Low-Carb Low-Fat Beats still

Updated September 9, 2014.

Now, in September 2014 and we have another plan comparison study has been reported by the media, this time in the Annals of Internal Medicine (

Effects of low carbohydrate and low fat diet: A randomized study). This study attempts to do some things differently, but is most similar studies in the past, and (surprise) similar results.

Why the constant attention on limiting carbohydrate vs fat? It is primarily the story. At a time when the conventional wisdom was that the limit starchy and sweet was the way to lose weight, but about 35 years ago has emerged a theory that excessive dietary fat causes heart disease. Since then, researchers have tried

show that this is true, but the fruits of their work, suggested the contrary. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that eating too many carbohydrates can cause health problems of various kinds.

You would think that with all the talk that people abandoned the idea of a diet low in fat "healthy fats". But even if the last health recommendations have turned from recommending, showed 1 July 2014 Gallup poll that nearly 60% of Americans (about 30% to avoid carbohydrates) dietary fat should be avoided. So low-fat diet is not dead by any means, and make sure something people in question.

The study, led by Dr. Lydia Bazzano, of Tulane University, conducted with funding from the National Institutes of Health, attempts to resolve two joint studies with a similar performance problem: 1) In general, African-Americans are under-represented while in this study half of the participants were black, and 2) in this study, participants calories are not limited (as usual, at least the low-fat, and sometimes the group low in carbohydrates, a diet that is also low in calories). The low-fat group, followed by the National Cholesterol Education Program diet recommended because the researchers were specifically looking at the how the plans have the risk of heart disease affected. The low-carb group was instructed carbohydrates to limit less than 40 grams

digestible carbohydrates (net) and increased intake of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats sources. The study lasted 12 months.

Participants: The majority of participants were overweight in the mild to moderate range. You do not have heart disease or diabetes, and most of them do not seem to have data prediabetes or metabolic syndrome. This may be important because the human with impaired glucose treatment (the spectrum is as diabetes) are more likely to benefit from reducing carbohydrates.

Compliance: Compliance was "OK". Not reach the low-carb group, on average, the target of 40 grams of net carbs per day, but they were about 90 to 100 grams for the first half of the study, a slight increase to 127 grams for the end of the year (34 % of calories). There was still a significant reduction in food about 240 g prior to the start of the study. The group with low fat content was better that. Less than 30% of calories from fat, but it was not such a big change for them, as it started at 35% of calories from fat In particular, this group can also be significantly reduced carbohydrates, about 20%. This could be the guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (TLC diet) Consulting a low-fat diet that is also low in added sugars to follow. It is important to take this into account, as some of its results could have reduced carbohydrates. For example, both groups spontaneously reduced calorie, low carbohydrate group than the group with low fat content.

Results: I have to be honest and say that the results were somewhat difficult to interpret in depth, mainly because the paper does not give simple numbers, but show statistical manipulation of the numbers. Moreover, most of the measures (eg blood pressure) began, the participants in the normal range, so that they are less likely to change that, starting with an abnormal number. (Interestingly, about a third of the participants were drugs in blood pressure, but not to report the researchers, if someone reduces their dose during the study.)

That is, describes its main familiar for those of us who pay attention to the science in relation to low carb diets significant results:

Weight: As usual, for a survey of this type, the average weight loss was modest 12 pounds for the low-carb group and 4 pounds for the group with little fat. One disappointing thing about the paper is not reporting areas on average. Presentation often varies gives us a different picture - a famous study (Christopher Gardner) there was a variation of 66 kg on the amount of weight lost, even if the means were in the study. Lost so much information that if only the means are reported.

Cardiovascular risk factors had the low-carb group had significantly greater improvements in HDL ("good" cholesterol), triglycerides and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). No changes in the two groups in most of the other measures (which, as I said, normal anyway started), but especially diet specifically designed to improve the cardiovascular risk (CCM fat diet) did not reduce the risk, while the low-carbohydrate diet reduces the risk, measured by 10-year Framingham risk score for CHD. These improvements are fairly typical, if a low-carb diet is followed.

Final Thoughts

Although I know that the researchers are trying to find something new, they have not. (One might assume that the participants in the order that African-Americans responded similarly to all that, but do not address the document this problem.) Yes, it's good to replicate the results in the different groups, but not Please can we go? There are so many things we need to know the individual variation in response to diet! Seriously! For example, we know that people with metabolic syndrome are usually react particularly well suited for low-carb diets. So why not bring people on the spectrum of diabetes and begin taking different approaches to low carb? Paleo vs Atkins anyone? Middle ketogenic carb vs low carb vs? People with diabetes, people from the are moderately resistant to insulin? Jeff Volek from the University of Connecticut has a great job in this area, but the company needs (and funding).

It was an interesting discussion, but a little frustrating in the New York Times as a follow-up study, which illustrates my point. She excelled in the room were the views of Dr. David Katz, a prominent physician who continue to advocate (ie, carbohydrates or fats) "do not focus on a particular nutrient", but whole foods, unprocessed in place. Although I pretty much eat whole unprocessed foods, nobody does it do well, we do the best with the same diet, or ignore some of us are better off without much glucose (sugar) in our diet. (Dr. Katz is the developer of a food classification system called by some grocery stores NuVal reduction of all food used to be a row. This is useful if you are looking for a single one-size-fits-all solution, but my point is that different sizes require different solutions Whatever.), I was going to stand up and clap when the voice of reason in the form of Christopher Gardner (I'm always enjoy this kind!) reached the end of the article said, "trying to find" the best Diet "[for all] is wrong." The better question is: "What is the best diet for different people, and how can we agree on these plans?" Exactly !! Let's do it!