Cut out carbs not fat if you want to lose weight, according to a Harvard meta study summarizing 53 other studies...
Adam Rifkin stashed this in Nutrition!
Source of the Harvard research: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/landia/PIIS2213-8587...
Source of summary below: http://telegraph.co.uk/news/health/...
A study of more than 60,000 dieters finds those who cut back on bread, pasta and potatoes lost more weight than those who cut back on butter and cheese.
The analysis of 53 studies, involving 67,000 dieters found who cut back on fat were two and a half pounds heavier after a year than those who embraced a “low carb” approach.
For decades, there has been debate over the merits of a low fat diet, which was endorsed as the best route to weight loss in the 1970s.
Now major research, published in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, backs a low carbohydrate approach as a more effective diet.
The study by Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health looked at all previous studies from clinical trials that compared the effect of low-fat diets versus other approaches, at least one year later.
One of the top Reddit comments notes that calories matter:
They buried a quote about calories in there at the bottom:
overall calorie intake determined the extent of weight loss, however it was achieved.
Yet again, it has been confirmed that basically the only thing that matters for weight loss is calorie intake vs expenditure, but nearly everyone who reads this article will remember the "cut carbs" headline. This is horrendous journalism.
The argument is that fat creates satiety and makes it easier to stick to fewer calories IN REAL LIFE... whereas carbs, especially refined carbs, make you hungry again sooner. Let us never have to repeat this again, it's been proven over and over.
It's been proven over and over but this Harvard study is important.
It's a meta-study that incorporates results from 50 experiments to show that what you said is true.