Low fat better than low carb for fat loss?
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Steve |  | Low fat better than low carb for fat loss? | 01-09-2015 @ 14:25 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311500... A widely publicised study with press headlines everywhere claiming this proves low fat diets cause more fat loss than low carb diets. Yet within a couple of minutes it's easy to see that the study is pretty meaningless and doesn't even look at proper low carb diets. Why are nutritional scientists not more concerned with looking for the truth rather than designing studies to prove their point of view and why are journalists unable to look past the study headlines? | ||
| Cuddles |  | ... | 01-09-2015 @ 16:54 |
 Eat.Cycle.Sleep.Win Member 2, 12511 posts SQ 190, BP 150, DL 280620.0 kgs @ 99kgs UnEq Administrator | I haven't read the link but if it's referring to the same 'study' I read last week then it's led to some appalling journalism. BUT, headlines sell news more than stories do. | ||
| JackRevans | | ... | 02-09-2015 @ 08:16 |
 'There was also a sausage in my mouth.' Member 2477, 16481 posts SQ 190, BP 130, DL 235555.0 kgs @ 83kgs UnEq | I think that creating confusion must make them money or something because they seem to love doing it | ||
| Rick | | ... | 02-09-2015 @ 11:40 |
 I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10034 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator | Post Edited: 02.09.2015 @ 11:41 AM by Rick I have friends who are journalists, and I used to be a working research scientist.A scientist's job is to: a. Write papers that get published b. Write papers that are referred to by other published papers c. Write successful grant proposals If you can do a and b, c becomes relatively easy. If you actually do useful work, significant bonus, but that's probably impossible in nutrition work because you can't do proper controlled studies on a decent scale. However, press attention can make c easier too... A journalist's job is to: a. Sell newspapers/magazines/drive pageviews b. Sell advertising. In context, then, none of this is surprising. | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 02-09-2015 @ 16:05 |
 woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | I'm really not sure it makes a big enough difference to be important. Try low fat, try low carb... stick with whichever you prefer. Calorific deficit is the most important thing. I like going back and forth, personally... If I'm on low fat I miss olive oil, butter, cheese, and dark chocolate and if I'm on low carb I miss bread and cereal. So I switch back and forth all the time (sometimes every day is different). Down 16kg in 8 months with apparently some muscle gain doing that. | ||
| AaronJ | | ... | 02-09-2015 @ 22:24 |
 Intolerant of old shtick. Member 5276, 431 posts SQ 222, BP 145, DL 265632.0 kgs @ 96kgs UnEq | Steve said:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311500... A widely publicised study with press headlines everywhere claiming this proves low fat diets cause more fat loss than low carb diets. Yet within a couple of minutes it's easy to see that the study is pretty meaningless and doesn't even look at proper low carb diets. Why are nutritional scientists not more concerned with looking for the truth rather than designing studies to prove their point of view and why are journalists unable to look past the study headlines? Which aspects of this study are particularly bad? Allow paying $30 for a study. | ||
| ben66 |  | ... | 03-09-2015 @ 09:48 |
 Why get fat to look big? Member 1330, 4797 posts SQ 300, BP 200, DL 305805.0 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq | Low calorie diets work best.... | ||
| Steve | | ... | 03-09-2015 @ 10:30 |
nothing to hide, please follow my life on webcam Member 255, 3732 posts | AaronJ said: Which aspects of this study are particularly bad? Allow paying $30 for a study. Ignoring how short the diet was (just 6 days), the attempts to extrapolate expected weight loss over 6 mths, the fact the researcher weren't able to measure any significant differences in fat loss using DXA (they instead estimated it from breath metabolites) and the questionable use of using mean averages rather than actual data for such a small sample size probably the biggest issue is they didn't even use a low carb diet - the low fat diet had just 8% of the calories from fat whilst the low carb diet had 29% of the calories still coming from carbs? | ||
| AaronJ | | ... | 03-09-2015 @ 11:13 |
Intolerant of old shtick. Member 5276, 431 posts SQ 222, BP 145, DL 265632.0 kgs @ 96kgs UnEq | Steve said: Ignoring how short the diet was (just 6 days), the attempts to extrapolate expected weight loss over 6 mths, the fact the researcher weren't able to measure any significant differences in fat loss using DXA (they instead estimated it from breath metabolites) and the questionable use of using mean averages rather than actual data for such a small sample size probably the biggest issue is they didn't even use a low carb diet - the low fat diet had just 8% of the calories from fat whilst the low carb diet had 29% of the calories still coming from carbs? Thanks! | ||
| IainKendrick | | ... | 03-09-2015 @ 19:36 |
 some nice relaxing jazz. Member 77, 12599 posts SQ 265, BP 165, DL 280710.0 kgs @ 93kgs UnEq | Steve said: Ignoring how short the diet was (just 6 days), the attempts to extrapolate expected weight loss over 6 mths, the fact the researcher weren't able to measure any significant differences in fat loss using DXA (they instead estimated it from breath metabolites) and the questionable use of using mean averages rather than actual data for such a small sample size probably the biggest issue is they didn't even use a low carb diet - the low fat diet had just 8% of the calories from fat whilst the low carb diet had 29% of the calories still coming from carbs? Sounds pretty ropey. | ||