How the status quo defends itself (part 2).

Recently, the Globe and Mail online edition published an article with this headline:

“Just cut calories – protein/carb/fat ratio doesn’t matter: study”.

The article led with this:

“There’s no shortage of diet plans promising to melt away the pounds by calling for strict proportions of protein, carbohydrate and fat.

But, according to a new study, it doesn’t matter where the calories come from. What matters most for shedding body fat is simply eating fewer calories – and sticking to your plan, be it high protein, low carb or low fat.”

Okay, that gets my attention and you can understand why. It flies in the face of everything I have learned about low-carb dieting since my epiphany over nine years ago. So, what was this new study and how did it arrive at this remarkable conclusion? The article goes on to say:

“Some, but not all, studies have demonstrated that high protein, low carbohydrate diets work better than others at losing fat and preserving muscle mass over the short term.”

Oops! The studies I am familiar with looked at high fat, low carbohydrate diets and yes, they are better at causing fat loss and preserving muscle mass. But, let’s let the author, Leslie Beck, the G&M nutritional writer, make her point:

“Participants were assigned to one of four diets: 1) low fat (20 per cent daily calories), average protein (15 per cent); 2) low fat (20 per cent), high protein (25 per cent); 3) high fat (40 per cent), average protein (15 per cent); or 4) high fat (40 per cent), high protein (25 per cent).”

Okay, right away we have a bit of a problem. The range of carbs goes from 65% to 35%, from fairly high to not terribly low in terms of the kind of diet others have studied and to which people like me adhere. On the other hand, if there were to be a benefit from carb restriction, one would expect to see at least some signs of it within this range. Let’s not be too deterred just yet. Leslie goes on:

“Each diet was low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in fibre, included low glycemic carbohydrates and was designed to cut 750 calories a day. All participants were offered group and individual counselling sessions over two years.

Body fat and muscle mass was measured using CT (computed tomography) scanning after six months and two years of follow up.

At the six-month mark, participants had lost, on average, more than nine pounds of total body fat along with five pounds of lean muscle, but had regained some of this after two years. Fat loss or muscle loss did not differ between the four diet groups.”

Whoa! Look at that muscle loss. That’s not good. How in the heck did that happen?

“As well, the proportion of protein, carbohydrate or fat in the diet did not affect the amount of abdominal fat, visceral fat or liver fat that was lost during the study. After six months, participants shed about 40 per cent of visceral fat and 60 per cent of liver fat.

At the two-year follow-up, people were able to maintain a weight loss of more [than] nine pounds, including three pounds of abdominal fat.

The bottom line: The major factor for weight loss was adherence to a calorie-reduced diet, not the proportion of carbohydrate, protein or fat it contained. People who followed their diets better lost more weight and body fat than those who didn’t.”

Well. That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? How can you argue for any exceptional benefits for a carb-restricted diet in the face of such conclusive evidence to the contrary? All you need to do is reduce calories and, macronutrient proportions be damned, just stick to it and you will do as well as the next guy (or gal). Isn’t that what everyone has been saying all along? Now that it has been well and truly confirmed we can fold our low-carb tent and go home. This is clearly the position that Leslie takes in her article which, I am sure, has the defenders of the status quo dancing with glee everywhere.

So, why haven’t we seen the magic reduction in obesity rates one would expect with this prescription being so simple and clear and all?

Maybe we should have a closer look. The first thing we discover is that this “new” study is anything but. This is a recently published paper generated from data collected between October 2004 and December 2007. Those data are over four years old and the principle article from this study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February 2009, exactly three years ago. In that report we learned that the weight loss was the same regardless of the dietary macronutrient pattern. This more recent paper goes into the findings with respect to which fat depots were affected, ie liver, visceral or subcutaneous. Okay, fair enough, there is more to discuss than the simple weight loss and metabolic marker values of the first paper. This is done all the time. One dataset can lead to a number of publications over a period of years. The main point, though, is not new. It was published three years ago at which time Leslie did a similar article extolling the virtues of simple calorie restriction. Why the need to make the same point again now from the same dataset? Hmmm? Good question. Feeling a little defensive, are we? A little bit under siege, perhaps? Interestingly, although the recent Nature article condemning sugar, by Robert Lustig, got oodles of media coverage, not a mention was made of it in the G&M. I digress.

We still have the problem of the results themselves. How is it that fairly large variations in macronutrient content seem to have no effect on weight loss and other important factors? Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Whenever a diet study is reported in the lay media, I always dig up the original article to see what actually happened. In this case, I did that back in 2009 and I did it again here. What I found is quite disturbing and can perhaps give some insight into why there is so much confusion about what might be the ideal dietary choice for weight loss.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is the use of an “intention to treat” analysis. What this means is that the researchers design a trial where different subjects are assigned different treatments, in this case, different dietary patterns. During the course of the trial some subjects drop out for various reasons and others fail to comply with the study protocol to which they are assigned. That is not surprising, it happens all the time. The problem is that the prevailing wisdom, in terms of the best way to analyze a dataset that is messy because of these issues, is that everyone’s results at the end of the trial are analyzed as though they hadn’t dropped out and as though they had stuck to their assigned protocol. This kind of study with this kind of analysis is called an “effectiveness” trial.

There is a valid reason for doing this. If you want to find out how effective an intervention might be in the real world you have to factor in whether people will comply with it. You may discover the cure for cancer but it would turn out to be useless if nobody could comply with it. This is important information to know.

Problems with this approach arise, however, when efficaciousness conclusions are drawn from these types of effectiveness findings.  In the vernacular there is no difference between “efficaciousness” and “effectiveness”. However, in the scientific world there is a very important distinction. If I want to know if a drug or diet is efficacious, I need to apply it to somebody and observe what happens when they comply with taking the drug or following the diet. That is a very different approach than trying to figure out how well therapies might work at the population level. In a study of efficaciousness, one is measuring one thing: the biological effect of the intervention. In an effectiveness study, on the other hand, one is measuring the biological effect plus the mitigating factors of attrition and compliance. In an effectiveness study where the intervention is very potent but where compliance is poor, after an intention to treat analysis has been applied the results will indicate that the intervention was not particularly useful. This is exactly what happened with this diet trial.

In the most recent paper (but not so much in the earlier one, which is interesting in itself), the authors admit that by the 6 month point their subjects were not fully compliant with their prescribed diets. Here’s how they characterized that:

“Differences between macronutrient amounts at 6 mo were all in the directions predicted on the basis of macronutrient assignments, although target intakes were not fully achieved.”

In other words, people had only partly complied with the diets they had been prescribed. It gets worse at 24 months, however. By the end of the study the only difference between any of the groups was in the fat consumption between the highest and lowest assigned groups. And how big was that difference? About a teaspoon of fat per day!

Let me emphasize that. By the end of the study, everybody still in the study was eating exactly the same thing except for two groups whose only difference amounted to about as much fat as you would get from eating a single bite of cheddar cheese.

Hmmm. That’s disappointing, right? The researchers invested a lot of time, money and effort in conducting this study to find out whether different proportions of macronutrients would generate different results and their subjects didn’t comply with the diets they were prescribed. That’s a pretty big fail (as my eleven year old son would say). When things go so completely off the rails, how can one draw any meaningful conclusions? Common sense would suggest that you can’t. Ah, but we don’t rely on common sense when doing nutritional studies, you see. We rely on an intention to treat analysis. This allows the researchers to publish their results as though everyone did comply with their diets and draw conclusions about the merits of the prescribed diets even though nobody complied with those diets. Wow, that’s amazing, isn’t it? Talk about your Hail Mary Pass!

Of course, knowing this, why would you be surprised to learn that the results were the same for each of the diet groups? You wouldn’t. But, when the paper is published the authors still make claims about the efficaciousness of the different diets.

In the 2009 paper, the authors conclude:

“Reduced calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.”

And in the more recent paper, the authors conclude:

“Participants lost more fat than lean mass after consumption of all diets, with no differences in changes in body composition, abdominal fat, or hepatic fat between assigned macronutrient amounts.”

Duh! They all ate the same thing. Why would you expect any differences? Oops, I let common sense intrude again, forgive me.

The authors of the 2009 study comment on compliance thusly:

“Despite the intensive behavioral counseling in our study, participants had difficulty achieving the goals for macronutrient intake of their assigned group.”


“In addition, trials of low-carbohydrate diets have reported a very low incidence of urinary ketosis after 6 months suggesting it is futile to sustain a low intake of carbohydrates.”

As I have blogged earlier on the altercation I had with Dr Frank Sacks, lead author on this study, at the Metabolic Syndrome meeting in Barcelona in the spring of 2007, I won’t go into great detail here. Suffice to say that after he presented some data on the merits of high protein, I suggested it may actually have been reduced carb that generated the benefits. This provoked him to respond was an angry rant about how low-carb had no scientific merit whatsoever. Of course, he was still in the midst of running this study in which he purports to investigate the merits of carb-restricted diets. Am I the only one who senses a bias here that might have crept into the way the study was conducted? Naw, that couldn’t happen in the pristine world of nutritional research.

When I hear this nonsense about the inability of anyone to sustain a low-carb diet over the long haul, I think about how we approached smoking cessation. We knew that compliance rates with the various approaches to smoking cessation were poor. However, we also knew that it was the best approach for the prevention of tobacco-related illness and consequently, a great deal of effort was directed at addressing the compliance issues. Had we assumed the posture of current researchers who dismiss a low-carb diet as too difficult to sustain, we would never have achieved any success in diminishing the harm of tobacco. Fortunately, we have the data from case reports and from high-compliance studies by researchers like Jeff Volek and Eric Westman, which tell us that carbohydrate restriction is the best therapy for obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.

We should really be focusing on the compliance issues at this point instead of constantly trying to defend against the smoke screen thrown up by biased researchers and their poorly done studies and a lazy media that is only too happy to report their misconstrued results as fact. A pox on all their houses!


5 thoughts on “How the status quo defends itself (part 2).

  1. The “compliance issue”, is related to the “hybrid carbohydrate, stimulant drug, “factor” , which nobody believes to be true or even exist.

    “Hybrid Plants” with increased sugar and starches and carbohydrates to a point of a thousand fold, when availability, consumption ratios and addictions, are factored in.

    That and they being potent, powerful, addictive, stimulant drugs, at this point.

    An “orange” or “grapefruit” have alcohol in them but you would have to eat and drink them by the gallons and tub full in order to feel their effects.

    That’s what we are doing with our fruits and grains and vegetables and dairy and drinks, on a nonstop daily basis and never once realizing it.

    Tobacco is a perfect example.

    Do you realize if what I’m saying is true, the impact in this.

    You can put me up there with Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman.

    Thank You
    Tom Bunnell

  2. “Dr Frank Sacks, lead author on this study, at the Metabolic Syndrome meeting in Barcelona in the spring of 2007, I won’t go into great detail here. Suffice to say that after he presented some data on the merits of high protein, I suggested it may actually have been reduced carb that generated the benefits. This provoked him to respond was an angry rant about how low-carb had no scientific merit whatsoever.”

    While the obesity and type two diabetes numbers go forever upward, most of the ‘experts’ push the same dogma. Cut the calories and you will lose weight. That seems true to me, there must be a level of calorie reduction that will result in weight loss for all. Most officially approved weight loss methods agree, cut the calories and we will reduce weight. As we all know, most calorie restrictive dieters fail. They work for a time, but in time, the majority of people put the weight back on, many end up heavier than when they started the diet. Hunger or starvation will beat most people, few have the iron will to stay hungry for the rest of their lives. Calorie restrictive diets have failed massively, and the evidence is monumental. The only people that do not want to admit calorie restriction is a failure, and will always be a failure, are the very people that should understand why, Scientists, Doctors and Dietitions.

    Why low carbing works, and how low carbing works, and why it keeps on working, can be explained to a child in ten minutes. As you know, my grandchildren are lowcarbers. Obviously, I have influenced my children to the benefits of lowcarbing. Have I put my family at risk ? I have asked myself that question many times and the answer is always no. How can replacing sugar, starch and highly refined factory produced foods, with a large range of fresh non starchy vegetables, fruit, seeds and nuts be detrimental to health ? How can essential fats in meat and fish, butter, cheese, avocado, olive oil etc. bring about chronic disease ? How can any educated and sane person believe, a diet based on sugar, promotes long term good health, and will ward off chronic disease.

    For close on four years, I have been asking Doctors, Diabetic Nurses and Dietitions, how do I keep my non diabetic HbA1c, vastly improved lipids, maintained weight loss of 50lbs. without lowcarbing and two metformin pills a day ? The silence has been deafening. There is no answer, there will never be an answer from these people. They must know in their heart of hearts, lowcarbing is the only way to safely control type two diabetes, but still so many push the diet of slow death, shame on them. So many of the type two wonder drugs have failed miserably or have been banned. I am amazed when big pharma states their drugs can reduce HbA1c by up to 2% as if this is a triumph of technology, when a humble meat and three veg meal can drop HbA1c from 12 to 5 in a few months. That’s what lowcarbing has done for me and so many others I know. Lowcarbing of “no scientific merit whatsoever” that makes about as much sense as the wheel has no useful benefits whatsoever.

    Keep up the great work Jay

    Good luck and health to you and yours.


    Dr Jay’s Reply:

    Thanks, and keep up the good work yourself!

  3. I believe in simple science.

    Weight loss
    Yes, if calories taken in are less than calories burned you will loose weight. Period. End of Statement. Simple math, duh!
    (Just talking about weight loss here, not health issues, etc)
    (hey, if you stop eating period, and stay that way, you loose lots of weight – its called death by starvation)

    The trick is to stay on the diet, whatever it is, to achieve it.

    Personally I am finding the very low carb, high fat diet to be the easiest diet I have ever stayed on… (except for eating out!) My body has all this lovely food (around my waist) to munch on all day and night if it wants…. It rarely, if ever, say to me “hey, I’m hungry lets eat” …..

    Currently dropping 2 lbs a week, lots of energy, except when playing hockey.
    Body burns up what little glucose it has in a short shift, and replenishes slowly. (My fix for that, which is working, is drink gatorade just before and during the game — I seem to burn off the glucose as quick as I take it in..)

    Not very scientific statements, I know, but its working for me…

    Thank you Dr Jay !

    Dr Jay’s Reply:

    If you have insulin resistance, and I can’t determine that from the little info you have provided, it is important to drop the carbs altogether. In your case, I suspect your observation that your energy level is too low to sustain a hockey game without carbs means that you have not fully keto-adapted. This will take at least a couple of weeks if you go fully low-carb with no cheating (and no Gatorade). Once you have keto-adapted you should find that your stamina is actually better than before. Your weight loss should run at about a pound a day initially if you go that route.

    It sounds like you are on the right track but I think you will find the benefits increase as you further decrease the carbs.

  4. Hi Doc… Ron P again… I’m borderline diabetic, and borderline metabolic syndrome,.,,, and was about 100+ lbs overweight….

    On diet now for 7 weeks…. was in heavy ketosis (purple on the sticks) …
    but found just not enough energy rebound after a shift on the ice… tried gatorade (about 12 sugar carbs per bottle – one bottle for a game) … I experimented a couple of times… gatorade, no gatorade, and it seems to help during the game — I compensate by restricting carbs the rest of the day …. Played today at noon … 1.5 hours ice time.. 45 minutes approx on the ice… tested myself before and after game with a keto stik… a hint of purple before, and deeper purple after … I ‘assume’ I burned them off….
    If I go to the gym and workout on a machine, bike, climber, etc, lots of energy on the diet alone, could go for hours… but just not during a hockey game.

    I gather though, from what you are saying, that I should be able to ? ? ? ?

    Down 30 lbs since Feb 9 on your diet…. (now march 29)

    Dr Jay’s Reply:

    When Dr Steve Phinney did his PhD research on bicycle athletes on a LCHF diet, he found that it took a minimum of two weeks for them to fully adapt and to achieve baseline exercise tolerance. He did tell me, though, that their sprint capacity did not fully return to baseline. This makes sense if you consider that glycogen stores would be somewhat lower on a LCHF diet. I think that athletes who train on LCHF still do some carb loading prior to an event for just this reason. So there may be two possibilities in your case. One, that you haven’t fully keto-adapted and that the use of sport drinks is preventing you from fully adapting. Or, two, that you are fully adapted and you are exhausting your glycogen stores when playing hockey. I suspect the sprint capacity issue is more applicable to high performance athletes but, without knowing more about your particular situation, I cannot say whether this is the more likely explanation for your problem. Phinney also shared with me a sport drink he prepares for his daughter’s soccer team. He makes weak iced tea with xylitol. The combination of caffeine from the tea and xylitol makes it easier to oxidize fat. He says that the team’s second half performance is improved when they drink this. You might give this a try in place of the Gatorade.

    I do, however, think you are on the right track overall with your diet and weight loss. Keep up the good work!

  5. Leslie Beck, RD, has another article in the Globe and Mail with the answer to losing weight-journaling. I posted a Paleo/Primal/LCHF counterpoint in the comments section, including a food diary for my meals the day before. IT WAS REMOVED! I’ve never been censored before. What are they so scared of?

    Dr Jay’s Reply:

    In the Globe and Mail comments sections, all it takes to get you deleted is a flag from another commenter. I don’t necessarily think it was Leslie doing that but I suppose it could have been. Don’t be discouraged, though, keep at it and we will eventually tip this thing over.

Leave a Reply