wab said:
Er, yes, that works. But I have to ask: did you bother to read the article? It's not all about calories.
I wasn't able to access the article; only an abstract. I would really like to see the article itself, as what little they mentioned is odd. As I remember, they gave mean weight loss for each group, and % losing over a certain amount. They gave lipid chemistry for selected groups. They described the results as high carb, low GI best, but it appears that on at least one dimension, in the high protein group the hghi GI group had better results.
“In this study, 129 overweight or obese young adults (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 25 kg/m2) were randomized to 1 of 4 reduced-fat, high-fiber diets for 12 weeks, and changes in weight, body composition, and blood chemistry profile were studied. Diets 1 and 2 were high carbohydrate (55% of total energy intake), with high and low GIs, respectively, whereas diets 3 and 4 were high protein (25% of total energy intake), with high and low GIs, respectively. The glycemic load was highest in diet 1 and lowest in diet 4.
Mean weight loss was similar in all groups (diet 1, -4.2% ± 0.6%; diet 2, -5.5% ± 0.5%; diet 3, -6.2% ± 0.4%; and diet 4, -4.8% ± 0.7%; P = .09).
However, the proportion of subjects in each group who lost 5% or more of body weight varied significantly by diet (diet 1, 31%; diet 2, 56%; diet 3, 66%; and diet 4, 33%; P = .01). Women on diets 2 and 3 lost approximately 80% more fat mass (-4.5 ± 0.5 [mean ± SE] and -4.6 ± 0.5 kg) than did those on diet 1 (-2.5 ± 0.5 kg; P = .007).
Mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels decreased in the diet 2 group (-6.6 ± 3.9 mg/dL [-0.17 ± 0.10 mmol/L]) but increased in the diet 3 group (+10.0 ± 3.9 mg/dL [+0.26 ± 0.10 mmol/L]; P = .02). Goals for energy distribution were not achieved exactly, in that both CHO groups ate less fat, and the diet 2 group ate more fiber.
"Both high-protein and low-GI regimens increase body fat loss, but cardiovascular risk reduction is optimized by a high-carbohydrate, low-GI diet," the authors write. “
So the two best groups for weight loss were 3 and 4, respectively low GI and high GI. Sounds random to me. And for the LDL reduction, they are a bit sparse with the details. My guess is the details would mess up their pretty summary.
It appears that one needs a sub to Archives of Int Medicine to read the full article. In general, I do not trust summaries or abstracts. These guys know what results will fly and which ones won't; so even when they are not outright massaging data, they all too often are selectively abstracting, leaving out anything which doesn't fit the thesis.
These are pretty small groups too- 129 people into 4 groups. Random variation in body chemistry of the participants could have had a large effect. In addition, they do not mention how many subjects finished the study
I don't doubt at all that low GI diets are beneficial, I am just not sure how much of that or anything else is proven by this study ( at least what I have been able to read.)
Ha