That's the message from a two-year National Institutes of Health-funded study that assigned 811 overweight people to one of four reduced-calorie diets and found that all trimmed pounds just the same. It didn't matter what foods participants ate, but rather how many calories they consumed.

An intense debate has long raged over which dieting regimen is best. Low carb? High protein? Low fat? But the federal study, one of the longest of its kind, "really goes against the idea that certain foods are the key to weight loss," says Frank Sacks, principal investigator and a professor of cardiovascular-disease prevention at Harvard School of Public Health. "This is a pretty positive message. It gives people a lot of choices to find a diet they can stick with."

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, put participants on one of four diets: Two were low fat and two were high fat, and each of these included either a high-protein or an average-protein component. Carbohydrate intake ranged from 35% to 65%. All the diets were low in calories and saturated fat, and high in fiber, and participants were asked to exercise a fixed 90 minutes a week.

In the study, doctors calculated each participant's energy needs, and structured a diet that had 750 fewer calories than would be necessary to fuel his or her activity. Typical diets in the study had between 1,400 and 2,000 calories a day.

Rudy Termini, a retiree in Cambridge, Mass., says that before joining the study, he downed about 2,400 calories a day. If he dined on T-bone steak, he'd make it a one-pounder. "I just didn't need all that food," says the 69-year-old and former owner of a telecommunications company.

Mr. Termini, who is 5 feet 11 inches tall, says he dropped to 175 pounds from 195 pounds and lost his "little pot belly" by limiting himself to 1,800 calories a day. He followed the study's higher-fat, average-protein diet (40% fat, 15% protein, and 45% carbohydrates). For fats, he ate avocado, nuts and other sources of unsaturated fat. Mr. Termini says he stuck with the diet because he could eat what he enjoys, but just smaller portions -- his steak choice now is a small fillet. He says he's kept the weight off since the study ended.

The message is that dieting may be "much simpler" than everyone thought, says Catherine Loria, a nutritional epidemiologist at the NIH and co-author of the study. Along with choosing healthful foods, "all you have to do is count your calories."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123559955210376029.html

Source: Wall Street Journal, by Jennifer Levitz

THANK YOU so much for posting this. I started paying attention (read really obsessive, lol) over calorie counting about 2 weeks ago. I began really trying to lose weight around mid-April. By mid May, NOTHING! So watching fat and carbs and protein wasn't working. I then took another look at my diet and realized I was probably taking in way too many calories, despite the enormous amounts of exercise I had incorporated. So I lowered my cals to about 1200 a day. Still nothing. After about 4 days of 1200 cals and starving to death, I came across a website that explained the zig-zag method.

I am by no means saying that others who limit themselves to, say, 1400 straight every day are doing it wrong. The zig zag works for me because some days I am just hungry and I felt I could survive a dip in cals for a couple of days and then go back up more easily than sticking to low cal everyday. Mostly because I like high calorie foods like bread and all things cakey. And sugar!! So I don't have to cut those things out completely. A couple of days here and there I can handle. But throwing out those things completely is just not something I have the will-power to do. But I did cut the Dr. Peppers, YAY!!!!

As of right now, I went from 166 (and then fluctuating between 163 and 164 for weeks on end) to 160 in a matter of a week! I am taking in on average 1471 a day. This morning was the first time I haven't noticed a loss. I know this is normal so I am not going to freak out over it. I am just going to wait it out and if I do not see a change after one week, I might just increase my calories a little. There is no way I can increase exercise at this point because I do the stationary bike for 30 minutes every morning, treadmill for 20minutes every morning and then the same for the evening, so I get a total of about 100 minutes everyday. I do weight training every other day.

And I am not ready to do all of what I am doing now and also zero in on protein, fat and carbs. Maybe once I get closer to goal, I can start that challenge. I do a lot of fish, chicken, eggs and peanut butter anyway, so I figure I am getting a good variety.

Thanks again for this article

I love counting calories because it doesn't restrict the food I eat. I can eat anything I want, I just have to count the calories.

I enjoy counting calories, but....the only problem is, sometimes I am on the run. Actually, I am on the run a lot and I sometimes forget. Any ideas?

Oh, and in response to BoBoGuy, I think that each diet needs to be fabricated to fit the individual. There really is no specific "million dollar diet" that can "magically" make you lose weight. The most important things, in my opinion are: #1 to not over eat, #2 to vary what you eat, #3 avoid eating out at fast food restaurants and eating too late, #4 stick to your routine. The hardest thing about a diet is to not slip back into old habits! Those are my biggest problems anyway...

"In an editorial accompanying the NEJM report, Martijn Katan, a nutrition researcher at Amsterdam's VU University, noted that participants had waning success keeping off weight toward the end of the study, suggesting their discipline began slipping. "Evidently, individual treatment is powerless against an environment that offers so many high-calorie foods and labor-saving devices," he said."

Not a very positive ending to the article, is it? I think they forget to mention that calorie counting continues to a degree even after you've lost weight. If you were eating 3000 calories before and gaining weight, then went down to 1500 to lose weight, you're obviously not going to maintain your weight going back to 3000 calories! You have to do some counting, although not necessarily as low as you went when losing the weight. I think a lot of people view calorie counting as restricting calories to the max (like 600, 800, 1000, etc., calorie diets). But that's not what calorie counting is about. You can still take in a fair amount of calories and have plenty of room for favorites.

Tam

Actually the study showed that reducing calories was the effective component, not that calorie counting was the only way to do it. There are people who do not do well calorie counting, but are able to succeed if they find a way to reduce calories without counting them.

This is true for me. I'm not well-suited to calorie counting alone, for several reasons. I chose a moderate carb exchange plan of approximately 1800 calories. My calorie count, because of the nature of exchange plans can vary from about 1500 to about 2000 calories.

I do have to watch carbs, because high carb foods, especially processed carbs make me much, much hungrier - so it makes sense for me to reduce those foods, just because it makes sticking to a lower calorie diet easier.

I'm not at all criticising calorie counting. I think it's the easiest, and best place for anyone wanting to lose weight to start, but sometimes other plans suit a person's physical or psychological needs better.

Exactly what I have been telling people at 3 fat chicks fo the last 6 months. Maybe people will start to believe me.

A note book that you carry with you, or an app on your phone? of if you have planned your meals out you could track in the morning.

Now benchmarkman, I don't think anyone has been disbelieving you--there are just a lot of different opinions on the forums, mostly along the lines of, "yes but." But you know the thing about opinions... everyone has them.

90 minutes a WEEK of exercise??? Wow, talk about totally possible!

I think one of the best points made in that article is that people just don't know how much they are eating until they start looking at it with a measure like calories or points or exchanges. I think that may be why we have so many folks who say "I've been trying to eat healthier, why am I not losing?" I myself became obese eating really nice, healthy, and often organic whole foods. Just too much of them.

Jay

This really rings true for a lot of people, me included. I knew I wasn't eating healthy but I never imagined how much I was actually consuming. Recently, I added up calories for me on an average day prior to my weight loss and it was around 4000 calories...mind blowing number for me! Now I eat less than half that a day and am more satisfied then before. I still have my food obsessing, where it is constantly on my mind but I am able to realize now when I am actually hungry and when my mind is playing tricks on me and I just get myself busy elsewhere until my mind shuts up

Terrific article! After my many failed diet attempts, calorie counting is truly the first thing that has ever "clicked" for me. Especially since I am not treating it like a diet but an absolute lifestyle change. I love not having to forcefully remove entire food groups from my diet like I used to when following low carbs, or low fat, or whatever the fad diet restricted. Of course, I do find tremendous irony in the fact that I rarely want to waste my calories on poor food choices anymore. But when I do, I simply account for the calories and move on...

A common question, does it matter what you are eating as long as its in the xyz range??

One of my thoughts when reading this article is that I am better able to control my calories if I don't eat foods that trigger my urge to overeat. So, yes the article and the goals of calorie counting are simple. But, of course, where it gets complicated is in the type of calories one is better able to consume and stay in control of said intake.

Just another side of the story to consider (it addresses this kind of study of calorie counting specifically):

http://kateharding.net/2009/02/26/al...e-same-poorly/

And just in case readers of the above article don't click through to this one on the USDA site, here it is:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archiv...health0306.htm

Very interesting, both of them.

Jay