|
|
04-16-2007, 08:41 PM
|
#1
|
it's always something
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 11,615
|
How many calories more important than the types of foods you eat
A new study shows that hi GI or low GI or the amounts of carbs don't matter, as long as the calories are low.
Quote:
April 9, 2007 -- If you're trying to lose weight, calories count more than the types of food in your diet, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Tufts University study shows.
The study shows that after a year, overweight people on a low-carb low-glycemic-index diet lost just as much weight -- 8% of their original weight -- as people on a reduced-fat, high-glycemic-index diet.
"The present results suggest that a broad range of healthy diets can successfully promote weight loss," conclude Sai Krupa Das, PhD, and Susan B. Roberts, PhD, of the USDA's Human Nutrition Center on Aging at Tufts, and colleagues.
"A wide variability in the balance of different dietary macronutrients has little effect on mean long-term weight loss during calorie restriction," Das, Roberts, and colleagues suggest.
(edited out)
All study participants went on diets designed to cut their calorie counts by 30%.
Half went on a low-glycemic-load diet, a form of low-carb diet that avoids sugary, starchy foods. It's sometimes called a "slow-carb" diet. They got 40% of their calories from carbs, 30% from fats, and 30% from protein.
The other study participants, whose high-glycemic-index diet was matched for taste, attractiveness of appearance, and calorie count, got 60% of their calories from carbs, 20% from fats, and 20% from protein.
|
Read the full article here http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070...than-food-type
|
|
|
04-16-2007, 10:11 PM
|
#2
|
Co-Mod
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,585
S/C/G: 272/129/127
|
I can't say that I am surprised.
That is what I always felt. Calories in v. calories out.
|
|
|
04-17-2007, 04:41 PM
|
#3
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383
S/C/G: SW:394/310/180
Height: 5'6"
|
Makes sense to me. How I eat seems to matter for me, in terms of how hungry I am and whether I can stick to the diet, but the weight loss itself ultimately breaks down to calories.
|
|
|
04-18-2007, 10:00 AM
|
#4
|
Just Me
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,707
S/C/G: 364/--/182
Height: 5'6"
|
This doesn't surprise me at all. A calorie is a calorie afterall.
The type of foods I eat though are important to me. If I eat lower GI foods, I tend to be less hungry and I tend not to have hypoglycemic episodes so that is a plus
|
|
|
04-20-2007, 06:37 PM
|
#5
|
resident lactivist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SAN ANTONIO
Posts: 985
|
Well, that's undoubtedly true if weight loss is your only goal. If good health and proper nutrition are important to you, however, the source of a calorie is undoubtedly important.
|
|
|
04-21-2007, 12:44 PM
|
#6
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 6,963
|
Right....but I still don't advocate the tootsie roll and coffee diet!
As BMM said, it's not JUST about weight loss. How you look and feel is just as important. I feel HORRIBLE eating high GI, processed foods no matter whether the caloriie level is the same or not. And I really believe for SOME people, it does matter. I never in my life was able to lose weight or maintain a loss until I gave up regular intake of high GI foods, no matter how calorie restricted.
Mel
|
|
|
04-21-2007, 01:11 PM
|
#7
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383
S/C/G: SW:394/310/180
Height: 5'6"
|
Quote"
.....
April 9, 2007 -- If you're trying to lose weight, calories count more than the types of food in your diet, a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Tufts University study shows.
...."The present results suggest that a broad range of healthy diets can successfully promote weight loss," conclude Sai Krupa Das, PhD, and Susan B. Roberts, PhD, of the USDA's Human Nutrition Center on Aging at Tufts, and colleagues.
____________________
This is my problem with articles interpreting research findings "for the general public." Both of the above paragraphs summarize the results of the study, but the first paragraph (written by the journalist) could be used to support the snickers bar diet, while the second (which appears to be a direct quote from one of the researchers themselves) appears to reflect good common sense as most of us know it.
|
|
|
04-24-2007, 11:32 AM
|
#8
|
resident lactivist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SAN ANTONIO
Posts: 985
|
Quote:
And I really believe for SOME people, it does matter.
|
No doubt. Ask any woman with PCOS.
|
|
|
05-30-2007, 01:21 PM
|
#9
|
Whittlin
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: southeast US
Posts: 199
S/C/G: 170/144/140
Height: 5'6"
|
Interesting and I appreciated it being posted. Don't know how I missed it earlier.
One thing to add to other comments here - same-calorie-diets might be super-different in how well they support the energy needed for a person who is losing weight by BOTH diet and exercise. If a dieter hopes to increase activity, which would offer a faster and more efficient shape-up and is usually going to be a part of their doctor's recommendations anyway, food choices woud be made for completely different reasons than these research criteria.
So again, guess I'm arguing with that first sentence by the author, not the research. Like Mel, I see importance in feeling well enough for life's demands, and that may mean giving up high GI.
|
|
|
08-21-2007, 01:21 PM
|
#10
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 170
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
Right....but I still don't advocate the tootsie roll and coffee diet!
|
the opposite of a 'low gi' or 'low carb' diet isn't 'tootsi rolls and coffe'...
I think the implication is that in the realm of 'healthy, balanced' menus, the carb count doesn't matter as much as calories matter.
Totally makes sense.
|
|
|
08-21-2007, 06:58 PM
|
#11
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,704
S/C/G: 295/225/back to Onederland
Height: 5'5"
|
All we really know from the research is that of the two diets compared, both worked equally well. That's it. We cannot generalize beyond the conditions tested in the study and don't know how any other diet would fare...
Last edited by Heather; 08-21-2007 at 08:20 PM.
|
|
|
08-22-2007, 01:40 PM
|
#12
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 763
|
From my experience that's true, the calories are what is important, however, some foods (the usual suspects, pasta, bread, potatoes) are really REALLY easy for me to overeat -- and harder to moderate.
Especially around that TOM, sometimes I find it way easier to have no pasta than half a cup of it! There are definitely foods (like chips) that I can be totally indifferent to as long as I don't eat them -- but if I start eating them (expecially with cocktails) I can eat 10 servings EASY! Dunno if that is GI or just my own head (thinking of them as "red light" or "binge foods," but I figure if you're eating low calorie then the calories can't be empty calories or you don't have any room for the nutrition aspect of eating.
|
|
|
08-22-2007, 04:38 PM
|
#13
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383
S/C/G: SW:394/310/180
Height: 5'6"
|
If you want to lose weight, but don't care at all about your health, then yes only calories are important. It's hardly smart, but you can't make people think clearly. It does annoy me though, that the "interpretation" of the results, is so far from what the reseach indicates.
|
|
|
08-22-2007, 05:57 PM
|
#14
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 170
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyllenn
All we really know from the research is that of the two diets compared, both worked equally well. That's it. We cannot generalize beyond the conditions tested in the study and don't know how any other diet would fare...
|
IMO, there are plenty of studies on plenty of diets, and none of them have identified any one diet that was far superior than the others in rate of weight loss over an extended period of time.
|
|
|
08-22-2007, 06:18 PM
|
#15
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,704
S/C/G: 295/225/back to Onederland
Height: 5'5"
|
Yes, I agree!
But let's say it was just calories that mattered (which was the generalized point of the article). If that was the case, then any "diet" of any kind of calories should 'work'. We could test that by, for instance, putting some people on a diet of ho-hos and see if it was as successful as the other diets. But they generally don't do that kind of comparison in research, at the very least for ethical reasons!!
So, I find the headline misleading ("Calories count more than food type"), because someone could read it and assume a diet of ho-hos was a go, and that isn't necessarily true at all!
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.
|