
Low Carb vs. Low Fat Diets - woodandsteel
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/low-carb-vs-low-fat-new-research-says-it-doesnt-really-matter/2017/07/13/270d2270-61c1-11e7-a4f7-af34fc1d9d39_story.html?utm_term=.d17a72b5933f
======
dchuk
My wife and I have been doing Keto since May 1st. I'm down 17lbs now (started
at 221, right around 204-205 now, goal is 195). She started at 135 (she's 5'8"
so not much for her to lose) and is down around 129 now.

Weight loss is great, but the energy gains from the diet are incredible. I
never crash anymore. I have steady energy all day, and way less lethargy in
general. Also, in general my stomach is not tempermental anymore. I used to
get stomach aches after dinner, no more.

It does make eating out trickier, but oh well.

Now, I don't necessarily think it's _just_ keto that is responsible. I think
it's these 3 things (in this order):

1) Way less beer drinking (and when I do, it's Miller Lite or something
comparably light on carbs)

2) In general just paying attention to what we eat

3) The science of Keto itself

On the second point especially, it's kinda insane to pay attention to the carb
counts in some meals. Especially fast foods/Mexican/Italian foods, you're
looking at _hundreds_ of grams of carbs in a single meal...sorta nutty.

I recommend everyone try it if not just for the experiment/self control test.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do when I hit my goal in terms of lightening up
on things or not, but I'm happy so far.

~~~
Cshelton
Your energy gains are more from being more healthy and not weighing as much.
Not so much the particular diet you're on.

Now that you are down 17lbs, go grab 17lbs worth of weights and strap them to
your body somehow and walk around the house for a bit like that. It's pretty
incredible how much 17lbs will feel like. Now think of how much harder your
body had to work to carry that extra 17lbs everywhere. (This is assuming that
the 17lbs lost was not comprised of muscle =p)

~~~
HorizonXP
I've lost this much weight via traditional means before, and I will say that
keto is very different. Your sleep improves, and overall focus is better.

The weight loss certainly helps. But for me, keto does something different.

~~~
komali2
This illustrates my problem with "the keto phenomena" (also including Atkins
and its ilk).

My problem is because my parents have been on the Atkins diet for about 5
years now. They objectively have lost weight, they claim to feel much better,
more energetic, etc. I don't have a way to argue that this could just be
because they are healthier, fitter, and slimmer now. That the reason could
just as easily be because they consume less calories and a no-longer-absurd
amount of carbs. To them, it's all because of Atkins.

The _reason_ I have a problem with it is that I'm not convinced that long-
term, severe carb restriction (and the consequential increase in fat in the
diet) is healthy. Their cholesterol is rising, they are consuming alarming
amounts of high-fat foods such as bacon and butter, and I don't think they
ever actually learned how to "diet" because they still eat _a lot_ , but
because it's low carb, they don't gain weight. They still drink and eat a lot
of "sweet food," because they never tackled those cravings, just instead of
sugar now they get aspertain or whatever it's called. Lots of coke zero,
atkins bars, etc.

I can't find any evidence that long term atkins dieting is unhealthy, so I
can't convincingly link the increase in cholesterol (or convince them that
high cholesterol levels are unhealthy) or increase in kidney stones to their
diet. To them if I ever am able to point out a negative change before and
after their diet, it's simply due to old age (kidney stones for example).

~~~
Baeocystin
The increased kidney stone problem is a real risk. You can help minimize it by
taking citrate ion supplementation, which is available in prescription slow-
release, or cheap OTC regular tablets. My doctor recommended it when I started
keto years ago, and so far so good. I would do it anyway, as I've had a kidney
stone again, and holy hell I do not want to experience that twice if at all
possible!

Regarding cholesterol levels: make sure they get a full vertical profile, not
just a calculated one. If their overall levels are higher, but it's from HDL,
and the amount of LDL or VLDL is low, there is no associated increase in
cardiac risk. FWIW.

------
WillPostForFood
_In the end, “low-carb” meant about 30 percent carbs and 45 percent fat, while
“low-fat” was about 29 percent fat and 48 percent carbs. Despite not being
required to cut calories, participants were eating an average of 500 calories
less, and what they were eating was high quality. The low-fat group was
encouraged to choose whole grains, a variety of beans and lentils, seasonal
organic fruit, organic low-fat milk and lean meats. The low-carb group was
pointed toward high-quality oils and fats, organic avocados, hard cheeses, nut
butters, grass-fed meat and pasture-raised eggs. “Everyone was supposed to
have vegetables all day long as much as they could, have a salad every day,
and no added sugar and as little refined flour as you could get,” Gardner
said._

They designed two diets that were very similar to each other, and
unsurprisingly got similar results.

~~~
pesfandiar
> Despite not being required to cut calories, participants were eating an
> average of 500 calories less, and what they were eating was high quality.

This could also be simply attributed to being watched. That to me is a huge
confounding factor that needs to be carefully isolated in all diet studies.

The huge success of personal fitness trackers suggests people tend to have
healthier lifestyles when they measure their actions, even if it's for their
own personal record (let alone for sharing on social media or being studied).

~~~
AstralStorm
This is why cross study design is better. In both cases the vigilance is
applied nullifying it as a factor.

The trouble is that diets take very long to apply so a cross design study
would take many years.

------
Havoc
Firmly in the low carb camp.

There is another aspect to it though: With a low-fat mentality you can eat
anything you like since everything is "low-fat" these days. Low carb on the
other hand requires conscious strategic thinking & planning - the average
processed product isn't geared towards it. I wonder whether some of the health
benefit comes from that: The second I'm tracking & analysing things I
automatically eat healthier and better as a result regardless of what exactly
I'm tracking.

~~~
jorgec
I agree. And its hard, really hard to follow a low carb diet. Practically all
diet products are rich in carbs. Many products for the breakfast are rich in
carbs. Practically all products in small stores (such as newsstand) are rich
in carbs.

~~~
chrisseaton
> And its hard, really hard to follow a low carb diet.

Really? I do very low-carb precisely because it's so very easy. I have heaps
of vegetables and lean-meat and that fills me up and gives me all the energy I
need. I almost can't see where I'd fit carbs in now. (I do eat more carbs when
I'm doing something particularly arduous though).

> Many products for the breakfast are rich in carbs.

Well you can eat whatever you want for breakfast. You don't need 'breakfast
food' in particular. I often have steamed fish for breakfast.

> Practically all products in small stores (such as newsstand)

Well yes, things are going to wrong if you are planning a diet around shopping
at a newsstand. I'd say obviously you shouldn't do that no matter what your
diet, but I suppose people have different lives to fit diets around - I work
from home so it's probably easier for me.

~~~
komali2
>lean-meats

Well, it's not easy to do it "cheap," in most people's mind of what "cheap"
food is - the little muffins at star bucks, or mcdonalds, the free cereal at
work (when there are no high-protein, low-carb options).

So it's not "easy" because you're no longer even capable of eating what 80% of
the people you know are. If you had even half of one of the muffins at work,
you'd be thrown out of ketosis and you'd need half the week getting your diet
back on track.

That being said, if you already have a strong habit of cooking and eating the
majority of your meals instead of eating out or eating the free food at work,
a low carb diet is a remarkably "easy" way to lose weight, because it doesn't
come with that shitty feeling of grumpy hunger that (I at least) one gets from
low-calorie dieting.

~~~
AstralStorm
It is also easy to prepare ahead of time, as fatty foods do not spoil as
easily when done due to lack of water. Easier than dried fat free foods
though.

------
kbutler
"In the end, “low-carb” meant about 30 percent carbs and 45 percent fat, while
“low-fat” was about 29 percent fat and 48 percent carbs."

Does anyone who advocates a low carb diet consider 30% of calories from
carbohydrates "low carb?"

In a 1600 calorie diet (likely calorie restricted), that would be 120g of
carbs.

~~~
5_minutes
Low carb generally would be <50 grams/day.

Though most enthousiasts on keto aim for <20 grams/day.

So you're right, 120g is still very high. And can basically be accomplished
with just not stuffing yourself with bread, pizza or fries.

~~~
Cshelton
Yeah, I read the 30% amount and the study now makes sense as to why the
participants had the same results. I wish they had the low carb group do < 20g
carbs/day. I think they would have seen a difference.

I've done the keto target at less than 5g, 10g, 15g, 20g (depending what stage
you're at) carbs a day. Even increasing that number to 100g carbs a day kind
of ruins that diet.

The under 10g carbs a day has worked very well for me. Just remember, stay
hydrated! =p

~~~
AstralStorm
The problem with grams is that everyone has different needs. So It only works
as a guide. It is easier to calibrate a keto diet with a real ketone sensor.
(Available at any pharmacy, used by diabetics.) Specifically increase carbs
until ketosis stops then drop say 20% for margin. There's your value. Check
every now and then.

------
tzs
> Despite not being required to cut calories, participants were eating an
> average of 500 calories less, and what they were eating was high quality.

That's what happened to me. I tried to lower carbs to 40% of calories, not to
lose weight but rather to see what affect it would have on blood sugar levels.
My A1c had crept up to 8.1, and that was while on two different diabetes
medicines.

I made no attempt to limit calories...just to make sure that 40% or less came
from carbs. In fact, to reach that I started _increasing_ the size of some
meals. For example, if I got a sandwich which would normally be 50% carbs, I
would order that sandwich with double meat and/or with full mayonnaise instead
of light mayo or no mayo, because meat and mayo are calories without carbs,
and so lower the carb ratio.

I found that this made the food more satisfying, and I ended up eating less
kind of automatically. Over the next 18 months I lost 140 pounds that way. A1c
is down to 5.0 now, and that is after three months with no diabetes medicine.

Long term, I'm eating about 30-35% carbs, and about 45% fat.

------
pconnelly15
This is an interesting discussion about a topic we know doesn't work. Every
piece of reliable data shows that diets don't work. 95% of people who diet
gain that weight back and more within 1-5 years. Nutrition philosophies based
on deprivation are doomed to fail. A better question might be is what healthy
lifestyle components lead to a healthier experience?

~~~
mistermann
Most "dieters" follow it on a whim. For those that really get into keto and
_educates themselves_ on nutrition, read forums, etc I would bet money are
_far_ more successful than 5% in keeping it off. It's far easier to be
disciplined following a low carb diet because you simply can't cheat with
sweets, cheating = you're not on keto any more, makes it psychologically
easier (for me anyways).

And, once you adopt it as a lifestyle, you really watch what you eat even
after the intensive diet - I eat whatever I want, I just don't find myself
wanting sugary foods because I know what they do to you, and I have zero
problem staying at my desired weight.

~~~
zzalpha
You've literally described anyone who chooses to truly adhere to _any_ diet
over the long term.

The point is, those people are, in practice, a tiny fraction of dieters.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
Yes, but a diet is not a magic incantation that you can get the effects of by
merely repeating the word or discussing it endlessly with friends.

Diets work (or not) based on fairly straightforward causal chains. People who
want to continue to do exactly or very nearly the same of whatever they were
doing and see a drastic change are bound to be disappointed not only in the
mission of reducing weight but also in life.

------
LyndsySimon
> Gardner asked the 609 participants to aim for 20 percent carbs or fat

20% carbs is not a "low-carb" diet.

I've been doing keto since January and have lost over 50 pounds. I never get
more than 20g of net carbs per day, which is less than 5% of my overall
caloric intake.

------
jorgec
Using a low carb diet, i lowered from 90kg (198lbs) to 68kg (149lbs) in 6
months. And im still in 67-69kgs.

ps: i do zero exercise, just because i can't.

------
cies
I think the real interesting diet at the moment is Whole Food Plant-Based
(WFPB). It is a low-fat, high-carb, fully plant based diet, that does not
prescribe going "raw only".

Many have great results on this diet without counting any macros.

~~~
bluejekyll
Does this basically mean no processed foods?

~~~
cies
Kinda. And then the plant-based section of it. It is in line with what mankind
supposedly _really_ mostly ate for 100000s years.

The docu "What the Health" also discusses this diet and some other stuff.

------
blackflame7000
The diet that truly works is high protein. Carbs and Fats cannot convert to
muscle like proteins can and as a result they can not raise your resting
metabolic rate like proteins can. Furthermore proteins have a filling effect
that satiates hunger and they are not easily stored as fat. If you focus on
filling your daily allotment of proteins first, you will often find you are
too full to fill the remaining Fats/Carbs requirement. This advice from a
personal trainer helped me lose 60 lbs over a year.

~~~
AstralStorm
Come on, getting those 60g of protein or so is trivial on any diet. (Including
complete protein, unless you're vegan and have major legume intolerance.)

High protein diets do work indeed, but most of them end up ketogenic by
accident as well. Mostly because sugary or starchy foods have little protein.

------
woodandsteel
Seems there was little difference between low fat and low carbs. However, both
groups were urged to eat a healthy diet: “Everyone was supposed to have
vegetables all day long as much as they could, have a salad every day, and no
added sugar and as little refined flour as you could get,”

Also, at the end it talks about the idea of satiation. Eat as much as you want
to feel full, as long as it is healthy. That has been my philosophy, and it
has worked very well.

~~~
juice_bus
I've 'recently' (May 2017) started simply counting the calories i consume and
not avoiding one thing or another, keeping it below my TDEE. Some days are
very high in Fat, others carbs, sometimes protein.

I've lost 32lbs/14.5kg since then (and another 30 to go).

I guess i will see in the long term if it is healthy, but i do feel great now.

~~~
fintler
After a few (many?) failed attempts at keto and other diets (I would always
stall out after around 15lbs of weight loss), simply counting calories is by
far the only thing that has worked for me well. Currently, I target 1,400 kcal
a day (8-16 intermittent fasting with 2 meals of 700 calories each) with a
calculated TDEE of around 2,500 kcal. I've lost around 60lbs/27.2kg since
January 2017 (240lbs/108.9kg to a bit less than 180lbs/81.6kg). I eat whatever
I feel like (usually meat, veggies, and a starch in each meal) and just limit
calories.

I don't use anything like MyFitnessPal to track calories counted. Keeping
things to "eat only 700 calories per meal" is simple enough where you can do a
quick Google search before eating to make sure you're on track.

Something interesting is that my error with calorie counting (and possibly
metabolism) is about 10-15%, given that the hacker diet calculations
(trendweight.com hooked up to my withings scale) calculates my TDEE (based on
my actual weight changes) at 2,200 kcal instead of the calculated 2,500 kcal.

Also, I just bought a medium t-shirt last weekend for the first time since I
was in high school! :)

~~~
Terr_
IMO it helps to treat calorie-counting as something that is fundamentally
inaccurate, but still "good enough" as long as the errors are consistent.

Meanwhile, the moving-average of your weight is closer to some kind of ground
truth, and can be used to recalibrate the calorie budget.

------
robotpony
I'd like to see the actual distributions of foods (and micro/macros) in these
studies along with the human stats (ages, activity levels). I suspect that the
factors are for more multi-modal than the buckets of "low carb" and "high
fat". Open source data here would allow for alternative views on the data, and
likely better learning overall.

------
GuB-42
Low carb, low fat, low anything are essentially just low calorie diets, which
result in weight loss through basic thermodynamic principles.

The more I follow trends in diets, the more it seems to boil down to : don't
eat too much or too little and have a varied diet.

The first point is obvious, the second one is more subtle. There is actually
no need for a varied diet. It is just that it is the easiest way for us to
make sure we get all the nutrients we need while limiting toxicity. By
toxicity, I mean that everything we eat is a bit poisonous, but fortunately,
our body is well equipped to deal with it. But eat too much of one poison and
it won't keep up. So it is possible to have an unbalanced diet and still be
healthy (ex: vegans) but it may take some bookkeeping.

Note that research seem to point that the more we eat something, the less we
get pleasure from it, as if we are wired to prefer a varied diet.

Remember, we are omnivores, and the whole point of being omnivores is that
anything goes.

~~~
blackflame7000
Treating all calories the same ignores the fact that the body does different
things with Carbs, Fats, and Proteins. Proteins help build muscle which raises
a person's resting metabolic rate. A diet that is deficient in proteins will
result in muscle loss and will lower metabolic rate. The scale only tells half
the story. 200 lbs of lean muscle burns much more calories than 200 lbs of
fat. What you eat directly contributes to this composition and therefore
impacts your ability to burn calories.

------
simonebrunozzi
I still haven't found a simple, straightforward, proven explanation of how to
do a "ketonic" diet. Any help?

~~~
Greenisus
Eat no sugars, no grains, and lots of fat. Also as far as veggies go, avoid
potatoes and corn. Avoiding alcohol is best, but if you must drink, go for no-
carb options like hard liquor. That's about the shortest version of it I can
come up with :)

------
patrickg_zill
an aside, for those on either diet: lacto-fermented foods like Kombucha,
sauerkraut etc. seem to do me a lot of good.

Perhaps it is just the B-vitamins in the Kombucha but I find that being on
keto and having Kombucha once a day is a good combination.

