The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Wednesday I explained why "butter is back" is not useful dietary advice, even when studies show that eating butter has little or no effect on disease risk (the total diet and calories are what matter). Now I can say the same thing about low-carbohydrate diets.
The debate about whether fat or carbohydrates is responsible for obesity has passionate advocates on both sides, although those for carbohydrates predominate in the press these days.
The main scientific model behind the low-carb approach is the "carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis," which journalist Gary Taubes, Harvard professor David Ludwig and others have extensively promoted. It suggests that a diet heavy in carbohydrates (especially refined grains and sugars) leads to weight gain because of a specific mechanism: Carbs drive up insulin in the body, causing the body to hold on to fat and suppress calorie burn.
According to this hypothesis, to lose weight you reduce the amount of carb calories you eat and replace them with fat calories. This is supposed to drive down insulin levels, boost calorie burn and help fat melt away … instead of just cutting calories, you're supposed to change the kinds of calories in your diet to lose weight.
To his great credit, Gary Taubes was willing to put this hypothesis to the test. He organized the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) to fund studies that he must have hoped would demonstrate the benefits of low-carb diets.
To its great credit, NuSI recruited highly experienced and respected obesity investigators to design and conduct the studies.
The first of these studies has just been published. It fully discloses the role of NuSI.
Supported by the Nutrition Sciences Initiative … Nutrition Sciences Initiative (NuSI) convened the research team, helped formulate the hypothesis and provided partial funding. NuSI and its scientific advisors were given the opportunity to comment on the study design and the manuscript, but the investigators retained full editorial control.
In this case, because I am familiar with the work of some of the investigators, I'm inclined to take these statements at face value.
Here's what they did. They put 17 overweight or obese men in a metabolic ward and fed them a very low carbohydrate diet, so low that it would induce fat breakdown and ketosis. The calories were supposed to be sufficient to maintain weight, but were not. The men lost weight from water excretion and breakdown of body protein as well as of fat, as is typical of what happens during partial starvation. Energy expenditure did not increase to the level anticipated from the carbohydrate-insulin model.
The abstract concluded:
The isocaloric KD [ketogenic, very low carbohydrate diet] was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE [energy expenditure] that were near the limits of detection [translation: barely detectable] with the use of state-of-the-art technology.
The discussion concluded:
Therefore, our data do not support the carbohydrate–insulin model predictions of physiologically relevant increases in EE or greater body fat loss in response to an isocaloric KD. However, it is possible that dietary carbohydrate restriction might result in decreased ad libitum energy intake—a prediction of the carbohydrate-insulin model that was not tested in the current study but deserves further investigation.
In other words, restricting carbohydrate does not increase body fat loss or energy expenditure but might help you eat fewer calories.
This result confirms some of the results of a previous study from the first NuSI author. That one, funded by NIH, concluded:
Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction (p = 0.002).
Taken together, these studies show that both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets cause weight loss when calories are restricted, but low-fat diets cause greater losses in body fat content than do low-carbohydrate diets.
In my book with Malden Nesheim, Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics, we review a 1964 study that put obese patients in a metabolic ward and fed them low-calorie diets of widely varied composition. They lost weight at the same rate on diets ranging from 3 percent to 60 percent carbohydrate and from 13 percent to 83 percent fat. They titled the study Calories Do Count. The NuSI studies confirm the benefits of reducing calories from any source to lose weight.
- With regard to weight loss, calories count and the relative proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrate do not matter much (although low-carb diets may help with eating less).
- With regard to health, the food sources of calories matter very much indeed and nearly everyone would be better off eating less sugar—at the very least because sugars provide calories, but no nutrients.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
The climate crisis is a major concern for American voters with nearly 40 percent reporting the issue will help determine how they cast their ballots in the upcoming 2020 presidential election, according to a report compiled by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Of more than 1,000 registered voters surveyed on global warming, climate and energy policies, as well as personal and collective action, 38 percent said that a candidate's position on climate change is "very important" when it comes to determining who will win their vote. Overall, democratic candidates are under more pressure to provide green solutions as part of their campaign promises with 64 percent of Democrat voters saying they prioritize the issue compared with just 34 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
President Donald Trump has agreed to sign a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill that will help Americans still recovering from the flooding, hurricanes and wildfires that have devastated parts of the country in the past two years. Senate Republicans said they struck a deal with the president to approve the measure, despite the fact that it did not include the funding he wanted for the U.S.-Mexican border, CNN reported.
"The U.S. Senate has just approved a 19 Billion Dollar Disaster Relief Bill, with my total approval. Great!" the president tweeted Thursday.
"There was a lot of devastation throughout the state," Governor Mike Parson said at a Thursday morning press conference, as NPR reported. "We were very fortunate last night that we didn't have more injuries than what we had, and we didn't have more fatalities across the state. But three is too many."