03/04/2009 06:46:15 PM EST

Conclusion Of New Diet Study Is Grossly Oversimplified

posted by Tom Hanc

As Cenk mentioned briefly on the show yesterday, there is a new study published in the New England Journal Of Medicine that basically concludes that only calories matter when dieting.

This is the conventional wisdom that All Calories Are Created Equal. At first glance this seems like common sense. And at the most fundamental level, OF COURSE the only effective diet plans are those that create a caloric deficit on a consistent basis.

But if anyone walks away from this believing that all calories are created equal, they took away the wrong message.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Again, ultimately the only diets that are successful are the ones that create a caloric deficit. And the fact that most people can lose weight for a limited period time on just about ANY diet is nothing new, although you wouldn't know it based on the response to this new study on a very old topic.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let me explain why "a calorie is a calorie" is a grossly oversimplified way of looking at things.

For one thing there's the thermic effect of protein. For another, there are things like essential fatty acids (think fatty fish and or flax seeds, etc.) and monounsaturated fats which have been shown to provide great health benefits, and possibly increase testosterone (which indirectly helps fat loss and muscle growth).

My biggest issue with this research, aside from the fact that it's making the masses buy into the "all calories are created equal" nonsense, is that I haven't read anything about body composition. So far I've only read that they measured WEIGHT loss, which is such an archaic way of measuring diet/exercise progress if used alone. I feel like we're back in the 80's!

The fact is that some diets keep you fuller longer, provide more health benefits and are more or less likely to promote muscle growth and fat loss over the long term.

Here's an easy example to show you just how misleading the take away message of this new study can be:

*Technically* speaking, one could eat 3 packages of skittles and drink a few cans of soda every day and lose weight, as long as the caloric deficit was sufficient.

That's a very high carb, low fat (and cholesterol/protein) diet. Of course this same person would get MUCH better long term results and be much healthier if they ate lean protein sources, essential fats and monounsaturated fats (as opposed to trans/saturated fats), high fiber grains (as opposed to enriched wheat flour an high-fructose corn syrup) and micro-nutrient dense vegetables and fruits (hardly a "fad diet").

Finally, I need to point out that the "low carb" diet in this study derived about 35% of calories from carbs. Anyone familiar with low-carb diets knows that doesn't qualify as anything close to a true LC diet.

And do people restricting calories and or increasing activity require more protein (will it help increase fat loss)? It depends, but there is some good research showing the answer is generally "Yes".

PS---Tea is your new best friend. Skip the black stuff and grab green and and newer (at least in the U.S.) white tea.  Green tea has been shown to promote fat loss (and lots of other good stuff), and white tea is even more interesting. And yes, there are peer reviewed, published studies on this stuff, I don't buy into regional folklore about herbal remedies.
< Rahm orchestrated the Steele fiasco | NO FEED; I LOSE MY MIND >
 Display:
Conclusion Of New Diet Study Is Grossly Oversimplified | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
diets, diets, diets (none / 0)

Where to begin? There are couple of good books out on diets that more than confirm your points. The one that worked best for me was the "Zone". Best I ever felt and looked in my life. Low glycemic diet with a strict balance between fats, protein and complex carbohydrates. I have seen others that suggest diet based on blood type. I never checked it but, it makes sense given that some people can eat starches and others, like myself, can’t. Instant weight gain if I do.
In fact, I met a professional sports trainer a few weeks ago and she named the 5 deadly white poisons; Meat, sugar, dairy white flour and salt. If you can do it, God Bless. That said, HFCS, MSG and white flour should be banned from schools and probably everywhere else. Besides we need the corn for fuel.
Generaly speaking, low salt Mediterranean Diet are what the doctors are recommending these days. The Sonoma Diet is one of the top of my head. Lots of rubs, olive oil and fresh herbs, sounds a bit kinky though…..

by sisco66 on 03/04/2009 08:53:13 PM EST

Diets (none / 0)
The "Best" diet on the market currently is Bill Phillips - Body for Life, because it REQUIRES exercise along with a balanced diet based on a weeks worth of calories, not a day to day thing.  If you're too lazy to exercise, the South Beach diet is a very good choice, based on the whole foods they use it's very nutritious and delicious menu.  

by taotedali on 03/04/2009 09:02:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exercise is critical (none / 0)

But that requires an entire separate thread, in order to explain and show the research on how weight training is MUCH more important for dieters than cardio could ever hope to be (sprinting and HIIT being exceptions).

In short, aside from dietary changes and less general activity over time, muscle loss is the big reason behind age related fat gain. 45 minutes of jogging is going to do next to nothing to prevent muscle loss and in some cases it may expedite the process.

By contrast every pound of muscle you build burns an extra 20-30 calories a day to maintain the new tissue, not to mention calories burned during the workout and after (muscle repair). Cardio (HIIT and sprints being exceptions) only burns calories DURING activity, with little benefit once you stop.

But you could easily build 5-10lbs of muscle allowing you to burn 100-300 calories a day (and with 2 short sessions a week you can maintain it), aka 2,800-8,400 calories a month. Split the difference on that estimate and you end up with 5,600 calories a month. Keep in mind that each pound of fat is 3,500 calories.

Another myth is that high reps "tone" muscles. That's nonsense. You can't change the shape of a muscle, that's set by your genes. You can only make it bigger or smaller, and high reps (you know, tiny weights for a ton of reps) are unlikely to lead to bigger muscles.

So many people try spot reducing which is a myth that was busted a very long time ago. Yet people out there still insist on doing 100 crunches a day despite the fact that fat is NOT melted off directly over the exercised body part, rather the energy burned comes from all over the place.

Annoyingly enough belly/lower back fat in men and thigh/butt/hip fat in women are the last to go because of the nature of those particular fat cells.

by Tom Hanc on 03/04/2009 09:25:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's the thing (none / 0)

It's not so much that the Zone's 40/30/30 macronutrient profile is magical, it's that the foods and portions you're supposed to eat on the plan are generally healthy and less likely to make you binge.

So I understand the conventional wisdom skepticism about looking for a magical macronutrient profile/percentage, but at the same time the fact that many of these types (unwittingly?) are encouraging people to eat garbage as long as the portions are small needs to be pointed out.

There is merit to ingesting small amounts of bad food you enjoy (and having a larger "cheat meal" here and there), but people need to realize that eating a 100 calorie snack pack is NOT the same as consuming the identical number of calories in the form of a piece of fruit or some almonds.

Not only do fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts contain micronutrients that can help fight disease and other health conditions, but the fiber in these foods helps keep you fuller longer which is critical for fat loss. Not to mention the benefits of monounsaturated fats I mentioned in my original post.

And for the record, I'm not a vegetarian. I'm not a huge carnivore, but I love chicken (and eat bacon and red meat here and there...and gyro "meat").

by Tom Hanc on 03/04/2009 09:12:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
holostic approach (none / 0)
I think there was more too it than just a balanced meal. Something about optimizing your metabolic rate and mental alertness with that mix. What ever it was it worked. He also spoke about everything you put in your body being a drug. Your body and mind will react to it.

The key was the balance and 5 or 6 small meals vs three big ones, and yes excersize as well as water. Now I just eat 6 big meals and sit on my ass. Woops, almost forgot. Controling insulin spikes, hence low glycemic foods and no coffee.

Honeslty, for most people, the trick is be able to stay with it long enough to see some improvements, feel better and to build some momentum. Being able to get in a routine and stick to it. It does not take much to get side tracked with all the crap that happens these days.




by sisco66 on 03/04/2009 10:15:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Very true (none / 0)

Eating 5-6 small meals is critical. There is research showing that people who consume 5-6 small meals lost weight while people who took in the SAME number of calories in 2 large meals gained weight.

So meal frequency is important in addition to quality. Is it a pain in the ass to eat this way? I'm sure that's what some people are thinking.

Obviously some days it's not practical, for special events, cheat meals, etc. As Cenk would say, "bounds of reason". But a bigger pain in the ass is feeling bloated, gassy and tired after eating a huge meal.

by Tom Hanc on 03/04/2009 10:25:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Full of gas? (none / 0)
Speaking of which, seeing Rush should be enough to motivate most people to loose some weight.

by sisco66 on 03/04/2009 10:46:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)

But single guys have other motivations too.

;)

by Tom Hanc on 03/04/2009 11:02:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh Jesus... (none / 0)

Maybe there is a jesus!

(actually, nah, there's just various biological instincts and cultural conditionings that cause such imagery to be so... *gulp* Wow!) 

by Badass4Peace on 03/05/2009 01:38:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Very inappropriate (none / 0)
Shame on you for making a Jesus reference in this context without adding something a cup that runneth over.

by Tom Hanc on 03/05/2009 03:55:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Random convoluted tea observations: (none / 0)

I drink green tea pretty much perpetually, and I love it.  That said, I don't think it's helped me to lose any weight (though, for the record, I'm not really in need of weight loss), but that also might have something to do with my astounding amount of inactivity.  (This stuff is great BTW, if you can swing the lofty price, and if you really like green tea.)

But white tea sucks.  I can't even taste it.  It's like slightly tea-ish water, which is fine I guess.  I mean, I like water and all, but when I want tea, I would like it to taste like tea.  Maybe I just need to find some better stuff (and I'm open to recommendations), or maybe I'm brewing it wrong or something, but as it stands right now, I'm not a fan.

Interesting post though.

by Spencer on 03/04/2009 09:02:11 PM EST

Well (none / 0)

The studies around green tea involved the equivalent of around 5-6 cups a day (caffeinated BTW), and that resulted in a 4% increase in metabolic rate.

People who think that green tea will melt off the pounds despite poor eating and little exercise are mistaken (and no, I'm not saying you fall into that group, I'm speaking generally).

As for white tea, no, it's not brimming with flavor. I prefer it iced with fresh lemon. You might also look into stevia which you can buy in packets just like Splenda. The stuff has been widely used in Japan for the last 30 years and seems like the safest and most natural non-caloric sweetener out there.

by Tom Hanc on 03/04/2009 09:30:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
good points, great thread (none / 0)

As a former fatass who threw away the fat guy pants five years ago and haven't needed them since I feel like my knowledge carries the weight of well-tested real-world experimenting, although I admit I'm a small sample size.

Everything you guys are saying is completely accurate. Bias makes great points about the qualification of a person’s diet versus the quantification of a person’s diet. WHAT you eat is just as important as HOW MUCH you eat. This seems like a no-brainer to us smart, fish-oil swallowers but to the rest of the country it’s a goddamn challenge. Middle america struggles to not buy the big bag of twizzlers, that sweet red roped candy treat! (“There’s no fat in Twizzlers,” I used to say. “Says so right on the package.”)

Each person’s genetics allows for various dispositions and potentials. Not to mention the psychological nature of food… how, just as for fish in a bowl, eating is often be the best part of the day. So there are differences in metabolism and other multi-syllabic words.... But there are universal truths when it comes to food, just like there are universal truths when it comes to how photosynthesis works. We're all plants of some kind oor another, except we're humans. 

I’d like to make a point about low-carb eating/dieting. When people remark that low-carb dieting is unsustainable I roll my eyes. It’s all relative! That usually means you chunk-asses were eating TOO MANY carbs to begin with. The point is that you WERE eating a high-carb diet, which is what made you fat, so when you cut back on the carbs you’re lowering your carb intake, but that doesn’t mean you’re eating a “low-carb” diet. You’ve simply put the brakes on a destructive appetite. You were speeding and now you’ve slowed down. So yeah, "low-carb" eating is not sustainable, but "high-carb" eating makes you fat, lazy and full of unnecessary estrogen. Find the right balance of carbs, fat and protein that suits your energy needs and genetic pre-dispositions.

Composition is everything; there are good fats and bad fats, good carbs and bad carbs and there are many grey areas in between (protein is even more nuanced). Eat well, learn to eat better, exercise well, learn to exercise better, have some sex and take your vitamins. That’s it.

by Badass4Peace on 03/05/2009 02:12:45 AM EST

Diets such as Atkins and south beach (none / 0)
are unsustainable and eventually unhealthy from what I have read.

No argument that people eat to many of the wrong carbs.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/05/2009 04:13:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I forgot to mention the one I use (none / 0)
Everyday cooking by Dr Dean Ornish

Concentrates far more on fat intake

No white flour
No white sugar
No white rice

He follows those same tenets as where mentioned in an earlier post.

His diets have been proven to reverse heart damage not just stop it.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/05/2009 04:16:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
South Beach unsustainable? (none / 0)
Where did you hear that? Any non-dangerous diet is sustainable IF the person sticks to it.

In some ways the best diet is the one you can stick to (that provides *some* results). Of course lifestyle changes are ideal, but it's also reasonable to go hard-core until you get to a maintenance level. The trick then is to not go back to eating pizza and drinking pop all day. 

by Tom Hanc on 03/05/2009 04:36:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Psychological nature of food (none / 0)
Exactly. I happen to be someone who has many "trigger foods". I try to eat one bite and it triggers a binge.

Pasta, rice, bread, chips, ice cream. I don't binge on broccoli and chiken breasts, but throw in a side of rice and there's trouble.

A LOT of people are like this.

by Tom Hanc on 03/07/2009 02:19:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, It really is that simple (none / 0)
Consume less calories than you burn and you lose weight, period. Does that mean thats all anyone needs to know to live a healthy life, No, of course not. Does that mean that all calories are created equal? Of course not. Does that mean that that’s all the nutrition people need to learn? Of course not. But the end point IS very simple, to lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you consume.

The weight lose industry is a huge billion dollar industry, selling books with weight lose “secrets”, Specialty weight lose foods, Low carb this and that. This industry uses alot of misinformation and half truths to sell their products that has created alot of dieting dogmas for people like the "low Carbinites" and others when the reality is being healthy and dieting successfully is alot simpler than they think and have been lead to belive.

Most specialty diets promote ignorance about foods and nutrition. Low carbing, Atkins diet, Subway Diet, Slim Fast Diet, Weight Watchers Diet, and the rest are only gimmicks. Some very harmful and counterproductive to healthy living.

Best diet , is one where you study what you eat and make changes you can live with. Use Fitday.com to document what you eat and educate yourself on your habits and alternative choices in foods. Tips like eating 6 meals instead of 3 or less is a good one, a balanced diet is a good tip, staying away from fast foods that are jam packed with cals.

Again, if anyone is REALLY interested in weight loss, use this site : WWW.FITDAY.COM , its free.

by Smokin on 03/07/2009 06:03:34 PM EST

Conclusion Of New Diet Study Is Grossly Oversimplified | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: