THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

In diet, it's calories that count

Study compared range of menus

By Elizabeth Cooney
Globe Correspondent / February 26, 2009
  • Email|
  • Print|
  • Single Page|
  • |
Text size +

In the long run, it's the calories - not the fat, nor protein, nor carbs - that matter, according to a new study comparing diets.

Weight-conscious Americans snap up the latest diets, from the low-fat Dean Ornish approach, to the high-protein Atkins plan, to the compromise called South Beach. But scientific studies evaluating the diets' effectiveness have had mixed results, frustrating consumers who struggle to shed pounds.

A team led by Dr. Frank M. Sacks of the Harvard School of Public Health designed a clinical trial that randomly assigned 811 men and women to spend two years on one of four reduced-calorie, heart-healthy diets with different levels of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. The dieters were asked to exercise for a total of 90 minutes each week and were invited to attend regular group sessions, in addition to receiving periodic individual counseling.

"What we found is that the most important thing for people to lose weight is to choose a heart-healthy diet and to keep the amounts down," Sacks, lead author of the article appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an interview.

"It's not so important whether they eat higher carbohydrates or higher protein or lower carbohydrates or lower protein," he said. "What really matters is just plain, simple old quantity: how much people eat."

All the diets worked the same when measured by lost pounds and reduced waist circumference, regardless of the nutrients they emphasized. The 80 percent of participants who stuck with the diets until the end lost an average of 13 pounds in the first six months and had kept about 9 pounds off after two years. Dieters who had the best record of attending counseling sessions lost 22 pounds. Waistlines shrank by about 2 inches throughout all groups.

In the end it was the calories they didn't eat that made the difference. All four diets cut out 750 calories a day, the researchers said, prescribing a minimum intake of 1,200 calories per day. "It's just the calories that count," Sacks said.

Cholesterol, blood pressure, and triglyceride levels also improved modestly across the groups.

"These results show that, as long as people follow a heart-healthy, reduced-calories diet, there is more than one nutritional approach to achieving and maintaining a healthy weight," Dr. Elizabeth G. Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in a statement. The institute funded the study.

The participants, who were classified as overweight or obese based on body mass index scores from 25 to 49, agreed to eat diets high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. They recorded what they ate or drank in a Web-based program that tracked their progress.

"The further diet is from a person's customary intake, the harder it is to stick with it in the long term," Sacks said, adding that the conclusion that calories matter most will make it easier to diet using familiar foods.

An editorial in the Journal said that diet components might be less important than the behavior of the dieters.

Elizabeth Cooney can be reached at lizcooney@gmail.com

  • Email
  • Email
  • Print
  • Print
  • Single page
  • Single page
  • Reprints
  • Reprints
  • Share
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Comment
 
  • Share on DiggShare on Digg
  • Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article
  • powered by Del.icio.us
Your Name Your e-mail address (for return address purposes) E-mail address of recipients (separate multiple addresses with commas) Name and both e-mail fields are required.
Message (optional)
Disclaimer: Boston.com does not share this information or keep it permanently, as it is for the sole purpose of sending this one time e-mail.