Largest study ever conducted on weight-loss methods

[art_z]

Originally Posted by loudboy

I would imagine that the one takeaway from all of this is that if you burn more calories than you consume, you'll lose weight?

correct, the easy part is knowing how much you are taking in. the hard part, is to know how many calories you are expending daily.

[Dave2512]

Originally Posted by A-Bone

This is a good recent article that demonstrates that keeping weight off is considerably more difficult than initial weight loss, and also not nearly as simple as "calories in, calories out" or "more exercise, less food."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/ma...pagewanted=all

I read several passages in the article that state those that are successful at losing weight and keeping it off did so by counting calories to be sure they didn't consume a surplus. The article covers a lot of ground.

[offbeat]

Originally Posted by pinhooker

People like to make weight loss ALOT more complicated than it really is.

My father told me once that when he graduated from boot camp (WWII), everyone in his class was at their ideal weight.
Everyone did the same amount of work, everyone ate the same amount of calories. The fat kids slimmed down, the skinny kids bulked up.
Sure makes sense to me.

[Guitar Josh]

What a total waste of money and this this study was.

The equation is and always: less calories consumed + more energy expended = weight loss.

This will never change, and these people are morons for wasting good time and money trying to prove otherwise.

[Jim S]

In other breaking common sense news, don't touch a hot stove.

[Cap'n Fingers]

Originally Posted by JoeB63

Unless eating less fat leaves you more hungry and drive you to eat crazy amounts of carbs ----- which is what happens to many people who try to be strict low-fat eaters.

Some people will eat less overall calories on a higher fat diet.

Fat in does not really = fat gained. The fun fact coming to light is that saturated fats alone do not = coronary artery disease. Chew on that one.

[oldhousescott]

OK, I'm no scientist, but a couple of things jump out at me in the linked study.

1. The diets characterized by the OP as Ornish, Atkins, or South Beach in the study really aren't. The lowest amount of carbs by percent in any of the four diets was 35%, perhaps a lower carb diet, but hardly a low-carb diet. Applying that percentage to the amount of calories the participants were instructed to consume, (about 1600 to 1700), means they were eating at least 140 grams of carbs a day. Atkins induction phase starts at somewhere around 20 grams and increases only until you achieve stability at your desired new weight. I doubt the high-carb diet could be classified as Ornish as well since his diet is very much a vegetarian diet.

2. Note that this study uses an "Intention to Treat (ITT)" statistical model. That means that data for those who drop out of the study (who presumably had problems following the protocol) is still included in the results, and missing data is totally fabricated by the researchers. In this case, it was assumed that those who dropped out would continue to gain weight from the dropout point to the end of the 2 year study. Check out these two articles by Dr. Richard Feinman about the problem attendant with ITT.
ITT part 1
ITT part 2

3. Other possible problems are that the data pertaining to diet adherence was reported by the participants, not directly measured by the researchers. Of course, who would participate in a study for two years where the researchers watched you eat every meal and had a way to ensure you didn't cheat, and who would pay for such a study? At best, this is a mix between a clinical study and an observational study.

I think the main thing this study showed is how hard it is to lose weight and keep it off by using caloric restriction.