Hollywood said:
First, we all know this. Duh. At least the LC adherents in here who
have lost weight and kept it off. But we've all heard, likely many
times, that LC doesn't work because you can't sustain it. So, imagine
my delight when I read this blog post by Adam Campbell, Features
Editor of Men's Health US (and new LC diet author):
http://thefitnessinsider.menshealth.com/2007/10/i-wasnt-going-t.html
Some folks looked at the National Weight Control Registry data, and
found that about 10% of the folks who had lost 30 and kept it off from
3 years were doing low carb. They compared these people to the 90%
they categorized as "not low carb" and found no significant difference
in regain between the populations.
I never entered myself in th NCWR, and for a reason - The last
time I looked there was no way to answer their questions to
state I was a low carber. I haven't been back there in years.
Do they now have questions that do work for low carbers?
So while the 90/10 rule sounds interesting, I think it is utterly
without meaning. Over the years they drove away LOTS of
successful low carbers by asking questions that could not
detect low carbing. I always saw them as low fat biased and
with a pro low fat agenda. I valued their strategies of what
people do to keep it off, but never put any value whatsoever
on their data on what people ate to lose or keep it off.
Quoted message said:Whoopie.
The 90/10 numbers are meaningless given their biased history.
If they now longer have that bias, good for them and eventually
that part of their history will fade into history. But consider my
history in buying cars - I bought a 1980 Chevy and it sucked.
Here I am 27 years later and I still haven't bough another Chevy.
How many low carbers looked at the questions on NWCR and
reacted as I have?
Quoted message said:But then you get to the fun stuff.
The LC group:
Ate more calories (1610 vs 1310).
More comfortable levels hence easier to follow. Easy to follow
does NOT equal hard to fall off!
Quoted message said:Ate a higher percentage of fat (59% vs 33%)
Fat good when low carbing.
Quoted message said:Burned fewer calories through exercise (1119 vs 2246/week)
In spite of all the stress on exercise while low carbing, lots don't
do it.
Quoted message said:And not one of the LC group actually counted calories.
Zero, nada, zilch, zip.
Quoted message said:Any rate, here's the link to that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView...
Lastly, before you talk small sample sizes, skewed sample sizes, etc,
check this one out:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubme...
That's a big sample of LC dieters who are doing pretty well I guess.
What I like about this study - It uses data from an active low carb
board
for its source of data. Same way I have collected what data I have
over the years. So much for the folks who complain that my data has
no meaning.
