Ok, now I feel informed enough to comment on the original post, especially this statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eating What I Crave
women who included red meat in their diet lost more weight.
This isn't really an accurate interpretation of the study results. In fact nothing of the sort can be argued or even inferred from the study. Here's why.
Firstly, their conclusion was not that the high protein diet was superior to the high carbohydrate diet, but that the results were equal and "sometimes" better.
Secondly, it was a high-protein, low fat diet studied (red meat was not examined as a variable). To say that women who included red meat in their diet lost more weight (than those who did not - or those who ate less red meat) you've got to be able to support that with the study methods - and this study doesn't fit that bill at all (not even by inference).
Red meat tends not to be low in fat, so I would wonder how much red meat, the high-protein group actually consumed. It's impossible to say from the study whether the subjects ate much red meat at all. Just because the diet allows red meat, doesn't mean that the participants in the study ate much (or any, for that matter). Because it's a high-protein AND low-fat diet being studied - it would be just as fair (or unfair) to assume that the diets of the high-proteiners was low in red meat and higher in fish, poultry and legumes. Also, there's no comparison made (from what the abstract reveals) to suggest that the high-carbohydrate dieters ate less red meat than the high-proteiners. Both groups might have eaten similar amounts (it's also possible because it wasn't measured - that the high-carbohydraters ate as much or even more red-meat - neither is proven or disproven by the study).
To get a better understanding of the role of red meat in the weight loss equation - a study would have to look at red meat specifically. For example, comparing two diets equal in all respects (carbs, proteins, fats, and calories), except for differences in the amount of red meat consumption.
Comparing a high-carb calorie-restricted diet to a calorie-restricted protein/low fat diet (which may or may not contain similar amounts of red meats - in no way suggests that the amount of red meat affects the degree of weight loss (and certainly doesn't support the conclusion that women who included red meat in their diet lost more weight than those who did not). We don't know how much red meat was consumed by either group.
We also don't know whether the results of study would have been any different if the high-protein group had consumed NO red meat, but only other sources of lean protein.
_________________________________
On a personal note, I do believe that red meat can be included in a weight loss diet - though I've seen no research (including the one sited) that suggests that for weight loss - red meat is superior to other lean and leaner sources of protein - especially from sources that are higher in Omega-3's.
In fact, I've seen a good deal of research evidence for the opposite conclusion - that there are more advantages to eating protein sources much higher in Omega-3 fats than red meat (at least from traditional grain-fed sources).
Which is not to say that red meat can't be part of a good diet (for health and/or weight loss), it's just not fair to say that red meat is superior to other lean proteins especially when it comes to weight loss. The study in question doesn't
suggest, either explicitly or by inference any such thing. It doesn't even necessarily suggest that low-carb diets are inherently inferior.