So you want to lose weight Naturally? Cut the carbs not the fats. You would assume that the best approach is to cut out the fat in your meals, because it’s often the culprit.
Turns out, it is far better to go for a low-carbohydrate diet than a low fat diet, according to a year-long study recently published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. And even better, it can apparently reduce the risk of you developing heart problems in the future. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and headed by Dr. Lydia Bazzano of Tulane University, New Orleans.
The study was a randomized, parallel-group trial that compared the effects of a low carb diet versus a low-fat diet using body weight and risk factors for heart diseases as markers of the degree of improvement.
148 people were initially chosen for the study, but in the end only 119 followed through to the end, 60 on the low-fat regime, and 59 on the low-carb regime. The participants were aged between 22 and 75 years old, and there were roughly equal numbers of blacks and whites.
There were no caloric restrictions on the two groups, other than that those on the low-carb diet should consume 40g or less of carbohydrates a day, while those on the low-fat diet should see to it that 30% or less of their dietary energy should come from fat.
To ensure compliance with the regime, there were regular meetings with dietitians. The participants were then assessed after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.
The researchers were interested in the following data from the participants; weight, fat mass, cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL), and triglyceride levels.
Weight measurements are to evaluate the kilos shed, while fat mass is used to determine whether the weight loss comes from losing fat, as should be the case, or lean muscle. The last three parameters are used in determining the probability of developing cardiovascular conditions.
By all these measures, the low-carb group outdid the low-fat group. They shed an average of 3.5kg after 12 months, though some managed to drop as much as 5.6kg, while their fat mass also dropped. Those on the low-fat group did lose weight, but this was accompanied by a rise in their fat mass, which meant that they were losing lean muscles instead of body fat, a worrying fact.
Likewise, the low-fat group had lower improvements in HDL, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, when compared against the low-carb group.
In conclusion, “the low-carbohydrate diet was more effective for weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor reduction than the low-fat diet.”
Indeed, there have been numerous studies showing this to be the case.
Previous Studies
A 2003 study showed that in a calorie-restricted diet, women on a low-carb diet lost an average of 8.5kg in a 6 month long trial while those on a low-fat diet lost an average of 3.9kg.
The benefits of carbs were further confirmed by a 2004 study which showed that a low-carb group lost an average of 6.2kg over 12 weeks while a low fat group lost 3.4kgs. Cardiovascular markers also improved far better in the low-carb group.
This analysis of low-carb vs. low-fat studies in the last 11 years showed that:
- of the 23 studies, only in 1 did the low-fat group report more weight loss than the low-carb group
- Generally, low-carb groups lost twice as much weight as low-fat groups.
- Low-carb diets were better at reducing abdominal fat.
So there you have it; if you want to lose weight, maybe you should see a dietician for a low-carb diet.
By Matengo Chwanya
