• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Low carb or low fat ? A new study

NicoleC1971

NicoleC1971

BANNED
Messages
3,450
Location
Epsom
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2018/02/low-fat-or-low-carb-its-a-draw-study-finds.html
image.img.full.high.jpg



This is from Stanford University. A randomised 1 year study tracking 600 adults and also measuring genetic markers as well as their insulin levels (to establish a tendency to diabetes) with the hypothesis being that those who are hyperinsuleamic should respond better to a low carb regime.
They were given a strict diet initially then instructed to add back in carbs or fat to a level which they felt they could sustain in the long term so the 'low carb' folk ended up eating 147g per day of carbs. Everyone was told to eat high quality foods (non processed Both groups lost similar average amounts of weight but with wide variations in each group (some people gained weight whereas others lost a lot more than the average of 13ib!).
The take home for me is that you put a bunch of people who are currently eating the SAD (standard American Diet) and tell them to eat non processed foods (so less sugar and more fibre) and cut back on either fat or carbs, they will improve their nutritional status and end up eating less naturally.
I still think that if you are a type 2 diabetic your toleranace of carbohydrates is lower than a non diabetic by definition and you will need to find your own 'sweet spot' of carbs to lose weight/manage blood sugars back to normality!
 
This study does highlight one complaint by LCHF researchers/proponents.

The "low carbohydrate" component of almost 150 grams of carbohydrate a day would not qualify as "low carbohydrate" in the LCHF and keto world, and would be unlikely to switch the metabolism from carbohydrate burning to fat burning as the primary energy source.

This comes across more as a calorie restriction diet with a different nutrient profile.
 
Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 10.20.20.png I'm surprised it was such a poorly designed study.
Also interestingly the Low Carb group in fact lost more weight, lost more waist inches, lost more body fat, and reduced their BMI more.
They raised their HDL more and reduced their triglycerides more.
Most of these differences were I think quite significant.
Just imagine what would have happened if they had followed a keto diet.!
Also please note that people with Type 2 were specifically excluded from the study.
 
To be fair, as already noted, that's not "Low carb" enough to trigger the body to start using other macronutrients and would still leave participants hungry and craving carbs. It also makes me profoundly sad that T2's were excluded.

Interesting, but ultimately disappointing for me, but thanks to @NicoleC1971 and @Boo1979 for the info.
 
Does anyone have any more references to articles showing the benefits of keto/LCHF for type ones from reputable medical journals, please? I’d like to take a couple along to my next hospital appointment in March. Thanks in advance :rolleyes:
 
bulkbiker said:
View attachment 25349 I'm surprised it was such a poorly designed study.
Also interestingly the Low Carb group in fact lost more weight, lost more waist inches, lost more body fat, and reduced their BMI more.
They raised their HDL more and reduced their triglycerides more.
Most of these differences were I think quite significant.
Just imagine what would have happened if they had followed a keto diet.!
Also please note that people with Type 2 were specifically excluded from the study.
Click to expand...
Each group were told to start at v low level for 8 weeks ( 20g carbs for the low carb arm and 20g fat for the low fat group) then to increase in 5-10g increments to an individual level they could sustain.
The study excluded those with an established T2 diagnosis but did measure participants pre and post study response to an oral glucose tolerance test and found no significant difference in pre and post test results between either arm of the study.
Both arms were told to significantly reduce sugar and refined cereal intake and to significantly increase intake of green veg and unprocessed foods.
 
Last edited:
SockFiddler said:
To be fair, as already noted, that's not "Low carb" enough to trigger the body to start using other macronutrients and would still leave participants hungry and craving carbs. It also makes me profoundly sad that T2's were excluded.

Interesting, but ultimately disappointing for me, but thanks to @NicoleC1971 and @Boo1979 for the info.
Click to expand...
All participants were directed to eat to satiety following whatever diet they were allocated to. Both arms were directed to start at a v low carb or fat level (20g daily) for 8 weeks then slowly adjust to a level they found personally sustainable in the longer term
 
Boo1979 said:
Both arms were told to significantly reduce sugar and refined cereal intake and to significantly increase intake of green veg and unprocessed foods.
Click to expand...
Which means that both arms probably reduced their processed carb intake anyway.. still interesting to see that the lower carb group had better results even with those criteria.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
This study does highlight one complaint by LCHF researchers/proponents.

The "low carbohydrate" component of almost 150 grams of carbohydrate a day would not qualify as "low carbohydrate" in the LCHF and keto world, and would be unlikely to switch the metabolism from carbohydrate burning to fat burning as the primary energy source.

This comes across more as a calorie restriction diet with a different nutrient profile.
Click to expand...
The almost 150g was the average level people in the low carb group found sustainable in the long term. , the starting point was 20g carbs for 8 weeks in the low carb arm and 20g fat in the low fat arm.
 
bulkbiker said:
Which means that both arms probably reduced their processed carb intake anyway.. still interesting to see that the lower carb group had better results even with those criteria.
Click to expand...
Yes re the overall reduction by both groups which I think is the most salient factor
No in terms of the low carb group having “better results” - apart from trigs, the average differences were small and statistically insignificant
 
Boo1979 said:
Yes re the overall reduction by both groups which I think is the most salient factor
No in terms of the low carb group having “better results” - apart from trigs, the average differences were small and statistically insignificant
Click to expand...
And the lowerish carb group lost 11% more weight... not significant?
 
bulkbiker said:
And the lowerish carb group lost 11% more weight... not significant?
Click to expand...
Where does 11% come from? Its not in what I have read. What you posted earler shows a 0.7% difference between the 2 groups over tha 12 months in terms of % wight loss

Both groups appear to have some people who lost loads of weight (60 plus pounds) and others who gained up to 20pounds
 
Boo1979 said:
Where does 11% come from? Its not in what I have read.
Both groups appear to have some people who lost loads of weight (60 plus pounds) and others who gained up to 20pounds
Click to expand...
Check out the table I posted.. it has the data from the study so far as I m aware. Post 4 above
The lower carb group lost an average of 5.99kg the low fat 5.29kg 11% diff between those two.
 
I did look at the table, it gives a 0.7% difference in weight loss between the 2 groups
 
My misreading.
Average 0.7kg difference in weight reduction but wider variability across the 2 groups in absolute amount
only 0.3 average difference between the groups in terms of bmi change

Edit.
The other point re statistics and statistical significance is that there is a difference between comparing the significance of the differences between the averaged data as opposed to differences in the overall raw data between groups. Its many years since I studied statistics ( A level and first degree level) but weighted average ( to reflect differences in overall variability ) comes to mind - Im sure the researchers would be using fancy stats software when determining which things are statistically significant and which are not
 
Last edited:
I suppose we can now conclude that low carb is as safe as low fat.

Perhaps the next step should be to move on with T2D subjects....
 
NicoleC1971 said:
I still think that if you are a type 2 diabetic your toleranace of carbohydrates is lower than a non diabetic by definition and you will need to find your own 'sweet spot' of carbs to lose weight/manage blood sugars back to normality!
Click to expand...

In the same way that some people are lactose or gluten intolerant, some of us are carb intolerant and well before a type II diagnosis.
 
Mel dCP said:
Does anyone have any more references to articles showing the benefits of keto/LCHF for type ones from reputable medical journals, please? I’d like to take a couple along to my next hospital appointment in March. Thanks in advance :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hi. There is a good study being done by David Ludwig (Harvard School of Public Health) but not sure when it reports. It seems to be well designed in that it has the participants in residence where their diets can be controlled rather than the usual reliance on remote compliance and dietary recall! https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../nutrition-science-isnt-broken-its-just-wicked-hard/
Anyway that is not helpful for March. Off the top of my head the A-Z study was also done by Standord and compared Ornish (low fat, high in wholesome carbs), Atkins and The Zone. I have heard it cited in many books on the topic: It should be noted that Atkins is not true Keto as it has lots of protein and does not promote non starchy carbs.
Phinney and Volek are keto advocates who do lots of keto/exercise studies - see YouTube.
med.stanford.edu/nutrition/nutrition-studies...studies/comparative-weight-loss.html
Hope your docs are more interested than mine have been when discussing these topics! Mine are rather patronising and tell me that fat is fattening even though I am not fat and have great hdl/trigs!
 
Back
Top