http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/19/2141
The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in
Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat
A Randomized Trial
Y. Wady Aude, MD; Arthur S. Agatston, MD; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD,
MSc; Eric H. Lieberman, MD; Marie Almon, MS, RD; Melinda Hansen, ARNP;
Gerardo Rojas, MD; Gervasio A. Lamas, MD; Charles H. Hennekens, MD,
DrPH
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141-2146.
Background In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and
public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and
hypertension, as well as increasing cardiovascular and total
mortality. Dietary restrictions of calories and saturated fat are
beneficial. However, it remains unclear whether replacement of
saturated fat with carbohydrates (as in the US National Cholesterol
Education Program [NCEP] diet) or protein and monounsaturated fat (as
in our isocaloric modified low-carbohydrate [MLC] diet, which is lower
in total carbohydrates but higher in protein, monounsaturated fat, and
complex carbohydrates) is optimal.
Methods We randomized 60 participants (29 women and 31 men) to the
NCEP or the MLC diet and evaluated them every 2 weeks for 12 weeks.
They were aged 28 to 71 years (mean age, 44 years in the NCEP and 46
years in the MLC group). A total of 36% of participants from the NCEP
group and 35% from the MLC group had a body mass index (calculated as
weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) greater
than 27. The primary end point was weight loss, and secondary end
points were blood lipid levels and waist-to-hip ratio.
Results Weight loss was significantly greater in the MLC (13.6 lb)
than in the NCEP group (7.5 lb), a difference of 6.1 lb (P = .02).
There were no significant differences between the groups for total,
low density, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides,
or the proportion of small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles.
There were significantly favorable changes in all lipid levels within
the MLC but not within the NCEP group. Waist-to-hip ratio was not
significantly reduced between the groups (P = .27), but it
significantly decreased within the MLC group (P = .009).
Conclusions Compared with the NCEP diet, the MLC diet, which is lower
in total carbohydrates but higher in complex carbohydrates, protein,
and monounsaturated fat, caused significantly greater weight loss over
12 weeks. There were no significant differences between the groups in
blood lipid levels, but favorable changes were observed within the MLC
diet group.
Author Affiliations: Agatston Research Institute (Drs Aude, Agatston,
and Hennekens and Ms Almon); the Division of Cardiovascular Research,
Mount Sinai Medical Center–Miami Heart Institute (Drs Aude,
Lopez-Jimenez, Lieberman, Rojas, and Lamas, and Ms Hansen); and the
Departments of Medicine (Drs Agatston, Lamas, and Hennekens) and
Epidemiology and Public Health (Dr Hennekens), University of Miami
School of Medicine, Miami Beach, Fla.
***
TC
Dunne E. Dawe - 27 Oct 2004 09:07 GMT
On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
Hi tcomeau
Did you find my explanation of calories and energy balance helpful?
I haven't heard from you about this, so I wonder if my explanation was
satisafactory to you, or whether you still have further questions.
tcomeau - 27 Oct 2004 17:25 GMT
> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I haven't heard from you about this, so I wonder if my explanation was
> satisafactory to you, or whether you still have further questions.
You "explanation" did not answer the question.
TC
Dunne E. Dawe - 28 Oct 2004 08:27 GMT
>> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>You "explanation" did not answer the question.
Sorry, I thought it did.
Can you rephrase it now so that I can see more accurately where your
difficulty is? Why did you not say you were still confused?
Don't be shy :-)
tcomeau - 28 Oct 2004 17:45 GMT
> >> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> >> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> difficulty is? Why did you not say you were still confused?
> Don't be shy :-)
How about responding to my original post? The study quoted illustrates
a result that renders the laws of thermo useless in accurately
predicting weight loss or gain in humans. Any comments on that obvious
concept?
TC
Dunne E. Dawe - 29 Oct 2004 07:39 GMT
>> >> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> >> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>predicting weight loss or gain in humans. Any comments on that obvious
>concept?
Did my explanation not shed light on this matter? There are many short
term studies that show gross weigh loss is higher with a carbohydrate
restricted diet, surely. The longer term studies show that the two
diets even out in about 12 months, as one would surely expect. This is
generally due to things like suddenly increasing fat consumption
results in short term excretion of some fats, and also greater
glycogen and water stores with a high csrbohydrate diet. As this was a
study into dyslipidaemia, and not a weight loss/ gain study, it is
perhaps not unreasonable that they left many things unmeasured. The
first sentence was:
In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and
public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and
hypertension, as well as increasing cardiovascular and total
mortality"
Interesting?
tcomeau - 29 Oct 2004 14:43 GMT
> >> >> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> >> >> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Interesting?
Nope. And it still does answer the big question. Now how about not
wasting any more of my time and of bandwidth and you actually answer
the question. If you cannot answer the question, and it appears that
that is the case, then kindly go f**k yourself and stop wasting my
time.
TC
Dunne E. Dawe - 29 Oct 2004 15:38 GMT
>> >> >> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> >> >> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
>TC
Could you rephrase your question succinctly then?
It seems to be a bit slippery in its present form. Hard to tie down.
I've thought I've answered it, but apparently I've still not satisfied
the nub of your quandry, so to speak.
Do you not agree with the study you quoted?
Wolfbrother - 29 Oct 2004 23:33 GMT
> >> >> >> On 26 Oct 2004 14:03:46 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> >> >> >> (tcomeau) posted: no response to my help.
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> the nub of your quandry, so to speak.
> Do you not agree with the study you quoted?
The study he quoted? Or do you mean the one you quoted. Because Only
a completely incompetent person who is unable to think logically would
agree with the conclusions they made. Obesity DOES NOT "cause"
diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension or heart disease. That is a
simple fact. What they concluded is the most absurd statement and it
is amazing that it was made by so called "medical authorities". If
you believe that ludicrous statement then you are hopelessly deluded.
The fact that you would even quote it without questioning its obvious
fallacy says enough.
Dunne E. Dawe - 01 Nov 2004 12:12 GMT
>> >> In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and
>> >> public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>The study he quoted?
Yes.
> Or do you mean the one you quoted.
Which one are you referring to?
>Because Only
>a completely incompetent person who is unable to think logically would
>agree with the conclusions they made.
OK
>Obesity DOES NOT "cause"
>diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension or heart disease.
Not on its own. It needs a genetic prediposition (very common) and
that the person also takes insufficient exercise.
>That is a
>simple fact.
Yes.
>What they concluded is the most absurd statement and it
>is amazing that it was made by so called "medical authorities". If
>you believe that ludicrous statement then you are hopelessly deluded.
>The fact that you would even quote it without questioning its obvious
>fallacy says enough.
I've no idea what your point is here. Obesity is the major contributor
to this syndrome in most people who have it.