The Israeli Study, Dr Mike's post today

[Benay]

I was interested in the post by Dr Mike today and followed the link he supplied to the actual published study in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here I found that the women on the Med diet plan lost more weight than the women on the low carb plan. I also noticed that the low carbers had unlimited calories while the Med and low fat diet plans included calories restrictions. Fascinating. Excellent study design.

Anyway, I am becoming more and more convinced, based on the readings here in the Discussion Forums that women on the low carb diet need calorie restriction as well as carb restriction whereas the men do not need the calorie controls for some reason. Wonder what it is and who will do the study to reveal the hidden nature of gender related fat issues. It is not in this study.

I was also interested in the fact that the highest drop out rate was for the low carb group. Again I wondered why as we did not see that finding for the 2007 Standord/JAMA study.

So great to see real research on diet and to read conclusions that don't seem to meet any political agenda. I really liked their advice for clinicians to make diet related recommendations based upon individual needs and not just recommend one diet plan. Great stuff!

[maxlharris]

I think it's harder to do LC and keep kosher, something they do in Israel. Imagine: no cheese made with rennet, no shellfish or bottom feeders, no cream/butter sauces for meats, no pork of any sort. It's a little limiting, especially since a lot of the attraction to the diet is being able to have cheese, do cream sauces, do buffalo wings with a cream sauce, do butter sauces, eat bacon. No pork rinds.

On the other hand, the quibble with the study that some have raised, might point the way. The "Atkins dieters" were taking in nearly 200g of carbs daily. While lower than others, this is still very high for a supposedly ketogenic diet. In fact, it's well over any estimated ketogenic level. Which makes it a puzzling occurrence. It could be that they were hungry, due to carb consumption. Just a thought.

Lastly: the study was partially (or completely depending on the source you read) funded by the Atkins institute. Hard to suggest it wasn't performed to fit a political agenda. The agenda doesn't change the finding, and since my understanding has the research designed, then funded by the Atkins folks, I don't know that you can claim tampering.

[proteinpowergirl]

I think as far as calorie restriction for women goes it is a Your Miles May Vary Thing. I lost all my weight and never had to worry about calories. In fact it seemed (according to fitday) that at the times I consumed more calories the more I actually lost. I think it mattered more what those calories were made of than how many of them. That was my experience anyway.

[proteinpowergirl]

The "Atkins dieters" were taking in nearly 200g of carbs daily.

Wow!!! That really seems high for Atkins, at least what I know about Atkins anyway. That seems like they weren't doing Atkins correctly.

[maxlharris]

That's the point. They were carb restricted compared to their peers, but they weren't close to a ketogenic level of carbs.

The logic test applies. Do you know anyone, who stayed on the Atkins plan for 2 years and lost only 10 lbs? After staying low carb for 2 years? I suppose it's possible for a few, but for a population to average 10 lbs? Seems unreal to me. Now, if they'd really restricted their carbs, say to 100g/day or less, they might've seen some scary dramatic numbers.