to give it an honest try ... what ever happened to their genetic variation?

I'm waiting for the study as well. It is intriguing. Without it it will be hard to take a position either way.

As to why doctors find success stories, the people going to doctors for weight loss are probably highly motivated. At least at first. And the ones who end up doing low carb have probably already tried the "standard" methods promulgated by their doctors or mass media. If the low fat diet worked, they wouldn't end up sitting in Dr. Mike's office. So there's some self-selection happening. I'm sure there are some failures among those thousands of patients (I would be extremely skeptical if there wasn't!)

I lost weight doing low fat and exercise. I can definitely do it. But I hated it. I'm losing weight with low carb, and I'm enjoying it. For me, that's the difference between the diets. I'm not hungry. Am I really eating less this time without knowing it? I didn't keep any of the records of calories in/calories out from 15 years ago, and I'm 15 years older.

It could also be a given that other factors outweigh any genetic factors, just as alcohol abuse can outweigh a genetic propensity to live a long life.

[MarciaT]

[QUOTE=S Bear;104677]At last! Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times, one of the most misinformed health writers of all times, runs an article about the fact that Calories In Minus Calories Out doesn't work:

And here she's gone and done it again with another article about fat discrimination on The Stigma of Being Fat (Well Blog, March 15th in the online Times -- does this stuff appear in the print version?). What's upsetting is not so much the article as the comments. As of this morning (the 17th) there are 363 of them and some are beyond-belief nasty and downright cruel. Many (I could do the counting, I suppose, but haven't) are of the "eat less, exercise more" variety (couched in terms of "you stupid, fat, lazy people -- stop complaining and get off your butts"), several people mention the "cost" to everyone else of healthcare if people "choose" to stay fat (no one, yet, has suggested that people who get cancer must've willingly eaten something bad for them and we should look down on them too), and of course no one's saying, "Hey - maybe it's the idea that we should all eat no fat and lots of grains . . . maybe that 's what's wrong."

At any rate - if anyone wants to read the comments and perhaps offer some saner advice than what's there (will it do any good?), they can be found and despaired over at:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...age=3#comments

Enjoy? Or not. I thank goodness for this forum every day. If I were reduced to reading only TPP and that scold Jane Brody, I'd probably still be convinced it was all MY fault that I'm fat. Now that I'm losing with LC, am NOT hungry all the time, and feel MUCH better, I'm amazed at the total ignorance out there and the nastiness that goes with it.

Marcia

[maxlharris]

As to Jane Brody, Dr. Mike had a fairly interesting (and fully schadenfreude) take on her article about starting statins despite living a virtuous life, food-wise. You would think, from her article, that having high cholesterol is essentially inevitable and uncontrollable without drugs. A good twenty minutes and the average poster (minimum 500 posts) here could probably straighten her out (I'd use a phone book, although the GCBC paperback is not quite as large, its use in deprogramming Jane Brody would be some poetic justice, no?).

[S Bear]

Originally Posted by maxlharris

Also subsequent points raise further distinctions... the 7 LC dieters will retain more muscle mass than the 5 Pyramid Building Slaves and the 3 Ornish Game Hens. The scale is such a blunt instrument. The DEXA scan is so much closer to ideal, but the full length mirror really tells the entire tale.

Yes indeed. I wish more of these diet studies wold track body composition.

I often hear it asserted that some degree of muscle loss is inevitable as a part of weight loss (this usually comes from someone who is advising that you hsould never lose more than 2 pounds per week). On low-carb diets--probably because they are high-protein diets--plenty of people maintain or even gain muscle while shedding fat.

The long-lost Bonzo Dog Band had a song entitled Look Out There's a Monster Coming with the line "To cut down my weight, off comes my left leg..."

Hey, it makes sense...if your metric of excellence is the scale.