T Nation

New Study: Low Calories Not Low Carb?


What does everyone think of this?



It's not terribly surprising, eat less and you lose weight.


Is this really a surprise to anyone? When trying to lose fat for most people, just reducing calories will do the trick. If we're talking about getting a bodybuilder in contest conditioning, well thats another story.


Hmmmm. I don't think this study necessarily contradicts the consensus of (non-pharmaceutically enhanced) body/fitness building (especially the ideas promulgated on this site). In other words, lots of lean protein (1++ gram per pound bw), low cargs, lots of roughage, no empty calories (beer, sugar, flower, etc).

I haven't read the study, but the NY-times story makes it sound like normal active faties lost weight on calorie restriction (we know that happens) -- and that story alludes that many gained at least some of it back because they could not maintain the calorie restriction (no surprise there either).

Not addressed is the impact of training, nor is the issue of the most efficient way to lose weight evaluated by this study. They describe participants loosing an ave. of 13 pounds in 6 months (or ~ 0.36 pounds per week). I would not call that efficient weight loss by any measure.

I see no reason to change my approach -- eat lots of lean protein and foods that are not calorie dense (greens, veggies, etc.) and no (ice cream, cake, beer, french fries, anything with flower/sugar, etc.)


Lowering calories is easier when your blood sugar stays steady, which for some people only happens when they low-carb?

Where is the either/or situation?


This isn't surprising to me. If you think about it, it makes alot of sense. If people ate natural wholesome foods (which are low in calories most of the time), then you would not need to even worry about such things. For those who eat large amount of calories, it will be tough as hell to get that if those are clean calories.

How much chicken, meat, veggies, etc can someone pig out on? I think this is nature's way of regulating food consumption. Fiber and fullness get in the way of eating too much. Thats why its so easy to eat processed shit. When I went back home to Italy a couple months ago, it amazed me how clean most people eat. I found 2 McDonald's in all of Rome, and you had to look for those.

Even foods that have lots of carbs naturally, have a low glycemic load overall. So you would need to eat alot of them to impact you which would be almost impossible.


Thus, the magic behind eating clean. Eating "clean" is no different than eating "dirty" (wrt body composition)

the only thing is, clean foods tend to make you feel fuller and/or don't taste as good, hence, you eat less. it's magic!


'Zackly. I could eat two pounds of cake no problem. Two pounds of beef, not so much.


I forget who, but back in the late 70s or early 80s somebody did a great satirical send-up of diet plans and theories. I forget what he called his diet.

Anyway it was a very simple plan, being presented as an astounding new revelation completely revolutionizing everything:

"To gain weight, eat more.

"To lose weight, eat less."

This study is somehow reminiscent of that...


I would pay good money for you to reveal how that works.

And by good money, I mean someone else's.


I remember now. It was "The Bronx Diet."

The guy had a whole book and everything.


And what about the long term health implications of eating clean vs dirty?

If calories are held equal, there is still a huge difference (again, long term) between the two diets.


And to further throw a wrench into the equation.

People could eat at maintenance of 2 very different diets "clean" vs "dirty" and weigh the same, but have different body comps (also taking into account exercise)