Low-Fat and Low-Carb Diets End Battle in Tie After Two Years, But…

Dieters on low-fat and low-carb diets both lost the same amount of weight after two years, according to a just-published article in Annals of Internal Medicine.  Both groups received intensive behavioral treatment, which may be the key to success for many.  Low-carb eating was clearly superior in terms of increased HDL cholesterol, which may help prevent heart disease and stroke.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and was carried out in Denver, St. Louis, and Philadelphia.

How Was It Done?

Healthy adults aged 18-65 were randomly assigned to either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet.  Average age was 45.  Average body mass index was 36 (over 25 is overweight; over 30 is obese).  Of the 307 participants, two thirds were women.  People over 136 kg (299 lb) were excluded from the study—I guess because weight-loss through dieting is rarely successful at higher weights.  Diabetics were excluded. 

The low-carb diet:  Essentially the Atkins diet with a prolonged induction phase (12 weeks instead of two).  Started with maximum of 20 g carbs daily, as low-carb vegetables.  Increase carbs by 5 g per week thereafter as long as weight loss progressed as planned.  Fat and protein consumption were unlimited.  The primary behavioral goal was to limit carb consumption.

The low-fat diet:  Calories were limited to 1200-1500 /day (women) or 1500-1800 (men).  [Those levels in general are too low, in my opinion.]  Diet was to consist of about 55% of calories from carbs, 30% from fat, 15% from protein.  The primary behavioral goal was to limit overall energy (calorie) intake. 

Both groups received frequent, intensive in-person group therapy—lead by dietitians and psychologists—periodically over two years, covering such topics as self-monitoring, weight-loss tips, management of weight regain and noncompliance with assigned diet.  Regular walking was recommended.

Body composition was measured periodically with dual X-ray absorptiometry.

What Did They Find?

Both groups lost about 11% of initial body weight, but tended to regain so that after two years, both groups average losses were only 7% of initial weight.  Weight loss looked a little better at three months in the low-carb group, but it wasn’t statistically significant. 

The groups had no differences in bone density or body composition.

No serious cardiovascular illnesses were reported by participants.  During the first six months, the low-carb group reported more bad breath, hair loss, dry mouth, and constipation.  After six months, constipation in the low-carb group was the only symptom difference between the groups.

During the first six months, the low-fat group had greater decreases in LDL cholesterol (with potentially less risk of heart disease), but the difference did not persist for one or two years.

Increases in HDL cholesterol (potentially heart-healthy) persisted throughout the study for the low-carb group.  The increase was 20% above baseline.

About a third of participants in both groups dropped out of the study before the two years were up.  [Not unusual.]

My Comments

Contrary to several previous studies that suggested low-carb diets are more successful than low-fat, the study at hand indicates they are equivalent as long as dieters get intensive long-term group behavioral intervention. 

Low-carb critics warn that the diet will cause osteoporosis, a dangerous thinning of the bones that predisposes to fractures.  This study disproves that.

Contrary to widespread criticism that low-carb eating—with lots of fat and cholestrol— is bad for your heart, this study notes a sustained elevation in HDL cholesterol (“good cholesterol”) on the low-carb diet over two years.  This also suggests the low-carbers  followed the diet fairly well.  The investigators also note that low-carb eating tends to produce light, fluffy LDL cholesterol, which is felt to be less injurious to arteries compared to small, dense LDL cholesterol.

A major strength of the study is that it lasted two years, which is rare for weight-loss diet research.

A major weakness is that the investigators apparently didn’t do anything to document the participants’ degree of compliance with the assigned diet.  It’s well known that many people in this setting can follow a diet pretty well for two to four months.  After that, adherence typically drops off as people go back to their old habits.  The group therapy sessions probably improved compliance, but we don’t know since it wasn’t documented. 

How often do we hear “Diets don’t work.”  Well, that’s just wrong.

Overall, it’s an impressive study, and done well. 

Individuals wishing to lose weight on their own can’t replicate these study conditions because of the in-person behavioral intervention component.  There are lots of self-help calorie-restricted balanced diets (e.g., Sonoma Diet, The Zone,  Advanced Mediterranean Diet) and low-carb diets (e.g., Atkins Diet, Banting’s Letter on Corpulence, Low-Carb Mediterranean or Ketogenic Mediterranean Diets).  On-line support groups—e.g. Low Carb Friends and SparkPeople and 3 Fat Chicks on a Diet—could supply some necessary behavioral intervention strategies and support.  

Choosing a weight-loss program is not as easy as many think.  [Well, I’ll admit that choosing the wrong one is easy.]  I review the pertinent issues in my “Prepare for Weight Loss” page.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Foster, Gary, et al.  Weight and metabolic outcomes after 2 years on a low-carbohydrate versus low-fat diet: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153 (2010): 147-157   PMID: 20679559

8 Comments

Filed under Carbohydrate, Fat in Diet, ketogenic diet, Overweight and Obesity, Weight Loss

Are Most Statin Prescriptions a Waste of Money?

A recent medical journal article suggests that three of every four statin prescriptions do nothing to prevent death, since they’re taken by people without an established diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.  The researchers don’t address whether statin drugs prevent heart attacks or strokes or otherwise improve quality of life. 

Most of the “healthy” people taking statins are trying to prevent heart attacks associated with high cholesterol levels.  You’d think if statins prevented heart attacks, they’d prolong life.  That’s not what these researchers found.

Details are at my recent Self/NutritionData Heart Health Blog post.

Steve Parker, M.D.

11 Comments

Filed under coronary heart disease

Quote of the Day

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence

“The Declaration of Independence—the “father of all moral principle” in our politics, as Lincoln called it—defines the purpose of government in distinctly limited terms: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  The rights in question are the natural ones to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That the Declaration speaks of the pursuit of happiness rather than happiness itself as a right is an important indication of the Founders’ commitment to limited government.  A government that is responsible for sustaining the conditions in which we can pursue happiness is a limited one.  But is is difficult to say what the limits are on a government that is responsible for our happiness iteslf.”

                                                 —Matthew J. Franck, professor and chairman of political science at Radford University, writing in National Review, May 17, 2010

Comments Off on Quote of the Day

Filed under Quote of the Day

Is Your Diet Deficient in Micronutrients?

Laura Dolson at her Low Carb Diets Blog today reports on a recent study that compared micronutrient levels in three diets: Atkins, Zone, and LEARN.  Visit her post for the surprising and worrisome results of this study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

[In a nutshell, “micronutrients” are important vitamins and minerals present in small amounts in our food.]

Monica Reinagel has also reviewed the study.  I respect both of their opinions.

Steve Parker, M.D., author of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Drew Carey Succeeds With Very Low-Carb Diet

Jimmy Moore today at Livin’ La Vida Low Carb reports on Drew Carey’s fantastic success in losing 80 pounds (36.4 kg) of fat and controlling (curing?) his type 2 diabetes.  Jimmy says many Hollywood celebrities control their weight with carbohydrate-restricted eating.

Steve Parker, M.D.

2 Comments

Filed under Weight Loss

Paleo Diet and Diabetes: Improved Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Compared to a standard diabetic diet, a Paleolithic diet improves cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetics, according to investigators at Lund University in Sweden.

Researchers compared the effects of a Paleo and a modern diabetic diet in 13 type 2 diabetic adults (10 men) with average hemoglobin A1c’s of 6.6% (under good control, then).  Most were on diabetic pills; none were on insulin.  So this was a small, exploratory, pilot study.  Each of the diabetics followed both diets for three months.

How Did the Diets Differ?

ResearchBlogging.orgCompared to the diabetic diet, the Paleo diet was mainly lower in cereals and dairy products, higher in fruits and vegetables, meat, and eggs.  The Paleo diet was lower in carbohydrates, glycemic load, and glycemic index.  Paleo vegetables were primarily leafy and cruciferous.  Root vegetables were allowed; up to 1 medium potato daily.  The Paleo diet also featured lean meats [why lean?], fish, eggs, and nuts, while forbidding refined fats, sugars, and beans.  Up to one glass of wine daily was allowed.

See the actual report for details of the diabetic diet, which seems to me to be similar to the diabetic diet recommended by most U.S. dietitians.

What Did the Researchers Find?

Compared to the diabetic diet, the Paleo diet yielded lower hemoglobin A1c’s (0.4% lower—absolute difference), lower trigylcerides, lower diastolic blood pressure, lower weight, lower body mass index, lower waist circumference, lower total energy (caloric) intake, and higher HDL cholesterol.  Glucose tolerance was the same for both diets.  Fasting blood sugars tended to decrease more on the Paleo diet, but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.08).

So What?

The greater improvement in multiple cardiovascular risk factors seen here suggests that the Paleo diet has potential to reduce the higher cardiovascular disease rates we see in diabetics.  Larger studies—more participants—are needed for confirmation.  Ultimately, we need data on hard clinical endpoints such as heart attacks, strokes, and death.

These diabetics had their blood sugars under fairly good control at baseline.  I wouldn’t be surprised if diabetics under poor control—hemoglobin A1c of 9%, for example—would see even greater improvements in risk factors as well as glucose levels while eating Paleo.

I see a fair amount of overlap between this version of the Paleo diet and Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution diet and the Low-Carb Mediterranean Diet

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference:  Jönsson, T., Granfeldt, Y., Ahrén, B., Branell, U., Pålsson, G., Hansson, A., Söderström, M., & Lindeberg, S. (2009). Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study Cardiovascular Diabetology, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1475-2840-8-35

11 Comments

Filed under coronary heart disease, Glycemic Index and Load, Mediterranean Diet

Diabetes Consumes 7% of the UK’s Drug Budget

The BBC reports that drugs for diabetes account for 7% of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service’s prescription drug budget. 

They would spend less on diabetic drugs if more diabetics adhered to low-carb eating or the Mediterranean diet.  Better yet, combine both eating styles as in the Low-Carb Mediterranean Diet.

Steve Parker, M.D.

2 Comments

Filed under Drugs for Diabetes

2nd Printing of “Advanced Mediterranean Diet” Now Available

The first printing of The Advanced Mediterranean Diet: Lose Weight, Feel Better, Live Longer is sold out. Yay! And many thanks to my readers!

The book is available now from a new printer that also handles distribution, CreateSpace.  As always, you can also get the book from Amazon.com.

Steve Parker, M.D.

3 Comments

Filed under Mediterranean Diet, Shameless Self-Promotion

Maybe Diet Prevents Alzheimer Dementia After All

I blogged about a study by Gu et al on April 30, 2010, that found significantly lower incidence of Alzheimer dementia in people in Manhattan who followed this dietary pattern:

  • relatively high consumption of salad dressing, nuts, fish, tomatoes, fruits, dark green leafy vegetables, and cruciferous  vegetables
  • relatively low consumption of poultry, red meat, butter, and high-fat dairy

About the same time, a National Institutes of Health expert panel pooh-poohed the possibility that diet had any effect one way or the other on Alzheimer’s

Why does this matter?  Five million U.S. adults have Alzheimer dementia already, and it’s going to get much worse over the coming decades.

A June, 2010, issue of Journal of the American Medical Association has a commentary by two doctors (Martha Morris, Sc.D., and Christine Tangney, Ph.D.), experts in the field of nutrition.  Here’s their explanation of the NIH panel’s negative findings:

Many of the inconsistencies among studies of dietary factors can be attributed to the complexity of nutrition science and the omission of nutrition expertise in the design and analysis of both epidemiological and randomized controlled trials.

Morris and Tangney think the findings of Gu et al are valid, confirming prior studies showing benefit to diets high in vitamin E (from food) and low in saturated fat from animals.  They point out that the animal foods may simply be displacing beneficial nutrients in other foods, rather than directly causing harm.

Until we have further data, anyone at risk for Alzhiemer’s may be better off following the dietary pattern above, or the Mediterranean diet.  The two are similar.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Disclaimer:  All matters regarding your health require supervision by a personal physician or other appropriate health professional familiar with your current health status.  Always consult your personal physican before making any dietary or exercise changes. 

Reference: Morris, M., & Tangney, C.  Diet and Prevention of Alzheimer Disease.  The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303 (2010): 2,519-2,520.    doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.844

4 Comments

Filed under Dairy Products, Fat in Diet, Fish, Fruits, Health Benefits, Mediterranean Diet, nuts, Vegetables

Diabetes Drug Rosiglitazone About to Be Pulled Off the Market?

ResearchBlogging.orgIt’s over for rosiglitazone.

Sold in the U.S. as Avandia, rosiglitazone is a drug used to control type 2 diabetes either alone or in combination with insulin, metformin, or a sulfonylurea.  It has only one competitor in its class: pioglitazone (sold as Actos).

Both drugs in the thiazolidinedione class (aka TZDs or glitazones) increase the risk of heart failure.  Prior studies had suggested that rosiglitazone increases the risk of heart attack, heart failure, and death.  Research suggested that pioglitazone actually reduces the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

A study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association directly compared clinical use of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone.  Investigators looked at Medicare data involving over 227,000 patients, average age 74, average follow-up of 105 days.

Rosiglitazone comes out the loser: users had significantly higher risk of stroke, heart failure, and death.  Risk of heart attack trended a bit higher in the rosi users but did not reach statistical significance. 

The researchers also calculated the composite risk of suffering either a heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or death:  rosiglitazone risk was about 18% higher compared to pioglitazone. 

What do these numbers mean from a practical viewpoint?  The researchers calculated a “number needed to harm.” Treat 60 patients with rosi and 60 with pio for one year; the rosi group will have one extra event—heart attack, stroke, heart failure, or death—compared with the pio users.

Why put up with that risk?  There’s no good reason.  Especially when pioglitazone is available.

Implications

If you take rosiglitazone, ask your doctor to find an alternative or switch you to pioglitazone.  Soon.

Clearly, we don’t know all of the adverse effects of many of the drugs doctors prescribe, whether for diabetes or other illnesses.  We balance the good with the bad, and that equation changes over time. 

Rosiglitazone’s manufacturer may pull the drug off the market voluntarily.  If not, the FDA will do it.  Cardiovascular disease—e.g., heart attacks, strokes, heart failure—kills 68% of diabetics.  The last thing we need is a drug that increases that risk.

Within a month, you’ll see ads on U.S. television from trial lawyers asking if you or a loved one has been hurt by rosiglitazone.  “If so, call this toll-free number now…”

Steve Parker, M.D.

Reference: Graham, D., Ouellet-Hellstrom, R., MaCurdy, T., Ali, F., Sholley, C., Worrall, C., & Kelman, J. (2010). Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, Heart Failure, and Death in Elderly Medicare Patients Treated With Rosiglitazone or Pioglitazone JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.920

9 Comments

Filed under Drugs for Diabetes