Weight Loss Central

From Dr. Eades blog:

Medscape is a subscription service available only to physicians and is as mainstream as it gets. The lead article in this weeks issue is not really an article, but a video lecture.   One Dr. Sandra Fryhofer lectures the mainstream docs subscribing to Medscape on what the above study shows.   She points out the weaknesses of the low-fat diet and is positively enthusiastic about the low-carb diet.   She does issue a disclaimer, i.e., that the study was partially funded by the Atkins Foundation, but that’s about all.

Low Carb going mainstream video!

Just ran across this study:

Effects of two energy-restricted diets differing in
the carbohydrate/protein ratio on weight loss and oxidative changes of
obese men.

Introduction Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets are a current
challenge in the nutritional treatment of obesity. Objective To compare
the effect of a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet with a traditional
hypocaloric diet on weight loss and mitochondrial oxidative metabolism.
Subjects and methods Nineteen obese men (age 36+/-6 years; body mass
index 34+/-2 kg/m(2)) were randomized to follow one of the two
diets-control diet (15% protein; 30% lipids; 55% carbohydrates) or
high-protein diet (30% protein; 30% lipids; 40% carbohydrates)-over an
8-week period. Anthropometry, biochemical variables, resting energy
expenditure and mitochondrial oxidation were measured at the start and
at the end of the intervention. Results The high-protein diet produced
a greater weight loss (-8.3+/-1.2% versus -5.5+/-2.5%, P=0.012) than
the control diet. Interestingly, an activation in the mitochondrial
oxidation was found in the high-protein-fed group. This stimulation was
positively correlated with the final resting energy expenditure and
negatively associated with the final fat mass content.

Conclusion Low-carbohydrate high-protein diets could involve specific
changes in mitochondrial oxidation that could be related to a higher
weight loss.

Dr. Mirkin expands upon the first reaction I had to the study.

A new study from Israel shows us once again that dieting without exercise does not work.

When I went deeper I liked what the blood work said about low carb, but my first take was, no exercise was why some of the other factors (like blood pressure) were not lowered. He also agrees with what I have found to be true:

If you really want to lose weight for good, you have to exercise.

Diet can only get you so far in your journey. To succeed long term you need to exercise. You body is wonderfully made and it is designed to move. Not necessarily the hard pounding of running all the time but definitely move!!!

A news media feeding frenzy erupted recently when a new diet study broke in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Almost all the reporters got it wrong, wrong WRONG! So did most of the gloating low carb forumites and bloggers. Come to think of it, almost everyone interpreted this study wrong. Some valuable insights came out of this study, but almost everyone missed them because they were too busy believing what the news said or defending their own cherished belief systems …

The new study, titled, “Weight Loss With a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet” was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in issue 359, number 3.

I quickly read the full text of the research paper the day it was published. Then, I shook my head in dismay as I scanned the news headlines. I found it amusing that the media turned this into a three ring circus, putting a misleading “low carb versus high carb,” “Atkins vindicated” or “Diet wars” spin on the story. But that’s mainstream journalism for you, right? Gotta sell those papers!

Just look at some of these headlines:

“Study Tips Scales in Atkins Diets Favor: Low Carb Regimen Better Than Low Fat Diet For Weight And Cholesterol, Major Study Shows. “

“Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets Face Off “ “The Never-Ending Diet Wars” “Low Carb Beats Low Fat in Diet Duel.” “Atkins Diet is Safe and Far More Effective Than a Low-Fat One, Study Says” “Unrestricted Low-Carb Diet Wins Hands Down” Some of these headlines are hilarious! I wonder if any of these reporters actually read the whole study. Geez. Is it too much trouble to read 13 pages before you write a story that will be read by millions of already confused people suffering the pain and frustration of obesity?

Here’s a quick look at the study design.

The low fat restricted calorie diet was based on American Heart Association guidelines. Calorie intake was set at 1500 for women, 1800 a day for men with 30% of calories from fat, and only 10% from saturated fat. Participants were instructed to eat low fat grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high fat snacks.

The Mediterranean diet group was placed on a moderate fat, restricted calorie program rich in vegetables and low in red meat, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. Energy intake was restricted to 1500 calories per day for women and 1800 calories per day for men with a goal of no more than 35% of calorie from fat. Added fat came mostly from nuts and olive oil.

The low carb diet was a non-restricted calorie plan aimed at providing 20 grams of carbs per day for the 2 month induction phase with a gradual increase to 120 grams per day to maintain the weight loss. Intakes of total calories, protein and fat were not limited. However, the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of protein (more on that bizarre-twist shortly).

The study subjects were mostly male (86%), overweight (BMI 31) and middle age (mean age 52)

Here were the study results:

There were some health improvements in cholesterol, blood pressure and other parameters in the Mediterranean and low carb group that bested the high carb group. That was the focus of many articles and discussions that appeared on the net this week. However, I’d like to focus on the weight loss aspect as I’m not a medical doctor and fat loss is the primary subject matter of this website. All three groups lost weight. The low carb group lost 5.5 kilos, the Mediterranean group lost 4.6 kilos and the low fat group lost 3.3 kilograms…. IN TWO YEARS! Whoopee!

My conclusion would be that the results were similar and that none of the diets worked very well over the long term!

Amanda Gardner of the US News and World Report Health Day was one of the few reporters who got it right:

“Diet plans produce similar results: Study finds Mediterranean and low-carb diets work just as well as low fat ones.”

Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times also came close with her headline:

“Long term diet study suggests success is hard to come by: In a tightly controlled experiment, obese people lost an average of just 6 to 10 pounds over two years.”

Even this headline wasn’t 100% accurate. The study was HARDLY tightly controlled. Tightly controlled means metabolic ward studies where the researchers actually count and control the calorie intake.

The problem is, you can’t lock people in a hospital or research center ward for two years. So in this study, they used a food frequency questionnaire. Sure, like we believe what people report about their eating habits at restaurants and at home behind closed doors! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

“No! I swear Dr. Schwarzfuchs! I swear I didn’t eat those donuts over the weekend! I stayed on my Mediterranean diet. Honest!”

One of the most firmly established facts in dietetics research is that almost everyone underreports their food intake BADLY, sometimes by as much as 50%. I’m not saying everyone “lies,” they just forget or don’t know. In fact, this underreporting of calorie intake is such a huge problem that it makes obesity research very difficult to do and conclusions difficult to draw from free-living studies. Another blunder in the news reports is that this study didn’t really follow Atkins diet parameters OR even the traditional low fat diet for that matter, so it’s not an “Atkin’s versus Ornish” showdown at all. If you actually take the time to read the full text of the research paper it doesn’t say ANYTHING like, “Atkins is the best after all.” That’s the spin that some of the news media cooked up (and what the Atkins foundation was hoping for). It says, “The diet was based on the Atkins diet.” However, the sentence right before that says, “The participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.” Vegetarian Atkins? The chart on page 236 says the low carb diet provided 40% of calories from carbs at 6, 12 and 24 months. If I’m reading that data properly, then the only low carb period was a brief induction phase in the very beginning. Does that sound like Atkins? 40% carb sounds more like the Zone diet or my own Burn The Fat program to me.

The Atkins Foundation, which partially supported this study, told reporters, “We feel vindicated.” HA! They should have paid the reporters and told the researchers they felt ripped off and they wanted a refund for misuse of their research grant!

After carefully reading the full text of this study, there are many interesting findings we could talk about, from the differences in results between men and women to the improvements in health markers. Here’s what the study really says that stood out to me. It’s what I would have talked about if the newspapers or TV stations had called me:

1. “Mediterranean and low carb diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets.”

I can agree completely with that statement. All three diets created a calorie deficit. All three groups lost weight. Low carb lost a little more, which is the usual finding because low carb diets often control appetite and calorie intake automatically (you eat less even if you don’t count calories). Also, if body composition is not indicated, there’s an initial water weight loss that makes low carb diets look more effective in the very early stages.

2. “Personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.”

Absolutely! Nutrition should be individualized based on goals, health status, body type, activity level and numerous other factors. Different people have different phenotypes. Some people are more predisposed to thrive on a low carb approach. Others feel like crap on low carbs and do better with more carbs or a middle of the road approach. Those who dogmatically follow and defend one type of diet or the other are only handcuffing themselves by limiting their options. Iris Shai, a researcher in the study said, “We can’t rely on one diet fits all.” Hmm, far cry from “Atkins wins hands down,” wouldn’t you say?

3. “The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years.”

THIS was the part of most interest to me. When I read this, immediately I could have cared less about the silly low carb versus high carb wars that the news reporters were jumping on. I wanted to know WHY the subjects were able to stick with it so well. Of course, that’s boring stuff to journalists… adherence? What does that word mean anyway? Yawn - not interesting enough for prime time, I guess. But it was interesting to me, and I hope YOU pay attention to what I found. The authors of the study wrote:

“This trial suggests a model that might be applied more broadly in the workplace. Using the employer as a health coach could be an effective way to improve health. The model of group intervention with the use of dietary group sessions, spousal support, food labels, and monthly weighing in the workplace within the framework of a health promotion campaign might yield weight reduction and long term health benefits.”

Hmmmmm, lets see: * Dietician coaching
* Group meetings
* Motivational phone calls
* Spousal support
* Workplace monitoring (corporate health program)
* Food labels - calorie monitoring
* Weigh-ins (required and monitored)

Wow, everything helpful to long term fat loss that sticks. Can you say, ACCOUNTABILITY? These factors help explain the better adherence.

By the way, the adherence rate for the low carb group was the lowest.

90.4% in low fat group
85.3% in the Mediterranean group
78% in the low carb group

Here’s the bottom line, the way I see it:

First, please, please, please learn how to find and read primary research and take the news media stories with a grain of salt. If you want to know who died, what burned down or what hurricane is coming, tune in to the news – they do a GREAT job at that. If you want to know how to lose weight or improve your health, look up the original research papers instead of taking second hand information at face value.

Second, those who prefer a low carb approach; more power to them. Most studies, this one included, show at the very least that low carb is an option and it’s not necessarily an unhealthy one if done intelligently. I also have no qualms with someone claiming that low carb diets are slightly more effective for weight loss, especially in the short term, free living situations. Is low carb superior for fat loss in the long haul? That’s STILL highly debatable. It’s probably superior for some people, but not for others.

Third, low carb people, listen up! Even if low carb is superior, that doesn’t mean calories don’t count. Deny this at your own peril. In fact, this study shows the reverse. The low carb group was in a larger negative energy balance than the high carb and Mediterranean group (according to the data published in this paper), which easily explains the greater weight loss. Posting the calories contained in foods in the cafeteria may have improved the results and helped with compliance in all groups.

When energy intake is matched calorie for calorie, the advantage of a low carb diet shrinks or disappears. For most people, low carb is a hunger management or calorie control weight loss advantage, not metabolic magic (sorry, no magic folks!)

Fourth, choose the nutrition program that’s most appropriate for your personal preferences, your current health condition, your genetics (or phenotype) and most important of all… the one you can stick with. Then tend your own garden instead of wasting time criticizing how the other guy is eating. Your results will speak for themselves in the end. Take your shirt off and show us.

If I were forced to choose only one approach (and thank god I’m not), I would recommend avoiding the extremes of very low carb or very low fat or very high fat or very high carbs. Balance makes the most sense to me, and the research suggests that this helps produce the highest compliance rate. That’s not rocket science either, it’s common sense. If you have a serious fat loss goal, as when I compete in bodybuilding, then a further reduction in carbs and increase in protein makes perfect sense to me as a peaking diet. If an extremely low or extremely high carb diet worked for you, great. But generalizing your experience to the entire rest of the world makes no sense. Arguing from extremes is the weakest form of argument. The reason I have THREE nutrition plans (three phases) in my own fat loss program is because programs with flexibility and room for individualization beat the others hands down in the long term. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter in my e-book about unique body types, how to determine yours and how to individualize your nutrition – it’s THAT important. If you have more choices, you have more power. The people who are shackled by dogma and narrow thinking are stuck. They also risk missing what’s really important. Things like: Personalization
Adherence
Long-term Maintenance
Accountability
Social Support

and…

CALORIES!

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Fat Loss Coach
www.BurnTheFat.com
PS. If you want to learn more about a balanced, flexible and proven approach, which teaches nutritional individuality and which can produce similar weight loss in one month, month after month, that the subjects of this study produced in TWO YEARS, (if you ADHERE to it!), then visit my fat loss website.

About the Author:

The device allows people to work on their computers while walking on a
treadmill at a slow speed of up to three kilometers (two miles) per
hour, enabling small amounts of movement that supporters say have the
potential to reap big health benefits.

I don’t know do we really want this at work? That replace your chair with a ball thing was bad enough!

By: Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS
www.TurbulenceTraining.com

Cardio exercise is such a strange thing. In theory, it should work
so perfectly well for all men and women, but as anyone who has
tried it knows, the practicality of it just doesn’t add up.

After
all, some men and women do cardio 6 hours, 9 hours, or more per week,
and still have belly fat to burn. On the other hand, it works just fine
for others.

British researchers wanted to get more insight into this paradox,
and studied 35 overweight men and women, who weren’t previously
exercising.

(Reference: International Journal of Obesity 32: 177-184, 2008).

Subjects exercised 5 times per week for 12 weeks. That’s a lot of
exercise, but it helped the subjects lose an average of 8.2 pounds,
which is great - I was positively surprised by the results.

So cardio will work for some people, however, in my experience, it
works best in young men, who need the help the least!

Back to the study, the variance in fat loss between individuals was
huge. Check this out…

The best subject lost a staggering 32.3 pounds in 12 weeks, while
the worst subject actually GAINED 3.74 pounds.

The scientists think they know where things went sour. They
classified the subjects into 2 groups, called the “Compensators”
and the “Non-compensators”.

The Compensators were hungrier, and as a result consumed an extra
268 calories per day, all but wiping out their cardio efforts.

Therefore, the Compensators lost the least amount of weight, and
scientists believe that was due to the huge “compensatory” increase
in appetite experienced by this group.

Does your appetite increase when you do slow cardio? If it does,
research shows it will ruin your cardio efforts.

So if your cardio program is not working for you, check your
appetite and calorie intake to see if you are “compensating” for
your efforts. If you are, you might be better off using a program
of high-intensity resistance and interval training (i.e. Turbulence
Training) for your weight loss efforts.

As Australian Professor Steve Boucher has shown in research,
interval training increases hormones called catecholamines. And
increased catecholamines can reduce appetite, among other fat-
burning benefits.

In the real world, few people lose 33 pounds after 12 weeks of
cardio. Heck, few even achieve an average weight loss of 8 pounds
with aerobic exercise.

So again, check your appetite, and consider giving high-intensity
exercise a go for your next workout program.

Beat the curse of cardio with high-intensity Turbulence Training.

Craig Ballantyne, CSCS, MS
Author, Turbulence Training

About the Author

Learn about the “Dark Side of Cardio” in the free report from Craig Ballantyne at www.TurbulenceTraining.com.
Craig is a Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist and writes
for Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Maximum Fitness, Muscle and Fitness
Hers, and Oxygen magazines. His trademarked Turbulence Training fat
loss workouts have helped thousands of men and women around the world
lose fat, gain muscle, and get lean in less than 45 minutes three times
per week. For more information on the Turbulence Training workouts that
will help you burn fat without long, slow cardio sessions or fancy
equipment, visit www.TurbulenceTraining.com

High Intensity Interval Training, or HIIT for
short, has been promoted as one of the most effective training methods
ever to come down the pike, both for fat loss and for cardiovascular
fitness. One of the most popular claims for HIIT is that it burns
“9 times more fat” than conventional (steady state)
cardio. This figure was extracted from a study performed by Angelo
Tremblay at Laval University in 1994. But what if I told you that HIIT
has never been proven to be 9 times more effective than regular
cardio… What if I told you that the same study actually
shows that HIIT is 5 times less effective than steady state cardio???
Read on and see the proof for yourself.

“There are lies,
damned lies, and then there are statistics.”

- Mark Twain

The results: 3 times greater fat loss in
the HIIT group

“It appeared reasonable to
correct changes in subcutaneous fat for the total cost of training.
This was performed by expressing changes in subcutaneous skinfolds per
megajoule of energy expended in each program.”

The ET group lost 0.5 kilograms (60.6 kg before,
60.1 kg after).

Naturally, lack of weight loss while skinfolds
decrease could simply mean that body composition improved (lean mass
increased), but I think it’s important to highlight the fact
that the research study from which the “9 times more
fat” claim was derived did not result in ANY significant
weight loss after 15 weeks.

If I said 5 X greater weight loss with steady
state, I would be telling the truth, wouldn’t I? (100 grams
of weight loss vs 500 grams?) Of course, that would be misleading
because the weight loss was hardly significant in either group and
because interval training IS highly effective. I’m simply
being a little facetious in order to make a point: Be careful with
statistics. I have seen statistical manipulation used many times in
other contexts to deceive unsuspecting consumers.

Back to the HIIT story –
there’s even more to it.

In the ET group, there were some funky skinfold and circumference
measurements. ALL of the skinfold measurements in the ET group either
stayed the same or went down except the calf measurement, which went
up.

The girths and skinfold measurements in the limbs
went down in the HIIT group, but there wasn’t much difference
between HIIT and ET in the trunk skinfolds. These facts are all very
easy to miss. I didn’t even notice it myself until exercise
physiologist Christian Finn pointed it
out to me. Christian said,

“When you look at the changes
in the three skinfold measurements taken from the trunk, there
wasn’t that much difference between the steady state group
(-6.3mm) and the HIIT group (-8.7 mm). So, much of the difference in
subcutaneous fat loss between the groups wasn’t because the
HIIT group lost more fat, but because the steady state group actually
gained fat around the calf muscles. We shouldn’t discount
simple measurement error as an explanation for these rather odd
results.”

“So while this study is
interesting, weaknesses in the methods used to track changes in body
composition mean that we should treat the results and conclusions with
some caution.”

“For a given level of energy
expenditure, a high intensity training program induces a greater loss
of subcutaneous fat compared with a training program of moderate
intensity.”

My intentions for writing this article
were four-fold:

1. To encourage you to question where claims come
from, especially if they sound too good to be true.

2. To alert you to how advertisers might use research such as this to
exaggerate with statistics.

3. To encourage the fitness community to swing the pendulum back to
center a bit, by not over-selling the benefits of HIIT beyond what can
be supported by the scientific research.

4. To encourage the fitness community, that even as they praise HIIT,
not to condemn lower and moderate intensity forms of cardio.

Tom Venuto,
NSCA-CPT, CSCS

Fat Loss Coach

www.BurnTheFat.com

Reference:
Tremblay, Angelo, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness
and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. Vol 43. no 7 (July). Pp
814-818. 1994..

About
the Author:

Maintaining sufficient Vitamin D will do that according to a recent study. Modern life puts us inside more than out, which could lead many to have chronic low levels even in summer. This study showed even slightly low levels could elevate your risk. Are you getting the recommended daily dose of vitamin D? That may not be enough:

“Vitamin D deficiency has been related to an increasing number of conditions and to total mortality. These results further support an important role for vitamin D in myocardial infarction risk,” the authors conclude. “Thus, the present findings add further support that the current dietary requirements of vitamin D need to be increased to have an effect on circulating 25(OH)D [vitamin D] levels substantially large enough for potential health benefits.” - from ScienceDaily.com

Here is an earlier post I did on Vit D that gives you some guide lines.

If you are starting a weight loss program, it may be helpful for you to
know that there are some simple steps you can take to make any weight
loss program more effective. We will share 7 tips that have been proven
successful by millions of weight loss participants in any weight loss
program of their choice.

Weight Loss Tip #1: Realistic Goals
The fastest way to lose
motivation is to set unrealistic weight loss goals for yourself before
you even start your weight loss program, ask yourself some simple
questions-What do you want to achieve from this weight loss program?
and How much weight do you want to lose in a day, a week or a month.
Remember that each small goal you achieve will propel you closer to
your final destination. But if you set unrealistic goals, you will only
end up in frustration and disappointment when they are not achieved,
even when you are making significant progress in your weight loss
goals.

Weight Loss Tip # 2: Preparation is the Key
Now is the time to
start a new lifestyle and start getting rid of your junk food, your
colas in the refrigerator, those puddings and those chocolates you
stash in your drawer! Make a new list of the food you need and start
stocking on them in large quantities. Include vegetables, fruits,
healthy snacks, mineral waters and vitamins and minerals supplements
you may need.

Weight Loss # 3: Reward system
Give yourself a pat on the back
and create a reward system for your weight loss program. For instance,
you may want to get yourself a new shoe, a new CD or even a new handbag
if you reach a certain point in your weight loss efforts.

Weight Loss # 4: Healthy Breakfast
This is the most
important meal that you should never miss. Skipping breakfast means
that you are programming your brain to think that you hungry starved
and deprived, this will only cause you to feel lethargic and when the
pressure is too much, you may decide to embark on an eating binge. This
is sheer suicide to your weight loss program!

Weight Loss # 5: Exercise
For long lasting effects and
to boost the rate of your weight loss, this is one important activity
you must inculcate into your routine. No weight loss program can be
successful without a good exercise program. Choose a good exercise
program that lets you burn fat and gives a good cardiovascular exercise
at the same time.

Weight Loss # 6: Sleep
Always get enough sleep during your
weight loss program. A normal adult would need an approximately 7-8
hours of sleep a day. This help to keep your bodily system working in
perfect order, which is crucial to the success of your weight loss
program.

Weight Loss Tip 7:Relaxation
This is important in any weight
loss program and you should make relaxation a crucial apart of your
schedule. Meditation, relaxation and affirmations can help boost your
confidence and make the process more enjoyable.

By following these seven simple tips, you can start seeing results
in your efforts to lose weight. Be consistent and make them part of
your lifestyle and success in your weight loss program is assured.