Proof most dieticians know nothing about diet

[SmoothTalker]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25708495/


A 2 year study comparing low carb, low fat, and 'Mediterranian' diet found that low carb (ie LOTS of protein and fat) not only resulted in the greatest weight loss but also had the most positive impact on cholesterol.

And I imagine though it's not mentioned, the low carb group probably had the most lean mass.

And yet most mainstream diet advice is to avoid fat. I laugh any time I see the Health Canada Food Guide, it basically says eat a ton of carbs, virtually no meat, get all your (limited) protein from tofu. We wonder why there is an obesity and diabetes epidemic.

 

[MrS]

Nobody knows ****.
And it's a conspiracy.

 

[Huffman]

The research was done in a controlled environment — an isolated nuclear research facility in Israel.

As on a more serious note, the low-carb-diet includes no eggs? Right.

 

[Kuroro]

If you're going on a low carb diet, eat as many eggs as you'd like.

 

[mrRuckus]

The low-carb diet set limits for carbohydrates, but none for calories or fat. It urged dieters to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.

Researchers really know how to fvck sh1t up.

Isn't that kind of unfair to the low-carb diet? This implies there was a calorie restriction on the low-fat diet, but we can't be sure.

And vegetarian sources of fat and protein? WHY?! That just screws with the results. Who in the real world is really going to eat mainly their protein and fats from vegetables except vegeterians? It didn't prove *sh1t* about the atkin's diet and cholesterol because atkin's doesn't limit you to those things! You can eat bacon, eggs, or whatever... Eating vegetable sources of fat and *lean* sources of meat is practically the mediterranean diet anyway!

Average weight loss for those in the low-carb group was 10.3 pounds after two years. Those in the Mediterranean diet lost 10 pounds, and those on the low-fat regimen dropped 6.5.

TWO YEARS?! That is pathetic! I lost 30 lbs of fat in 6 months TWICE and i wasn't even fat to begin with!

At those low numbers of weight loss over that long of a period i don't even think it's statistically significant. It could have just been dumb luck. No one even said if it was FAT. You go low fat you just might lose muscle due to decreasing testosterone.

More surprising were the measures of cholesterol.

Yeah if you've been ignorant and blind for the past decade.

 

[Throttle]

Isn't that kind of unfair to the low-carb diet? This implies there was a calorie restriction on the low-fat diet, but we can't be sure.

it's not completely unfair, since Dr. Atkins always claimed that low-carb worked so well you wouldn't have to count calories.

TWO YEARS?! That is pathetic! I lost 30 lbs of fat in 6 months TWICE and i wasn't even fat to begin with!

in most similar studies, people can lose lots of weight (15-20 lbs or more) in about 6 months but usually rebound 50-150% of the original loss (yes, those that rebound more than 100% end up having gained weight) after two years.

At those low numbers of weight loss over that long of a period i don't even think it's statistically significant. It could have just been dumb luck.

well, it's definitely statistically different in a sample of N=322 (the wouldn't have bothered reporting it if it weren't in a sample that large).

that doesn't rule out dumb luck. but more importantly, they typically recruit highly motivated participants. and they don't say how many dropped out entirely (the more controlled lunch environment may have helped control the drop out numbers). all that adds up to losing weight as really, really difficult for the average person.

Yeah if you've been ignorant and blind for the past decade.

keep spreading the word.

 

[Flabbergasped?]

A larger sample size makes an finding significant, even if the effect size is negligible. I'm not impressed by their large number of participants.

If the sample was like 10 people and they found significance, that would be impressive.

 

[Throttle]

A larger sample size makes an finding significant, even if the effect size is negligible. I'm not impressed by their large number of participants.

If the sample was like 10 people and they found significance, that would be impressive.

that's bull****. finding statistical significance with a smaller sample doesn't mean that the result is any more substantively significant.

 

[mrRuckus]

it's not completely unfair, since Dr. Atkins always claimed that low-carb worked so well you wouldn't have to count calories.

They weren't testing specifically to the atkin's diet. The journalist is the one who brought up atkin's.

in most similar studies, people can lose lots of weight (15-20 lbs or more) in about 6 months but usually rebound 50-150% of the original loss (yes, those that rebound more than 100% end up having gained weight) after two years.

That's because they go back to eating their old stupid ways and view diets as temporary fat loss endeavours rather than lifetime habits.

Some of these diets don't say how effective the diet itself is but rather what psychologically tricks people into following the diet. So scientifically this evidence often tells us ZIP about the biology of the diet but rather which diet will keep people following it and tricking them into less calories and sticking with it.

That's like that recent info all over the news about people who log their daily diet lose more weight than those who don't. That's not giving credit to the act of logging. Logging isn't causing the weight loss. It's the psychology of it that tricks stupid people who can't run their lives and take charge of sh1t themselves into doing it right.

well, it's definitely statistically different in a sample of N=322 (the wouldn't have bothered reporting it if it weren't in a sample that large).

If the difference between the diets in 2 years is four lbs we have learned about nothing. Even if we're assured no dumb luck is involved, it pretty much means no diet is really that much more effective than another. Especially if it's 4 lbs difference in 2 years. TWO YEARS. You can lose that in a week or two if you wanted.

 

[Quiksilver]

I normally don't touch topics like this anymore...

Realistically guys, we can't compare ourselves to those in these 'studies'. Most of the subjects are your average sedentary person, with a 9-5 who comes home and cracks open a beer 8 days a week.

To include people like us--who work out 10+ hours a week--with people who haven't seen the inside of a gym or ever worn a running shoe is unfair.

--

10lbs in 2 years for a person who doesn't change their sedentary lifestyle is fairly significant. It's likely that their body has adapted to the change in diet and won't ever gain that weight back.

I'm surprised that some of the regulars here are still surprised to find out that eating eggs, beef, and guzzling fatty acids will NOT make you fat. There's plenty of info here about anabolic diets where NO carbs are consumed, as well as plenty of other pseudo-anabolic diets floating around.
It gets irritating hearing the same argument over whether or not fats are 'good' or 'bad' for you. Use your brain muscle and do some research for yourself.

--

In one sentence..

The "Food Guide" is some dumb **** written by dumb people to be read by ignorant and potentially dumb consumers. Eat your meats, eat your fats, and eat your fibre. Mabye that's too simple though