The carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity posits that high-carbohydrate diets lead to excess insulin secretion, thereby promoting fat accumulation and increasing energy intake. Thus, low-carbohydrate diets are predicted to reduce ad libitum energy intake as compared to low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. To test this hypothesis, 20 adults aged 29.9 ± 1.4 (mean ± s.e.m.) years with body mass index of 27.8 ± 1.3 kg m−2 were admitted as inpatients to the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center and randomized to consume ad libitum either a minimally processed, plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with high glycemic load (85 g 1,000 kcal−1) or a minimally processed, animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with low glycemic load (6 g 1,000 kcal−1) for 2 weeks followed immediately by the alternate diet for 2 weeks. One participant withdrew due to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet. The primary outcomes compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period as well as between the final week of each diet. We found that the low-fat diet led to 689 ± 73 kcal d−1 less energy intake than the low-carbohydrate diet over 2 weeks (P < 0.0001) and 544 ± 68 kcal d−1 less over the final week (P < 0.0001). Therefore, the predictions of the carbohydrate–insulin model were inconsistent with our observations. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03878108.

Paywall - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01209-1

Full paper is on the pirate academic sites.

  • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    29 days ago

    Yeah, I was only talking about what’s in the graph.
    And what that shows (low carb consuming more calories while losing weight faster) isn’t possible for longer than a few weeks.
    In my opinion, the reason why low carb works as a diet is that most people are addicted to simple carbs before they start a diet.
    Cutting those out breaks the addiction, you stop getting those hunger cravings, which makes it easy to eat less calories overall.
    But replacing simple carbs with whole grains and lots of fiber has the same effect.

    • xep@discuss.onlineM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      Ah, I see, you mean glycemic index also, in terms of how quickly the blood glucose will spike post-prandially. In that case I share your doubts.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      cake
      OPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      And what that shows (low carb consuming more calories while losing weight faster) isn’t possible for longer than a few weeks.

      Actually it is sustainable - I think there is a implicit assumption that the CICO model is controlling fat gain/loss, but humans are hormonal machines.

      In fact you might really enjoy this case study - https://discuss.online/post/25062313 - [Paper] A case study of overfeeding 3 different diets - 2021

      Basically someone overfed themselves on different diets and looked at their body composition changes, on lchf they lost fat even eating 5300 calories a day.

      • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        25 days ago

        OK, that actually makes sense.
        It’s possible to lose fat while overeating, since calories on labels just show how much heat energy is created when you burn the food.
        Hormones and a lot of other factors influence how much of that energy the body actually takes in and uses or converts to fat.

        So I retract my statement. It’s possible to lose weight while overeating.
        It’s just impossible to gain weight while eating less than you expend.

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          cake
          OPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          25 days ago

          It’s just impossible to gain weight while eating less than you expend.

          Yes, I think that statement is 100% correct