Particularly, this study.
That’s right. I don’t sit here and take the nitrogenous bovine waste coming down the pike and put up with misleading information, especially when the ridiculousness is so big it can’t even hide under Jabba the Hut’s manboobies.
Endocrinologists are a great group of folks, but you have to start wondering if Special K is funding their conferences and providing them with little boxes of blood sugar rusheeoos in the morning with their banana halves and their low-fat, high fructose corn syrup yogurts.
Now, the study’s lead makes a true observation: that the more full you are, the less hungry you are. (He’s the brains behind the thing, you see.)
The study uses a control group of 94 overweight women who are inactive and placed them in two groups:
1: A low-carb group where people were given BREAD and their protein was limited
2. A higher-carb group where people were given bread and more carbs (they never tell us what kind) and their protein is almost doubled as opposed to the low-carb group (seeing an issue already?)
For beginners, let’s talk about the number of calories the ‘low-carbers’ eating the processed crap were given: scantly over 1,000 calories with processed foods and sticking to under 17 carbohydrates (we still don’t know if these were net carbs or not).
It sounds like a possible frankenfoods nightmare. How do we know the low-carbers aren’t also having diet shakes and sugar free candies? We don’t. Why? Because menus are conveniently not provided. How do we know the higher-carb dieters (only 58 carbs is nothing. A lot of folks still lose weight on this) aren’t eating berries and other low GI foods?
The high-carb dieters were not only alloted more calories per day, but their meals were progressively smaller as the day wore on, which, I might add, is a key in high-carb dieting weight loss– larger meals in the morning and smaller at night.
Did you note the extremely high amount of protein in the diets of the high-carbers as opposed to the low-carbers?
The low-carb group is continuously being said to be the small breakfast group, when it is known:
a. that those who employ proteins and fats in fact eat less because of the self-limiting nature of those foods; and
b. that being forced to eat bread, cereal and fruit with these foods actually has the opposite effect on the blood sugar, causing spikes throughout the day, if enough is forced at breakfast (and we don’t really know because the information is vague).
There has been a very recent study showing that those people eating a higher protein breakfast are generally less hungry throughout the day. So if the protein amounts are doubled for the ‘big breakfast’ (higher carb) crowd, and their calorie allotments are vastly higher for breakfast, should the assertion be that a breakfast higher in protein is actually the key to less hunger overall?
I mean seriously.
Who funds these studies, and who are the numpties putting together these skewed plans minus relevant information that people are going to lick up live bellybutton lint on caviar?
This is ridiculous. You might as well say that anorexics gain weight because they don’t eat big breakfasts. Or that Amy Winehouse’s crack binges should have caused weight gain because she didn’t eat her allotted ‘big breakfast’.
If I am going to take this study seriously, I want menus. I want to know why the higher-carb group was allotted twice the amount of protein as the low-carb group. I want to know why the instructions were skewed so as to cause the lower-carb group to fail. I want to know which company funded this study.
The evidence of that so-called study is tenuous at best, and thus earns my “Suck It” award for this Thursday, June 26, 2008.
Sorry for the typos. I was so ticked I schmootzed vowels everywhere.
If you’re going to give this study a “suck it” award, be sure to follow its own guidelines by giving it a big suck in the morning and smaller sucks throughout the rest of the day.
Lee in Nashville
Erica Gott, aka Erratica says
People in this country have been conditioned to accept “scientific studies” as gospel. Most people don’t question them. Good on ya for calling attention to the problems inherent within this one. Ray Peat (www.raypeat.com) is one of my favorite scientists who actually shows the source of his low-carb, high fat diet information.
What bothers me is that the news media gets hold of these study findings and throws them willy-nilly at the public. No wonder my neighbor tells me that “everything is bad for you, so I’m just going to eat whatever I want. What’s the point?”
You mentioned that recently and so I got Kathy Griffin’s latest CD. She is so funny I love her. Griffin is also my maiden name, and I do have a lot of freckles and red-ish hair… (well, I color it now because it’s mostly gray.. and it’s actually dark blonde)
Anyway, the whole LOW-FAT team can SUCK IT!
I love your idea too about blurting that out in the grocery store! When you get the “looks” just look back as if your are confused, and say oops I have Tourett’s Syndrome, SUCK IT! oops again.
Keep writing! 🙂
Isn’t it funny how they can get the exact results they want, when they set the study up that way?
I bet I could set a study up that showed that people that eat eggs only on days that have a E in their names, creates more energy and strength if I were of so a mind. Hmmmmm Nah I’d miss my eggs way to much.
BTW I had chicken nachos in a bowl for breakfast this morning. boy was it good
While I disagree with their high carb part of ther breakfast Cleo my friend I think you missed an important part of the study.
it was a big breakfast vs just low carb. the dieters all ate low carb the rest of the day.
It would have been nice to have a 3rd group who ate a big low carb higher protein breakfast with their low carb rest of the day to see if the higher carbs at breakfast had any part in the initial weight loss which the low carbsers did better on and the maintnenacne fo that weight loss which the big breakfast group did better on.
2big– their results show a skewed reality of high-carb vs low-carb success. It is ridiculous.
They set up the study to acquire the results they wanted. It’s BS.
If they wanted factual information, they should have added the third study group, as you stated, if, for no other reason, as a foil.
This is why I support not-for-profit groups like the Nutrition and Metabolic Society in their research efforts to minimally balance the silly crap.
Sugar free candy. It is the Devil. (especially when you don’t really read the fine print.)
Cleo the study was not low carb but very low carb vs big breakfast moderate carbs, not vs high carb.
Have you seen the orginal study paper?
except for the big breakfast higher carb ( it is still a low carb plan BTW)they low carbed lunch and dinner with only 39 carbs left for both meals (much like an Atkineer at maintnenance would be having except in a balanced amount for each meal).
if you look at the actual break fasts they have almost the same amount of fat in them 22 for the biggie folk and 23 for the very low carb folk.
the write up you linked us to makes it look like high carb vs very low carb but it is actually a big breakfast 610 cals vs a 290 cal breakfast maintnenace of weight loss study since both groups were told to low carb lunch and dinner.
it demonstarted the rule we have all learned about needing a big breakfast. When Atkineers are out of induction and in maintnenance we to are having a moderate carb breakfast with the atkins moderate protein amounts and higher fats. Some of us who are willing to hit the gym daily can afford 58 carbs in our breakfast as a goalie but most will be having 15-20 as part of their maintnennace eating along with the protein and fats and 610 cals sounds about right too.
Quit being right all the time damnit!
You spoiled my rant.
sorry I didn’t want you stressing out over something you didn’t need to be stressed out over since those mean stress hormones will mess with your weight loss eforts and I’m working hard to root you into 100erLAND 🙂 even got the red carpet cleaned up and everything 🙂
you could be annoyned they didn’t see what a low carb high fat moderate protein 610 cal breakfast would ahve done too even though it wasn’t relevant to the hypothesis.