I wanted to post a short reaction to a recent NIH sponsored study that appears in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association. The study is being reported in a number of news sources. It compares the ability of three diets, 1. Low Fat, 2. Low Carb, 3. Low Glycemic but balanced, to facilitate maintenance of weight loss.
On the surface it appears to be a straight forward "slam dunk" for the Low Carb diet. Under strict controls, it appears to "burn" 300 more caloroies per day than those on the Low Fat diet. That represents the equivalent of a 2-3 mile run, withourt any exercise whatsoever. The Low Glycemic diet burned 150 more calories than the Low fat diet. (I know burn is not really the proper turn of phrase, but this is how it's being reported)
Of note to readers here, is that the dieters tested were obese, not already somewhat lean, trained athletes. It's very likely that these folks may be very carb sensitive in the first place and that that could be one of the contributing factors in their original weight gain. They may thus react very diffrently to the three protocols presented.
Various "experts' in several publications also point out adherence problems with long term use of Low Carb diets as well as several negative side affects on cardiac health markers.
I'm sure we'll see more analysis and comment in the next few days and weeks. But for me and my hard training clients, I continue to recommend a balanced diet, based on lean proteins and "healthy fats" that has low glycemic carbs matched to overall daily exrecise workload. Without the carbs, performance suffers dramaitically, intensity goes down, and long term body composition suffers..
No comments:
Post a Comment