Weight Loss News and Current Events - Low-fat, schmo-fat. Only calories count.

01-30-2012, 11:11 AM
This is a new article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46189446/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.TyawpuNSR3E) published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition... I haven't read the actual journal article yet, but it looks like it might be interesting. The take home message (assuming the reporter got his facts straight, which is unfortunately often not the case) is that sticking to a diet, any diet, is what matters most.

Bray and his colleagues randomly assigned several hundred overweight or obese people to one of four diets: average protein, low fat and higher carbs; high protein, low fat and higher carbs; average protein, high fat and lower carbs; or high protein, high fat and lower carbs.

Each of the diets was designed to cut 750 calories a day.

After six months and again at two years after starting the diets, researchers checked participants' weight, fat mass and lean mass.

At six months, people had lost more than 4.1 kg (9 lbs) of fat and close to 2.3 kg (5 lbs) of lean mass, but they regained some of this by the two-year mark.

01-30-2012, 11:45 AM
I haven't read the article yet, but I think the "attraction" to low fat foods that many have (self included) is that you can have more for the same amount of calories. So yes, I do agree that only calories count and sticking to any plan is what truly counts, but low fat means more food for less (or equal) calories.

01-31-2012, 02:50 PM
while that does make sense from experience, unfortunately i feel as though it is inconclusive evidence too everything but the fact that protein evens out at about 20 %.