Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The evidence for low calorie diets

  1. #1
    Club Host Zoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Wales, in the countryside
    Posts
    3,936

    Default The evidence for low calorie diets

    Hi all - trying some new technology here, so I hope this works.

    Below should appear a chart from a 2007 obesity journal. Franz et al did what is called a systematic review of 80 studies of 8 different types of diet - you can see the 8 different options on the chart - from black (advice alone - makes no difference whatsoever) to light blue (lighter life kind of liquid diet - big loss and big rapid regain). I wrote a full article on this in Issue 2 of Diet & Health today and please note the caution for the one that looks like it might work - Sibutramine (a drug). This was withdrawn earlier this year due to the number of heart deaths being seen in people taking the drug. The final data point was also based on only one study and this was showing a rise for that study (the 6 and 12 month data points were based on about 7 studies overall - so the 18 mth point is a rogue number and is not useful). The drug trials done on Sibutramine generally were little different to the placebo.

    The overall conclusion of the study was that the people who managed to stay on their programme (a third didn't) - were on average 3-6 kg down after 4 years. i.e. less than a stone down at 4 years. That's the complete evidence for eat less/do more dieting! Incredible - why is that not on the front page of every newspaper?!

    I have done some analysis in the forthcoming book on low carb diets and their performance with weight loss is hugely better, but weight loss is still not easy - boy don't we all know that! If we were told honestly how difficult this would be - I wonder how many of us would go a bit wild on a holiday or during a pregnancy etc and think it would be easy to lose afterwards. This is the toughest thing we will ever battle - but it can be done! Not with calorie deprivation however

    Bye for now - Zoe




    (Zoe Fave)
    "Those who are enlightened before the others are condemned to pursue that light in spite of others." Christopher Columbus ("1492")

  2. #2
    Forum Guest Laura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    4,675

    Default

    They aren't on the front pages because they'd have to give up their little slogan: "eat less do more" and I doubt they have any imagination as to how they could replace it. It's all down to marketing and not knowing their science. Really drives me mad!

  3. #3
    Supermember 2010-14 hattie the cattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Vale of Glamorgan, Wales
    Posts
    12,650

    Default

    It worked - very interesting Zoe.

    Thanks

  4. #4
    Supermember 2010-14 Lird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Posts
    2,552

    Default

    I love this graph! It is such perfect evidence against calorie counting! The only thing that would have been better is if they had a low carb line on there as well, I would be intrigued to see what that would look like against all of these other options.

  5. #5
    Club Host Zoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    South Wales, in the countryside
    Posts
    3,936

    Default

    I've just got a table in the book on low cal vs low carb. I'll try and plot it on a graph - low carb does well in the numbers (no surprise!)
    "Those who are enlightened before the others are condemned to pursue that light in spite of others." Christopher Columbus ("1492")

  6. #6

    Default

    This graph just shows me that most people are not good at maintaining their weight loss after they have lost it, probably through gradually returning to their previous (over)eating habits.

    The fact is that all the dieting groups lost weight and the very low calorie group lost an astounding amount of weight (as the energy-balance equation would predict) and, whilst regaining a portion of it, were still lighter after 4 years than they started. So how do you reconcile this with Zoe's comments in the Sun yesterday that

    "There's no doubt that calorie-counting will make you put on weight"

    "If you cut your calories your body will fight you at every step. You won't lose weight but you will be malnourished"

    ?
    They counted calories, they lost weight. They didn't gain it.

    Also when do we get to see the 4 year results of people who followed the Harcombe diet or any other similar non-counting eating method?

  7. #7
    Supermember 2010-14 hattie the cattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Vale of Glamorgan, Wales
    Posts
    12,650

    Default

    I'm not sure 6Kg at 36 months counts as an astounding amount of weight !

  8. #8

    Default

    It is the green diet and exercise one that gets me every time: If ever a graph proved that eat less + do more doesn't work it is this one

    With the exception of the 'drug induced loss' how come everyone gained weight after 6 months?? Are ALL the people on them weak willed - Or are they suffering from one or all of the 3 conditions that cause food cravings?
    The worst bigots in the world are those who most loudly proclaim their ‘tolerance’

  9. #9

    Default

    Mark - a long time ago I lost 4 stones over 12 months on 1000calories a day. I never felt well during that year.

    I then returned to eating UP TO the recommended 2000 calories a day. This consisted of large amounts of carbohydrates, lots of fruit and veg, and some (very small amounts of) meat, fish and eggs.
    In the following 26 years continuing to eat the so-called "healthy" diet of low calorie, high carb content and between 1500 and 2000 calories a day, I put on SEVEN stones.

    I have been on THD now for ten months and have lost 2 1/2 stones so far. I have no idea how many calories I am eating but rarely eat carbs. I also feel fitter then I can remember, probably since teenage.

    I am happy to be recorded 38 months from now.

  10. #10
    jinx81
    Visitor

    Default


    Quote Originally Posted by hattie the cattie View Post
    I'm not sure 6Kg at 36 months counts as an astounding amount of weight !

    It's not quite a stone is it? About 13 lbs?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO