Thread: Calories count, but source doesn?t matter, study says

that was a dumb study. Get fat people and expect them to cut cals. "many didn't adhere to the diet"

no kidding they are fat for a reason they like to eat too much.


and how is 20% of cals from protein high? They used 20 and 15. They should have used 40 for high and then 20-25 for moderate and 10-15 for low. And they never called me for tips on designing the study.

That's like saying it does not matter how you kill someone in a war, death is death. Bottom line is you can diet in a healthy way or unhealthy way, and yes that does matter.

I agree George. Its like on the biggest loser, which is another dumb show, who can lose the most weight.

Well, if you starve yourself you will lose muscle mass with fat. To me that is not healthy. These people on the study lost 9 lb.s of fat but also 5 lbs. of muscle. If they would have kept protein high (40% at least) and cut 500 cal's instead of 750 and did some weight training they would have lost more fat than muscle.

The researcher's must have never read Tom Venuto's feed the muscle burn the fat book.

Um, I'm gonna disagree with that study. I've lost around 15 lbs so far, tried every freakin diet there is since my kid was born, and the only way I've lost is doing what Built told me. High protein, low carb, clean.

It should be no surprise that the study was funded by National heart, Lung, and Blood Institute who seam to fail to believe (or admit) they've been wrong all these years in blaming fats for the obesity epidemic and it's associated ailments. Any study funded by them that disproves anything they've been saying get's it's funding pulled.

Although ppl that follow weight watchers can eat a chick-fila sandwich everday if the want to....they just have to stay under a certain amount of points to lose weight. I couldn't do it that way but I guess it works for some ppl.

I can't believe this study was actually published. What a joke.
Lets look at the numbers.
750 calorie deficit for 6 month should have peeled off ~ 38.6 lbs Instead it was 14lbs which is consistent with ~ 272 calorie deficit.
The there's the huge loss of muscle compared to fat. They lost 14lbs where 36% of it was muscle. Regardless of their type of diet or exercise program the only way i'm believing that is if all the subjects started the diet in single digit bodyfat %.

"At six months, people had lost more than 4.1 kg (9 lbs) of fat and close to 2.3 kg (5 lbs) of lean mass"

If I only lost 9lbs of fat after 6 months I would kill myself. Honestly what type of shit diet makes you lose only 1.5lbs of fat a month and at the same time you lose almost 1lb of muscle a month?

My fucking tax dollars are funding this ilk, I want a refund.

^^ The study is just fabricated bullshit. No way that actually happened.

I have lost 35lbs of pure fat in 4 months with diet and exercise, none of that loss was muscle mass. I did some KETO, and some simple cal restriction, 1/3 of my weight loss was from KETO, the rest from just training and changing my diet.

People are fat, people don't do well on weight loss programs ( any program) for one simple reason, they put 0 effort into it. I was fat only because I did not give a shit, I am now losing fat only because I now care. There is little I hate more then when fat fucks say they can't lose weight no matter what they do.