General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term

Started by hjackson · · Last activity · 13 posts · 345 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
16 November 2004
Last activity
25 November 2004
Original author
hjackson
Posts
13
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
345
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–13 of 13
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Regardless of how they shed pounds in the first
    place, big losers stayed that way by limiting fat rather than
    carbohydrates, according to new research that could add fuel to the
    backlash against low-carb diets.

    Dieters already have been turning away from Atkins-style plans as a
    long-term weight-control strategy, and the new study gives them more
    reason: Low-fat plans seem to work better at keeping weight off.

    ``People who started eating more fat ... regained the most weight over
    time,'' said Suzanne Phelan, a Brown Medical School psychologist who
    presented results of the study Monday at a meeting of the North
    American Association for the Study of Obesity.

    The study used the National Weight Control Registry, a decade-old
    effort to learn the secrets of success from people who had lost at
    least 30 pounds and kept them off for at least a year. The registry
    run by doctors from the University of Colorado in Denver, the
    University of Pittsburgh and Brown University in Providence, R.I.

    They studied 2,700 people who entered the registry from 1995 through
    2003. Their average age was 47, most were women, and they had lost an
    average of 72 pounds initially. Doctors compared their diets to see
    whether one type or another made a difference in how much weight they
    had lost and how much they had regained a year later.

    All reported eating only about 1,400 calories a day, but the portion
    that came from fat rose -- from 24 percent in 1995 to more than 29
    percent in 2003 -- while the part from carbohydrates fell, from 56
    percent to 49 percent.

    The number who were on low-carb diets (less than 90 grams a day) rose
    from 6 percent to 17 percent during the same period.

    The type of diet -- low-fat, low-carb or in between -- made no
    difference in how people lost weight initially.

    But those who increased their fat intake over a year regained the most
    weight. That meant they ate less carbohydrates, because the amount of
    protein in their diets stayed the same, Phelan said.

    ``Only a minority of successful weight losers consume low-carbohydrate
    diets,'' she and the other researchers concluded.

    Colette Heimowitz, a nutrition expert and spokeswoman for the Atkins
    diet organization, noted that the study considered 90 grams to be
    low-carb, while Atkins recommends 60 grams for weight loss and 60 to
    120 for weight maintenance.

    She said that for many of the dieters studied, ``the carbs aren't low
    enough for them to be successful.'' They also should have replaced
    carbs with more protein rather than fat, she said.

    Dr. Thomas Waddell, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert
    who had no role in the study, said it is too soon to say which
    approach is better. Several longer-term studies of low-carb and
    low-fat dieters are in the works, he said.

    But he said: ``I do think that people who are keeping the weight off
    are eating a low-fat, high-carb diet.''

    The dietary establishment has long been skeptical of the long-term
    safety and effectiveness of low-carb diets, and consumers increasingly
    are losing their enthusiasm for the glut of low-carb products that
    overloaded grocery store shelves as the diet became a fad in the past
    few years.

    More than half of Americans who have tried a low-carb diet have given
    up, according to a recent survey by the market research firm
    InsightExpress. Other published survey information suggests that the
    number of Americans following such a diet peaked at 9 percent last
    February and fell to 6 percent by June.

    The American Institute for Cancer Research used those trends to issue
    a statement in September urging dieters to ``come back to common
    sense.''

    ``Eat a balanced diet weighted toward vegetables and fruits, reduce
    portion sizes and increase physical activity,'' the institute said.

    Dr. William Dietz, director of chronic-disease prevention at the
    federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said it is
    difficult to tell whether these low-carb diets really work because
    people find it hard to stick to a strict regimen for long periods.
    ``My anecdotal experience is that people go on and off these diets,''
    he said. ``When their weight goes up, they go back on the diet to lose
    weight.''

    Other research at the conference underscored the many health and
    personal problems obese people face.

    Duke University doctors said two-thirds of obese people seeking
    treatment at the Duke Diet & Fitness Center reported not enjoying or
    wanting to have sex, and having problems with sexual performance. Only
    5 percent of normal-weight people from the surrounding community who
    completed the same quality-of-life survey reported such problems.

    ==========================================================

  2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:13:46 -0600, hjackson <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term

    SSFA is not interested in this alarmist [censored]. Take it and stick
    it. You have been asked nice and you chose to ignore polite
    requested. Now KEEP YOUR ASS OUT OF SSFA!!

    LV

    Lady Veteran
    - -----------------------------------
    "I rode a tank and held a general's rank
    when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
    - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
    - ------------------------------------------------
    People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
    ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
    motive but malice.
    - ---------------------------------------------
    "Be who you are and say what
    you feel because those who mind don't matter
    and those who matter don't mind."

    - --Unknown
    - -------------------------------

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

    iQA/AwUBQZlqtsjazA1WMM1JEQIg2QCfVil6UhQpaKtZ4mkb+/CdcS2BdLQAnAna
    UhkAbdulMxpWXeslqqvCJi/w
    =bS+L
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Cross-posting snipped.

    hjackson said:

    November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Regardless of how they shed pounds in the first
    place, big losers stayed that way by limiting fat rather than
    carbohydrates, according to new research that could add fuel to the
    backlash against low-carb diets.

    Dieters already have been turning away from Atkins-style plans as a
    long-term weight-control strategy, and the new study gives them more
    reason: Low-fat plans seem to work better at keeping weight off.

    ``People who started eating more fat ... regained the most weight over
    time,'' said Suzanne Phelan, a Brown Medical School psychologist who
    presented results of the study Monday at a meeting of the North
    American Association for the Study of Obesity.

    The study used the National Weight Control Registry, a decade-old
    effort to learn the secrets of success from people who had lost at
    least 30 pounds and kept them off for at least a year. The registry
    run by doctors from the University of Colorado in Denver, the
    University of Pittsburgh and Brown University in Providence, R.I.

    They studied 2,700 people who entered the registry from 1995 through
    2003. Their average age was 47, most were women, and they had lost an
    average of 72 pounds initially. Doctors compared their diets to see
    whether one type or another made a difference in how much weight they
    had lost and how much they had regained a year later.

    All reported eating only about 1,400 calories a day, but the portion
    that came from fat rose -- from 24 percent in 1995 to more than 29
    percent in 2003 -- while the part from carbohydrates fell, from 56
    percent to 49 percent.

    The number who were on low-carb diets (less than 90 grams a day) rose
    from 6 percent to 17 percent during the same period.

    The type of diet -- low-fat, low-carb or in between -- made no
    difference in how people lost weight initially.

    But those who increased their fat intake over a year regained the most
    weight. That meant they ate less carbohydrates, because the amount of
    protein in their diets stayed the same, Phelan said.

    ``Only a minority of successful weight losers consume low-carbohydrate
    diets,'' she and the other researchers concluded.

    I guess I'm one of the successful ones.

    Quoted message said:

    Colette Heimowitz, a nutrition expert and spokeswoman for the Atkins
    diet organization, noted that the study considered 90 grams to be
    low-carb, while Atkins recommends 60 grams for weight loss and 60 to
    120 for weight maintenance.

    She said that for many of the dieters studied, ``the carbs aren't low
    enough for them to be successful.'' They also should have replaced
    carbs with more protein rather than fat, she said.

    Dr. Thomas Waddell, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert
    who had no role in the study, said it is too soon to say which
    approach is better. Several longer-term studies of low-carb and
    low-fat dieters are in the works, he said.

    But he said: ``I do think that people who are keeping the weight off
    are eating a low-fat, high-carb diet.''

    How could anyone make such a blind statement? High carbs just make me
    want to eat and eat. I ate Pritikin style low fat for 15 years and all it
    did was give or exacerbate my insulin resistance and give my HDL levels
    below 40 no matter how much I exercised.

    Quoted message said:

    The dietary establishment has long been skeptical of the long-term
    safety and effectiveness of low-carb diets, and consumers increasingly
    are losing their enthusiasm for the glut of low-carb products that
    overloaded grocery store shelves as the diet became a fad in the past
    few years.

    More than half of Americans who have tried a low-carb diet have given
    up, according to a recent survey by the market research firm
    InsightExpress. Other published survey information suggests that the
    number of Americans following such a diet peaked at 9 percent last
    February and fell to 6 percent by June.

    What they don't tell you is that more than half of anyone who's ever tried
    any diet have given up. I gave up on low fat after about 15 years on it.

    Quoted message said:

    The American Institute for Cancer Research used those trends to issue
    a statement in September urging dieters to ``come back to common
    sense.''

    ``Eat a balanced diet weighted toward vegetables and fruits, reduce
    portion sizes and increase physical activity,'' the institute said.

    And why isn't this low carb? This is exactly what I eat (although I only
    eat select fruits). In fact, on low carb, I eat way more vegetables than
    I did on low fat (where pasta, rice, and beans were the mainstays).

    Quoted message said:

    Dr. William Dietz, director of chronic-disease prevention at the
    federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said it is
    difficult to tell whether these low-carb diets really work because
    people find it hard to stick to a strict regimen for long periods.
    ``My anecdotal experience is that people go on and off these diets,''
    he said. ``When their weight goes up, they go back on the diet to lose
    weight.''

    Other research at the conference underscored the many health and
    personal problems obese people face.

    Duke University doctors said two-thirds of obese people seeking
    treatment at the Duke Diet & Fitness Center reported not enjoying or
    wanting to have sex, and having problems with sexual performance. Only
    5 percent of normal-weight people from the surrounding community who
    completed the same quality-of-life survey reported such problems.

    What does this have to do with diets?

    --
    Bob M
    remove ".x" to reply

  4. hjackson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Regardless of how they shed pounds in the first
    place, big losers stayed that way by limiting fat rather than
    carbohydrates, according to new research that could add fuel to the
    backlash against low-carb diets.

    Dieters already have been turning away from Atkins-style plans as a
    long-term weight-control strategy, and the new study gives them more
    reason: Low-fat plans seem to work better at keeping weight off.

    ``People who started eating more fat ... regained the most weight over
    time,'' said Suzanne Phelan, a Brown Medical School psychologist who
    presented results of the study Monday at a meeting of the North
    American Association for the Study of Obesity.

    The study used the National Weight Control Registry, a decade-old
    effort to learn the secrets of success from people who had lost at
    least 30 pounds and kept them off for at least a year. The registry
    run by doctors from the University of Colorado in Denver, the
    University of Pittsburgh and Brown University in Providence, R.I.

    They studied 2,700 people who entered the registry from 1995 through
    2003. Their average age was 47, most were women, and they had lost an
    average of 72 pounds initially. Doctors compared their diets to see
    whether one type or another made a difference in how much weight they
    had lost and how much they had regained a year later.

    All reported eating only about 1,400 calories a day, but the portion
    that came from fat rose -- from 24 percent in 1995 to more than 29
    percent in 2003 -- while the part from carbohydrates fell, from 56
    percent to 49 percent.

    The number who were on low-carb diets (less than 90 grams a day) rose
    from 6 percent to 17 percent during the same period.

    The type of diet -- low-fat, low-carb or in between -- made no
    difference in how people lost weight initially.

    But those who increased their fat intake over a year regained the most
    weight. That meant they ate less carbohydrates, because the amount of
    protein in their diets stayed the same, Phelan said.

    ``Only a minority of successful weight losers consume low-carbohydrate
    diets,'' she and the other researchers concluded.

    Colette Heimowitz, a nutrition expert and spokeswoman for the Atkins
    diet organization, noted that the study considered 90 grams to be
    low-carb, while Atkins recommends 60 grams for weight loss and 60 to
    120 for weight maintenance.

    She said that for many of the dieters studied, ``the carbs aren't low
    enough for them to be successful.'' They also should have replaced
    carbs with more protein rather than fat, she said.

    Dr. Thomas Waddell, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert
    who had no role in the study, said it is too soon to say which
    approach is better. Several longer-term studies of low-carb and
    low-fat dieters are in the works, he said.

    But he said: ``I do think that people who are keeping the weight off
    are eating a low-fat, high-carb diet.''

    The dietary establishment has long been skeptical of the long-term
    safety and effectiveness of low-carb diets, and consumers increasingly
    are losing their enthusiasm for the glut of low-carb products that
    overloaded grocery store shelves as the diet became a fad in the past
    few years.

    More than half of Americans who have tried a low-carb diet have given
    up, according to a recent survey by the market research firm
    InsightExpress. Other published survey information suggests that the
    number of Americans following such a diet peaked at 9 percent last
    February and fell to 6 percent by June.

    The American Institute for Cancer Research used those trends to issue
    a statement in September urging dieters to ``come back to common
    sense.''

    ``Eat a balanced diet weighted toward vegetables and fruits, reduce
    portion sizes and increase physical activity,'' the institute said.

    Dr. William Dietz, director of chronic-disease prevention at the
    federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said it is
    difficult to tell whether these low-carb diets really work because
    people find it hard to stick to a strict regimen for long periods.
    ``My anecdotal experience is that people go on and off these diets,''
    he said. ``When their weight goes up, they go back on the diet to lose
    weight.''

    Other research at the conference underscored the many health and
    personal problems obese people face.

    Duke University doctors said two-thirds of obese people seeking
    treatment at the Duke Diet & Fitness Center reported not enjoying or
    wanting to have sex, and having problems with sexual performance. Only
    5 percent of normal-weight people from the surrounding community who
    completed the same quality-of-life survey reported such problems.

    ==========================================================

    National Weight Control Registry

    http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/WyattJortberg/nwcr.htm

    James O. Hill, PhD
    Rena Wing, PhD

    James O. Hill, Ph.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Director, Center for
    Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center,
    Denver, CO. Research support from Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, Procter &
    Gamble, and Knoll Pharmaceuticals; has received consultant fees from
    Knoll, Roche Laboratories, International Life Sciences Institute, and
    Procter & Gamble and is a consultant to the Duke Diet and Fitness
    Center. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97). President, North American
    Association for the Study of Obesity. (USA Today, 9/1/98) Lead author
    of a study on olestra supported by a grant from Procter & Gamble. (Am.
    J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Co-wrote (with Barbara Rolls) a 1998
    report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." Participated
    in a 3/25/99 panel assembled by the Sugar Association to inform New
    York magazine editors about obesity, calories, and activity. (Sugar
    Association's 1999 annual report,
    http://www.foodingredientsonline.com; accessed 03/30/99) Research on
    the effects of covert substitution of olestra for conventional fat on
    spontaneous food intake supported by Procter & Gamble. (Am. J. Clin.
    Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Research on the role of carbohydrates in weight
    management was supported by the Sugar Association. (Letter from Sugar
    Association to USDA; on file with CSPI; 4/16/99) Research on using
    Orlistat for weight maintenance funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. (Am. J.
    Clin. Nutr. 1999;69:1108-16) Member of the Foodfit.com advisory board.
    (http://www.foodfit.com/about/advisoryBoard.asp; accessed 11/11/00)
    Research on weight management supported in part by Abbott
    Laboratories. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 2001;20:26-31) Member of the
    McDonald's Corporation Global Advisory Council on Healthy Lifestyles;
    formed to "help guide the company on activities that address the need
    for balanced, healthy lifestyles."
    (http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/press/corporate/2003/05212003/;
    accessed 6/23/03) Receives consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson &
    Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola. Receives speakers fees from
    Abbott Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, and Kraft Foods. Receives
    research funding from M&M Mars. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003:348;2082-2090)
    Member of the expert advisory board for the American Council for
    Fitness and Nutrition. (http://www.acfn.org/about/advisory.html;
    accessed 10/31/03)

    Rena R. Wing, Ph.D., U. of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Consultant
    to and received research support from Lilly Pharmaceuticals, is on
    Weight Watchers Advisory Board; has received research support from
    Ross Laboratories and ILSI. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97 notes Eli
    Lilly, WW)

    *******

    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC

  5. [email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    hjackson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Regardless of how they shed pounds in the first
    place, big losers stayed that way by limiting fat rather than
    carbohydrates, according to new research that could add fuel to the
    backlash against low-carb diets.

    Dieters already have been turning away from Atkins-style plans as a
    long-term weight-control strategy, and the new study gives them more
    reason: Low-fat plans seem to work better at keeping weight off.

    ``People who started eating more fat ... regained the most weight over
    time,'' said Suzanne Phelan, a Brown Medical School psychologist who
    presented results of the study Monday at a meeting of the North
    American Association for the Study of Obesity.

    The study used the National Weight Control Registry, a decade-old
    effort to learn the secrets of success from people who had lost at
    least 30 pounds and kept them off for at least a year. The registry
    run by doctors from the University of Colorado in Denver, the
    University of Pittsburgh and Brown University in Providence, R.I.


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:


    National Weight Control Registry

    http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/WyattJortberg/nwcr.htm

    James O. Hill, PhD
    Rena Wing, PhD

    James O. Hill, Ph.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Director, Center for
    Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center,
    Denver, CO. Research support from Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, Procter &
    Gamble, and Knoll Pharmaceuticals; has received consultant fees from
    Knoll, Roche Laboratories, International Life Sciences Institute, and
    Procter & Gamble and is a consultant to the Duke Diet and Fitness
    Center. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97). President, North American
    Association for the Study of Obesity. (USA Today, 9/1/98) Lead author
    of a study on olestra supported by a grant from Procter & Gamble. (Am.
    J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Co-wrote (with Barbara Rolls) a 1998
    report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." Participated
    in a 3/25/99 panel assembled by the Sugar Association to inform New
    York magazine editors about obesity, calories, and activity. (Sugar
    Association's 1999 annual report,
    http://www.foodingredientsonline.com; accessed 03/30/99) Research on
    the effects of covert substitution of olestra for conventional fat on
    spontaneous food intake supported by Procter & Gamble. (Am. J. Clin.
    Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Research on the role of carbohydrates in weight
    management was supported by the Sugar Association. (Letter from Sugar
    Association to USDA; on file with CSPI; 4/16/99) Research on using
    Orlistat for weight maintenance funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. (Am. J.
    Clin. Nutr. 1999;69:1108-16) Member of the Foodfit.com advisory board.
    (http://www.foodfit.com/about/advisoryBoard.asp; accessed 11/11/00)
    Research on weight management supported in part by Abbott
    Laboratories. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 2001;20:26-31) Member of the
    McDonald's Corporation Global Advisory Council on Healthy Lifestyles;
    formed to "help guide the company on activities that address the need
    for balanced, healthy lifestyles."
    (http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/press/corporate/2003/05212003/;
    accessed 6/23/03) Receives consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson &
    Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola. Receives speakers fees from
    Abbott Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, and Kraft Foods. Receives
    research funding from M&M Mars. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003:348;2082-2090)
    Member of the expert advisory board for the American Council for
    Fitness and Nutrition. (http://www.acfn.org/about/advisory.html;
    accessed 10/31/03)

    Rena R. Wing, Ph.D., U. of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Consultant
    to and received research support from Lilly Pharmaceuticals, is on
    Weight Watchers Advisory Board; has received research support from
    Ross Laboratories and ILSI. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97 notes Eli
    Lilly, WW)

    *******

    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC

    Here is more info about others involved with the weight registry:

    http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/Administration/admin.htm

    Robert H. Eckel, M.D., Division of Endocrinology, Health Sciences
    Center, University of Colorado. Research on the "effect of medium
    chain triglycerides on glucose and lipid metabolism in type II
    diabetes melitus" was supported by Procter and Gamble. Research on
    "the effect of leptin on postprandial lipid metabolism" was supported
    by Amgen. (Undated resume on file at CSPI; accessed 6/18/02)

    Uwe Christians, Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences, University
    of California, San Francisco. Research on mitochondrial metabolism
    supported in part by Novartis Pharma AG. (Br. J. Pharmacol.
    2001;133:875-85)

    William C. Heird, Ph.D., Baylor College of Medicine, Baylor, TX.
    Research on fatty acid in breast milk partially funded by Mead-Johnson
    Nutritional Group. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;71(supp):292S-9S)

    Stephen C. Woods, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, University of
    Cincinnati College of Medicine. Received $1,000,000 in 2000-2001 and
    $1,037,500 in 2001-2002 from Procter & Gamble for a study on obesity
    and energy homeostasis. (University of Cincinnati, Office of Research,
    Active Grants and Contracts - FY 2001,
    http://www.med.research.uc.edu/grants/granttemplateshell.cfm?department_id=186;
    accessed 6/24/02)

    Holly R. Wyatt, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of
    Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. Receives consulting fees from
    Ortho-McNeil, USANA, and GlaxoSmithKline. Receives speaker fees from
    Roche Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, Slim-Fast, and Ortho-McNeil.
    (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:2082-90)

    *********

    TC

  6. [email hidden] (tcomeau) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    hjackson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Regardless of how they shed pounds in the first
    place, big losers stayed that way by limiting fat rather than
    carbohydrates, according to new research that could add fuel to the
    backlash against low-carb diets.

    Dieters already have been turning away from Atkins-style plans as a
    long-term weight-control strategy, and the new study gives them more
    reason: Low-fat plans seem to work better at keeping weight off.

    ``People who started eating more fat ... regained the most weight over
    time,'' said Suzanne Phelan, a Brown Medical School psychologist who
    presented results of the study Monday at a meeting of the North
    American Association for the Study of Obesity.

    The study used the National Weight Control Registry, a decade-old
    effort to learn the secrets of success from people who had lost at
    least 30 pounds and kept them off for at least a year. The registry
    run by doctors from the University of Colorado in Denver, the
    University of Pittsburgh and Brown University in Providence, R.I.

    They studied 2,700 people who entered the registry from 1995 through
    2003. Their average age was 47, most were women, and they had lost an
    average of 72 pounds initially. Doctors compared their diets to see
    whether one type or another made a difference in how much weight they
    had lost and how much they had regained a year later.

    All reported eating only about 1,400 calories a day, but the portion
    that came from fat rose -- from 24 percent in 1995 to more than 29
    percent in 2003 -- while the part from carbohydrates fell, from 56
    percent to 49 percent.

    The number who were on low-carb diets (less than 90 grams a day) rose
    from 6 percent to 17 percent during the same period.

    The type of diet -- low-fat, low-carb or in between -- made no
    difference in how people lost weight initially.

    But those who increased their fat intake over a year regained the most
    weight. That meant they ate less carbohydrates, because the amount of
    protein in their diets stayed the same, Phelan said.

    ``Only a minority of successful weight losers consume low-carbohydrate
    diets,'' she and the other researchers concluded.

    Colette Heimowitz, a nutrition expert and spokeswoman for the Atkins
    diet organization, noted that the study considered 90 grams to be
    low-carb, while Atkins recommends 60 grams for weight loss and 60 to
    120 for weight maintenance.

    She said that for many of the dieters studied, ``the carbs aren't low
    enough for them to be successful.'' They also should have replaced
    carbs with more protein rather than fat, she said.

    Dr. Thomas Waddell, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert
    who had no role in the study, said it is too soon to say which
    approach is better. Several longer-term studies of low-carb and
    low-fat dieters are in the works, he said.

    But he said: ``I do think that people who are keeping the weight off
    are eating a low-fat, high-carb diet.''

    The dietary establishment has long been skeptical of the long-term
    safety and effectiveness of low-carb diets, and consumers increasingly
    are losing their enthusiasm for the glut of low-carb products that
    overloaded grocery store shelves as the diet became a fad in the past
    few years.

    More than half of Americans who have tried a low-carb diet have given
    up, according to a recent survey by the market research firm
    InsightExpress. Other published survey information suggests that the
    number of Americans following such a diet peaked at 9 percent last
    February and fell to 6 percent by June.

    The American Institute for Cancer Research used those trends to issue
    a statement in September urging dieters to ``come back to common
    sense.''

    ``Eat a balanced diet weighted toward vegetables and fruits, reduce
    portion sizes and increase physical activity,'' the institute said.

    Dr. William Dietz, director of chronic-disease prevention at the
    federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said it is
    difficult to tell whether these low-carb diets really work because
    people find it hard to stick to a strict regimen for long periods.
    ``My anecdotal experience is that people go on and off these diets,''
    he said. ``When their weight goes up, they go back on the diet to lose
    weight.''

    Other research at the conference underscored the many health and
    personal problems obese people face.

    Duke University doctors said two-thirds of obese people seeking
    treatment at the Duke Diet & Fitness Center reported not enjoying or
    wanting to have sex, and having problems with sexual performance. Only
    5 percent of normal-weight people from the surrounding community who
    completed the same quality-of-life survey reported such problems.

    ==========================================================

    National Weight Control Registry

    http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/WyattJortberg/nwcr.htm

    James O. Hill, PhD
    Rena Wing, PhD

    James O. Hill, Ph.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Director, Center for
    Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center,
    Denver, CO. Research support from Amgen, Hoffman-LaRoche, Procter &
    Gamble, and Knoll Pharmaceuticals; has received consultant fees from
    Knoll, Roche Laboratories, International Life Sciences Institute, and
    Procter & Gamble and is a consultant to the Duke Diet and Fitness
    Center. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97). President, North American
    Association for the Study of Obesity. (USA Today, 9/1/98) Lead author
    of a study on olestra supported by a grant from Procter & Gamble. (Am.
    J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Co-wrote (with Barbara Rolls) a 1998
    report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." Participated
    in a 3/25/99 panel assembled by the Sugar Association to inform New
    York magazine editors about obesity, calories, and activity. (Sugar
    Association's 1999 annual report,
    http://www.foodingredientsonline.com; accessed 03/30/99) Research on
    the effects of covert substitution of olestra for conventional fat on
    spontaneous food intake supported by Procter & Gamble. (Am. J. Clin.
    Nutr. 1998;67:1178-85) Research on the role of carbohydrates in weight
    management was supported by the Sugar Association. (Letter from Sugar
    Association to USDA; on file with CSPI; 4/16/99) Research on using
    Orlistat for weight maintenance funded by Hoffmann-La Roche. (Am. J.
    Clin. Nutr. 1999;69:1108-16) Member of the Foodfit.com advisory board.
    (http://www.foodfit.com/about/advisoryBoard.asp; accessed 11/11/00)
    Research on weight management supported in part by Abbott
    Laboratories. (J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 2001;20:26-31) Member of the
    McDonald's Corporation Global Advisory Council on Healthy Lifestyles;
    formed to "help guide the company on activities that address the need
    for balanced, healthy lifestyles."
    (http://www.mcdonalds.com/corporate/press/corporate/2003/05212003/;
    accessed 6/23/03) Receives consulting fees from HealtheTech, Johnson &
    Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola. Receives speakers fees from
    Abbott Laboratories, Roche Laboratories, and Kraft Foods. Receives
    research funding from M&M Mars. (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003:348;2082-2090)
    Member of the expert advisory board for the American Council for
    Fitness and Nutrition. (http://www.acfn.org/about/advisory.html;
    accessed 10/31/03)

    Rena R. Wing, Ph.D., U. of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Consultant
    to and received research support from Lilly Pharmaceuticals, is on
    Weight Watchers Advisory Board; has received research support from
    Ross Laboratories and ILSI. (Newark Star-Ledger, 2/17/97 notes Eli
    Lilly, WW)

    *******

    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC

    More info about the weight registry:

    http://www.uchsc.edu/nutrition/Administration/admin.htm

    Robert H. Eckel, M.D., Division of Endocrinology, Health Sciences
    Center, University of Colorado. Research on the "effect of medium
    chain triglycerides on glucose and lipid metabolism in type II
    diabetes melitus" was supported by Procter and Gamble. Research on
    "the effect of leptin on postprandial lipid metabolism" was supported
    by Amgen. (Undated resume on file at CSPI; accessed 6/18/02)

    Uwe Christians, Department of Biopharmaceutical Sciences, University
    of California, San Francisco. Research on mitochondrial metabolism
    supported in part by Novartis Pharma AG. (Br. J. Pharmacol.
    2001;133:875-85)

    William C. Heird, Ph.D., Baylor College of Medicine, Baylor, TX.
    Research on fatty acid in breast milk partially funded by Mead-Johnson
    Nutritional Group. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;71(supp):292S-9S)

    Stephen C. Woods, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry, University of
    Cincinnati College of Medicine. Received $1,000,000 in 2000-2001 and
    $1,037,500 in 2001-2002 from Procter & Gamble for a study on obesity
    and energy homeostasis. (University of Cincinnati, Office of Research,
    Active Grants and Contracts - FY 2001,
    http://www.med.research.uc.edu/grants/granttemplateshell.cfm?department_id=186;
    accessed 6/24/02)

    Holly R. Wyatt, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of
    Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. Receives consulting fees from
    Ortho-McNeil, USANA, and GlaxoSmithKline. Receives speaker fees from
    Roche Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, Slim-Fast, and Ortho-McNeil.
    (N. Engl. J. Med. 2003;348:2082-90)

    TC

  7. Quoted message said:


    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC

    amazing how easy it is for various food(or other) industry
    corporations to come together in harmony to create and fund front
    groups and call them legitimate medical research organizations to spew
    their propaganda. It is worse how easy it is for them to fool the
    ignorant public who make little effort to uncover such things.

  8. Quoted message said:


    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC


    Also it is no surprise to see the heavy involvement of proctor &
    gamble. I doubt there are many more corporations around that are as
    evil and destructive? They have been responsible for so much
    corruption and criminality for the last 100 years resulting in
    countless deaths and suffering. But hey maybe they throw MASSIVE
    amounts of their money around because they are good citizens? I am
    sure markd believes so. A pity so many people are just as foolish.
    Corporations do not mess around with that kind of money. It is always
    used to further their own interests.

  9. On 16 Nov 2004 21:41:07 -0800, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
    posted:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC


    Also it is no surprise to see the heavy involvement of proctor &
    gamble. I doubt there are many more corporations around that are as
    evil and destructive?

    You mean they have stopped paying their shareholders a dividend and
    their share price has fallen? Coz that's all they are obliged to do.
    If you want them to alter any of their practices that are successfuly
    serving their shareholders, you must elect a regulator that will
    regulate them to your desire. Of course, if you overregulate them,
    they will sack all their workers and move to a country that does not
    regulate them so much. Those who live by the market will likely die by
    the market!

    Quoted message said:

    They have been responsible for so much
    corruption and criminality for the last 100 years resulting in
    countless deaths and suffering.

    And they have been convicted and sentenced for these countless crimes?
    Or are they not a crime in your country?

    Quoted message said:

    But hey maybe they throw MASSIVE
    amounts of their money around because they are good citizens? I am
    sure markd believes so. A pity so many people are just as foolish.
    Corporations do not mess around with that kind of money. It is always
    used to further their own interests.

    As it should be. What other use should they put it to?

  10. On 16 Nov 2004 21:32:23 -0800, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
    posted:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC

    amazing how easy it is for various food(or other) industry
    corporations to come together in harmony to create and fund front
    groups and call them legitimate medical research organizations to spew
    their propaganda. It is worse how easy it is for them to fool the
    ignorant public who make little effort to uncover such things.

    The public might do well with a bit of education to understand just
    what the scientific process is and is not.

  11. hjackson quoted:

    Quoted message said:


    November 15, 2004
    Study: Low-Fat Diets Better Long-Term
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    The study used the National Weight Control Registry, a decade-old
    effort to learn the secrets of success from people who had lost at
    least 30 pounds and kept them off for at least a year. The registry
    run by doctors from the University of Colorado in Denver, the
    University of Pittsburgh and Brown University in Providence, R.I.

    Try going to the registry and look closely at what questions they
    ask. For a very long time there was no way to tell them you were on
    a low carb plan. I haven't read their questions for about 2 years,
    so I don't know if they have repaired that problem now.

    Because of that, no data from the registry has any validity
    whatsoever to judge the effectiveness of low carb compared to
    any other type of plan. Completely irrelevant data. Worthless.

  12. Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    On 16 Nov 2004 21:41:07 -0800, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
    posted:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    It does not belong in any scientific arena.

    TC


    Also it is no surprise to see the heavy involvement of proctor &
    gamble. I doubt there are many more corporations around that are as
    evil and destructive?

    You mean they have stopped paying their shareholders a dividend and
    their share price has fallen? Coz that's all they are obliged to do.
    If you want them to alter any of their practices that are successfuly
    serving their shareholders, you must elect a regulator that will
    regulate them to your desire. Of course, if you overregulate them,
    they will sack all their workers and move to a country that does not
    regulate them so much. Those who live by the market will likely die by
    the market!

    Quoted message said:

    They have been responsible for so much
    corruption and criminality for the last 100 years resulting in
    countless deaths and suffering.

    And they have been convicted and sentenced for these countless crimes?
    Or are they not a crime in your country?

    Quoted message said:

    But hey maybe they throw MASSIVE
    amounts of their money around because they are good citizens? I am
    sure markd believes so. A pity so many people are just as foolish.
    Corporations do not mess around with that kind of money. It is always
    used to further their own interests.

    As it should be. What other use should they put it to?

    Dude are you really this dumb? maybe you should stop posting and go
    stick your head back in the sand where it belongs.

  13. On 24 Nov 2004 11:37:09 -0800, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
    posted:

    Quoted message said:

    Dunne E. Dawe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    On 16 Nov 2004 21:41:07 -0800, [email hidden] (Wolfbrother)
    posted:

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > The National Weight Control Registry is not a scientific endeavour. It
    > is an industry funded and run organization to promote its own agenda.
    > It does not belong in any scientific arena.
    >
    > TC
    Also it is no surprise to see the heavy involvement of proctor &
    gamble. I doubt there are many more corporations around that are as
    evil and destructive?

    You mean they have stopped paying their shareholders a dividend and
    their share price has fallen? Coz that's all they are obliged to do.
    If you want them to alter any of their practices that are successfuly
    serving their shareholders, you must elect a regulator that will
    regulate them to your desire. Of course, if you overregulate them,
    they will sack all their workers and move to a country that does not
    regulate them so much. Those who live by the market will likely die by
    the market!

    Quoted message said:

    They have been responsible for so much
    corruption and criminality for the last 100 years resulting in
    countless deaths and suffering.

    And they have been convicted and sentenced for these countless crimes?
    Or are they not a crime in your country?

    Quoted message said:

    But hey maybe they throw MASSIVE
    amounts of their money around because they are good citizens? I am
    sure markd believes so. A pity so many people are just as foolish.
    Corporations do not mess around with that kind of money. It is always
    used to further their own interests.

    As it should be. What other use should they put it to?

    Dude are you really this dumb? maybe you should stop posting and go
    stick your head back in the sand where it belongs.

    So you can't answer my question? It was rhetorical (so obvious that it
    required no response) but as you can add nothing to the discussion (as
    usual) I wonder why you posted your silly outburst and showed us all
    your stupidity.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.