One of the hottest fitness topics today hasbeen the curious case of low carb diets.
Hinging on the idea that restricting carbscan prove beneficial primarily through insulin
modulation, the low carb craze grew even morepopular as its weight loss potential was enthralled
by nutrition experts and struggling dietersalike.
Unfortunately, much of the current researchdon’t exactly have stellar praise for the
low-carb agenda, struggling to outperformany other diet as long as protein and calories
are matched.
Not to be rifled by the evidence, low-carbadvocates disagree with much of the said research,
citing issues like the studies were too short,there were not enough subjects, and/or conflicts
of interest.
Along with existence of PRO-low-carb studies,which themselves have a fair share of conflicts,
the low-carb narrative continues to truckalong.
Fortunately for us, science is persistent.
A new study coming out of Stanford Universityand from the lab of Dr. Christopher Gardner
and his colleagues might finally put the brakeson the low-carb hype.
This randomized clinical trial bolsters animpressive 609 participants.
Setting it apart even more is that the interventionwas 12 months long with an impressive 79 percent
participant retention rate.
And not to settle for knocking out two ofthe three issues of past studies, the research
was also funded by the US National Institutesof Health AND the Nutrition Science Initiative,
aka NuSI.
NuSI was co-founded by nutrition expert andprominent low-carb advocate, Gary Taubes.
The mission of the study:Pitting low-fat versus low-carb diets.
Which one is better for weight loss?
Out of the 609 subjects, 305 were randomizedto the low-fat diet group and 304 were randomized
into low-carbs.
Additionally, all subjects were stratifiedinto different genotype groups.
The hypothesis is that each individual mightperform better on a specific diet that their
genotype favored.
Subjects were also given oral glucose tolerancetests to see if insulin production levels
have any association to the effects of eitherdiet.
The subjects at hand were both men and women,on average roughly 40 years old, and classified
as obese on the BMI scale (33).
Throughout the entire 12-month intervention,22 instructional sessions led by registered
dietitians were given for each group.
The goal was to educate the participants oneating habits such as eating whole foods instead
of processed food and mindful vs mindlesseating.
As for the diet, each group were told to limiteither fat or carb intake to 20 grams or fewer
per day for the first 2 months.
Afterwards, they had the opportunity to addmore carbs or fat but only up to the point
where they felt that they can sustain thediet indefinitely.
Participants were also given random 24-hourdietary multi-pass recalls, a program that
is essentially myfitnesspal on steroids.
They also had blood lipid profiles and respiratoryexchange ratio changes measured, which can
indicate changes in energy metabolism favoringfat or carbs.
By the end of the study, the low-fat groupon average consumed 57 grams of fat per day
and the low-carb group went up to 132 gramsof carbs per day.
And finally, the results:The little things first:
As mentioned earlier, 79% of the participants,or 481, completed the entire intervention.
There we no significant differences in calorieintake between both groups.
No significant differences in protein intakebut low-carb did consume a slight 12 grams
more per day.
No significant differences in fiber intakebut low-fat did tend to consume slightly more
due to the diet’s high-carb nature.
No differences in physical activity.
Low-carb group did see greater changes favoringa healthier cholesterol profile by roughly
5%.
Plus, no significant effects based on genotypepatterns nor insulin level production.
And finally,At the end of the 12-month program, the low-carb
group lost 13.2 pounds (6kg) and the low-fatgroup lost 11.7 pounds.
For a 12-month span, the difference is notconsidered statistically significant nor clinically
relevant.
And there we have it.
After a rigorous 12 months, this study showsthat there’s simply no practical advantage
to either diet when it comes to weight loss.
But what’s fascinating about this studyto me is the absence of counting calories.
That’s not to say that calories aren’timportant.
Based on the participants’ reports, theywere still achieving a calorie deficit of
around 4 to 500 calories, inaccuracies notwithheld.
But the fact that they didn’t count ANDachieved a deficit ties the importance of
the other factors in this study: creatinga sustainable approach by having participants
choose their OWN level of carb/fat restriction,and counseling them to make better food decisions
and eating habits.
Granted, to some, the final tally of 132 gramsof carbs in the low-carb group wouldn’t
exactly be considered a low-carb diet, butit’s still significantly lower than where
the participants started.
In an interview with Examine.com, Dr. ChristopherGardner, the lead author, explained the rationale
of this approach.
The goal was to find the lowest level of carbor fat intake participants could achieve without
feeling hungry.
If hunger was an issue with lower intakes,that can lead to people jumping off the diet
and revert back to old eating habits.
The goal was to create new eating patternsthat were sustainable without thinking of
it as a “diet.”
ADHERENCE was the goal and something so oftenignored when it comes to dieting that needs
the utmost attention.
I fully agree with the rationale of this study.
Stick with the plan that allows YOU to feelfull, satisfied, and consume fewer calories.
If that means fewer carbs, then great.
If that means less fat, then awesome as well.
As long as the foundation of eating more wholefoods and less processed junk is in order,
which Dr. Gardner also suggests, then everythingelse, and everyONE else, is simply noise.
Except protein.
Get your protein.
If you want a more in-depth look at this study,check out Examine.com’s amazing analysis
and breakdown of it in the link below.
I also wanted to thank them for allowing methe permission to use their work to support
this video.
You can also check out the study itself inthe link below.
Also, let me know your thoughts on this studyand the whole low-carb/low-fat debate in general.
What’s your take on the matter?
Feel free to also check out some of my merchand my patreon if you want to further support
study breakdowns like this or all the othercontent you might enjoy on my channel.
I know this was a longer video, but as always,thank you so much for watching and get your
protein!
The ongoing debate of low carb versus low fat (or any other diet really) for weight loss might have finally found a resolution. Is the low-carb hype as great as it has been touted to be? Examine.com's article on the study ► https://goo.gl/odLZTm The study itself ►https://goo.gl/2GLvkb ****************************************************************** Support PictureFit! MERCH! ► https://picfitshop.com Patreon ► https://goo.gl/lmsWf7 Amazon Affiliate Link (Simply shop using this link and I get a kickback. No added charge!) ► https://goo.gl/FLN5pw ****************************************************************** Come join PictureFit! Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/PictureFitYT/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/Picture_Fit Instagram ► https://instagram.com/picturefit/ Please Like and Subscribe! ****************************************************************** Awesome PF Patrons Wall: Anime Jesus! Music by Aso (Chillhop) - Ultra Violet https://soundcloud.com/aricogle/aso-ultra-violet Picturefit on YouTube! I share some of my health and fitness tips with you. Come check out our content! New fitness topics on a weekly basis. Want to learn about more health and fitness topics? Ask it in the comments! Learn all you need to know and what to do at the gym. Learn about aerobics, strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance! Any information in these videos should not be taken as personal healthcare advice. If you have questions about your health, please speak directly to your personal healthcare professional.