Helge – nobody here actually claimed it doesn’t work, merely that it doesn’t work any better than any other diet. It is the restriction of caloric intake and watching what you eat that makes low carb work – not the fact that it is low carb.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/a-low-carb-diet-superior-for-overweight-children-once-again

But, whatever.

I lost more than 1/3 of my body weight at the rate of a pound a week, going from obese to a BMI of 21. I reduced the calories in and increased the calories out through exercise, so that I ran a deficit of about 500 calories a day. I am now working to maintain my weight. And it is work. I think about food a lot. I want to eat more than I eat. Every single day. Maintenance is where most people fail. There are things a person can do to improve their odds, but no matter what the odds are not good. I count my calories, keep a food journal, keep a moving average of my weight so I can catch slips quickly, I exercise 6 to 7 hours a week, primarily cycling and weight training. I pay attention to triggers (stimuli) that lead to an eating response. I think that many have to have a single-minded focus on their weight to keep it off. And even then, biology may very well trump tenacity.

I am considered a nay-sayer on a forum that has weight loss and exercise a topic. Maybe that is true. But being aware that the battle is not over when the weight is lost, but may continue for the indefinite future can help you be prepared. And to decide if you want to have a lifestyle that may require you to be a bit obsessed.

Just eating whatever a person likes because it tastes good is a terrible strategy

Of course. Because people tend to overeat massively.

Furthermore, different people respond differently to different foods. While this may seem to be making a simple issue more complicated, there are considerations that need to be taken into account for more optimal fat loss/lean tissue retention.

They respond differently… psychologically. In terms of weight loss (fat loss specifically) they don’t. We aren’t talking about cardiovascular or other health here. I agree that eating a strict 1000kcal diet of absolutely nothing but pure lard would have very bad health consequences – first hypovitaminoses, then (if you managed to live long enough), cardiovascular disease, and probably colon cancer. However, you would still lose fat.

One of the problems, IMO, is that as a society we’ve gotten too used to eating whatever we like wheneverwe like and we tend to choose foods that are calorically dense and low in quality nutrients based on taste preference, and that’s what we’re used to getting all the time.

I fully agree. It makes it much easier to eat too many calories. And that’s the point.

I think we all agree with you that a varied diet with lean meats, fruits, and veg is overall the healthiest. And that sticking to a low-calorie diet while still eating low-nutrient calorie dense foods is hard and distinctly sub-optimal.

But that in no way contradicts the notion that the ultimate crux of fat loss is calories in and out. If your vitamin, mineral, and protein needs are met, it does not matter one whit where they come from as long as your calories in are less than out. And once you are at ideal weight, it continues not to matter where they come from as long as calories in is equal to out.

There is no compelling evidence or logic for anything else.

“While this may seem to be making a simple issue more complicated, there are considerations that need to be taken into account for more optimal fat loss/lean tissue retention.”

Maybe we will understand you more if you give us more information about your recommendations.

Case study: 38yo 5’10” 195lbs BMI=28 (normal muscle tone), looking to lose weight and reduce risk of heart disease

First you would probably get his dietary habits which will probably be fast food, eating out, snacks…etc. You’ll add up the calories and realize that it’s about what you’d expect for a person with a BMI 28. From here I would talk mainly about behavior changes to address caloric intake and a little about fats (eg. chick-fil-a is good because they use canola oil)

While I believe you would spend much more time talking about nutrient distribution (eg amino acids, carbs, fats amounts)…tell me if I’m mistaken. Can you please tell us the macronutrient distribution you would give?

The problem is his macronutrient distribution could be many things because it depends on culture, dietary beliefs, and is difficult to change where focus should be on food access or calorie intake. So in order for me to be convinced your macronutrient distribution is important I need you to demonstrate a tight correlation between specific nutrient compositions and weight. You have not shown that.

I think one can easily conclude that there are instances where too little dietery protein, or even fat, calories can impede bodyfat loss and cause muscle atrophy, when dieting.

That’s not what you said before, and it’s not what I am objecting to. You said that when on a weight-loss diet you can lose weight while gaining % body fat. I have asked you twice to present evidence—data—not conjecture, to support your claim. You have utterly failed to do so.

I cannot concede that a diet of pizza, cookies, and soda is going to provide equal results in health and body composition as a diet of fibrous veggies, lean proteins, and healthy fats, when calories are the same.

That is utterly banal; no one would argue with that. But that was not your only point, and not what everyone has been arguing with you about.

Jay

I disagree here. You are missing the most important factor: the problem is not “whatever” or “whenever” it is “how much of whatever.”

You also keep saying here that there is clinical evidence to back this up, but for the most part I am in agreement with Steve’s perspective on this (and nygbrus, I think) and I haven’t seen anything compelling from your posts that indicate that we are missing somehting.

That is not to say that on an individual basis you can not pinpoint particular approaches that would be helpful… I am sure that that is true. Perhaps for a given person cutting out their tendency to buy cookies or soda would make a big difference for that person (because a disproportionate amount of calories for this person comes from these foods), or incorporating more vegetables for a person who always eats fast foods (to displace some of the high calorie foods), but beyond this I think you are overinterpreting the basic science beyond what it can say when applying advice to a population.

“You mention diets with too little protein”
I only bring this up because I was challenged on the point about bodyfat percentage. I’ve been trying to get away from that because it’s off topic, and I do feel I’ve demonstrated that enough with the links I provided above.

I don’t think I’m conflating anything here, and here’s why – the suggestion here is that ultimately the most effective form of weight loss is simply reduction in calories, that ultimately, the types of foods eaten don’t really matter (ultimately meaning over time in the end with all other things being equal). It’s my contention, however, that food choices do matter and people who focus on the kinds of foods they eat will typically have better fat loss success and healthier outlooks. Not only are there plenty of case studies to this effect, there is clinical evidence it’s true. It’s perhaps the case that the misunderstanding of the clinical data in dealing with overall populations, varying macronutrient intake doesn’t have an overall net effect, it’s the calories only that count, which I’m not disputing – it’s the kind of foods chosen WITHIN those macros that makes a difference.

Just eating whatever a person likes because it tastes good is a terrible strategy and one reason society has such a problem, and I can and have provided clinical evidence for this in the past when this subject has come up, and can do so now if need be. Furthermore, different people respond differently to different foods. While this may seem to be making a simple issue more complicated, there are considerations that need to be taken into account for more optimal fat loss/lean tissue retention.

One of the problems, IMO, is that as a society we’ve gotten too used to eating whatever we like wheneverwe like and we tend to choose foods that are calorically dense and low in quality nutrients based on taste preference, and that’s what we’re used to getting all the time. So then there’s a psychological component to deal with of habit change when trying to add more healthy foods that gets people in trouble by sabotaging their weight loss indulging in the foods they like. It’s been my experience with clients that when they’re serious about permanent fat loss and good health, cleaning up the diet is a big factor, and there is clinical evidence to back this up, loads of it.

You keep conflating weight loss with other things, and you ocassionally make assertions that have little/no clinical evidence. No one (here) is saying that what you eat doesn’t matter in an absolute sense, or that what people eat never matters for anything, but you are complicating a more simple discussion about weight loss by introducing other considerations that are only related topics.

You mention diets with too little protein, and that is pretty rare in the population we are talking about here… overweight people on a “Western” diet. I agree that for most people adding vegetables would help: it is at least a 2 fold effect of reducing calories and displacing less healthy foods, but for the weight loss aspect of it- the important factor is how many calories less the new diet is. This will help, but only if it is a diet that the person enjoys… more restrictive diets fail from that angle and almost always become temporary