Lose Weight Without Counting Calories

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Lose Weight

Choose Healthy Foods, Not Diet Foods

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

dieting adviceHow do you lose weight without counting calories?

Most adult Americans gain at least a pound or two each year. That may not sound like much on a yearly basis, but over a lifetime it is huge – if you’ll pardon the pun.

Because the health consequences of weight gain are so devastating, everyone has their favorite dietary advice for keeping those extra pounds away. For some it is diet plans – low fat, low carb, paleo, Mediterranean – you name it. For others, it is counting calories or avoiding sugars of all kinds. The list goes on.

But what if all those approaches were wrong? What if we could keep our weight under control solely based on the foods we eat? A recent study seems to suggest that we just might.

How Was The Study Designed?

A group of scientists from Tufts University and Harvard decided to look at how the food choices we make on a daily basis influence our weight gain or loss over time (Smith et al, AJCN 101: 1216-1224, 2015).

lose weight without counting caloriesMost studies of this kind look at what foods people are eating at the time of the study and compare that to how much they weigh. This group of scientists looked at changes that people made in their diets and correlated that with how much weight they gained or lost over time.

When you think of it, that’s the information most of us really want to know. We are less interested in why the foods we used to eat got us into trouble in the first place than we are in how the changes we make in our diet might influence future weight loss or gain.

This study combined the data from three very large, long term studies – the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Altogether that is a group of 120,784 men and women who were followed for 16-24 years. All three of these studies measured weight and evaluated dietary habits using food-frequency questionnaires every 4 years.

The scientists conducting the study measured changes in food choices and changes in weight over the duration of the studies. In analyzing the data, they looked at 3 variables: choices of protein foods, total carbohydrate, and the glycemic load (GL) of the carbohydrates.

Glycemic load is the effect on blood sugar of the carbohydrates in a food times the total amount of carbohydrate in that food. You can think of glycemic load as a measure of carbohydrate quality. Foods with low glycemic load have little effect on blood sugar. Foods with high glycemic load cause a major increase in blood sugar. You probably already know that is not a good thing.

You probably also have a pretty good idea of which foods have a high glycemic load. For example, white bread, pastries, muffins, pancakes, white rice, chocolates, candy bars, cookies, brownies, cakes, pies, and pretzels would all be examples of foods with a high glycemic load. Fruits, whole grain foods and starchy vegetables would be examples of foods with a moderate glycemic load. Vegetables and beans would be examples of foods that generally have a low glycemic load.

 

Lose Weight Without Counting Calories Means Foods  Are More Important Than Calories?

 

Now let’s get to the good stuff – the results of this study. When the authors analyzed the data they found that:

  • Most of the subjects did not exchange one protein food for another over the course of the study. They exchanged protein foods for carbohydrate-rich foods and vice versa.

This was a surprise. Since many experts have been recommending that people substitute chicken and fish for red meat, they had expected to see that kind of dietary shift when they analyzed the data. Apparently, people have not been listening to the experts!

  • When the subjects replaced a serving of carbohydrate-rich foods with a serving of red meats, processed meats, chicken with skin or most cheeses, they gained between 0.5 to 2.3 pounds per year. Within this category, the greatest weight gain was seen when hamburgers were substituted for carbohydrates, and the least weight gain was seen when cheese was substituted for carbohydrates. These are substitutions that pack on the pounds.
  • bad protein dietWhen the subjects replaced a serving of carbohydrate-rich foods with a serving of milk, peanuts or eggs, there was no net change in weight. These appear to be substitutions that are good for weight maintenance.
  • When the subjects replaced a serving of carbohydrate-rich foods with a serving of yoghurt, peanut butter, beans, walnuts, other nuts, chicken without skin, low-fat cheese or seafood, they lost between 0.5 and 1.5 pounds/year. These appear to be substitutions that are good for weight loss.
  • When they focused on carbohydrate-rich foods, replacing one serving of high glycemic load foods with low glycemic load foods was associated with one pound of weight loss per year. Simply put, if you switch from cookies, pastries and candies to fruits and vegetables, you are likely to lose weight. No surprise here.  This would seem to be a method to lose weight without counting calories.

The study really got interesting when they looked at the effect of adding different proteins in the context of the carbohydrate-rich foods that the subjects were eating. For example,

  • When the subjects added a serving of red meat to a diet containing carbohydrate foods with a high glycemic load, they gained an average of 2.5 pounds per year. When they added that same serving of red meat to a diet containing carbohydrate foods with a low glycemic load, they gained only around 1.5 pounds per year.

Simply put, that means eating a hamburger on a white flour bun with fries is going to pack on more pounds than a hamburger patty with brown rice and a green salad.

  • The effect of glycemic load was particularly interesting when you looked at the protein foods that were good for weight maintenance overall. For example, adding a serving of eggs to a high glycemic load diet resulted in a 0.6 pound/year weight gain, while adding that same serving of eggs to a low glycemic load diet resulted in a 1.75 pound/year weight loss. The results were similar for cheeses.
  • Finally, glycemic load also influenced the effectiveness of protein foods associated with weight loss. For example, addition of a serving of beans to a high glycemic load diet resulted in 0.5 pound/year weight loss, but adding a serving of beans to a low glycemic load diet resulted in a 1.5 pound/year weight loss.

New Insights From This Study

This study broke new ground in several areas. For example,

  • good protein dietWe have heard over and over that substituting beans, chicken and fish for red meats is healthier. This is the first study I have heard of that says those same substitutions can prevent or reverse weight gain.
  • Many people advocate a high protein diet for weight control or weight loss, but many of them will tell you the type of protein doesn’t matter. This study suggests that the type of protein foods we eat are important in determining whether we lose or gain weight.
  • Everyone knows that switching from white grains, pastries and candy to whole grains, fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight, but this is the first study I’m aware of that suggests those same changes will influence whether the protein foods we eat lead to weight gain or weight loss.
  • Many people focus on fats and calories when trying to avoid weight gain. While this study is not really fat and calorie neutral (see below), it does suggest that if we focus on eating healthy foods, we don’t need to be counting every fat gram and every calorie.  In other words, you can lose weight without counting calories by eating healthy foods.
  • Finally, this study suggests that if we forget all of those crazy diets and focus on eating healthy foods, our weight will take care of itself. Not exactly a novel concept, but one worth repeating.

 

Can We Lose Weight Without Counting Calories?

 

The head author of this study stated in an interview “The idea that the human body is just a bucket for calories is too simplistic. It’s not just a matter of thinking about calories or fat. What’s the quality of the foods we are eating? And how do we define quality.” This has been picked up by the media with statements like “not all calories are created equal”.

The real message is not that fat content and calories don’t count. Nor is it that calories in some foods count more than the same calories in other foods. The take home lesson from this study should be that we don’t have to focus on fat and calories. We don’t need to jump on the latest fad diet. If we focus on healthy foods, the fat and calories tend to take care of themselves.

But, even that message is a bit too simplistic. Choosing healthy foods is not all that there is for weight control. We also need consider:

  • Portion sizes. Half a chicken could easily add more calories than a small hamburger.
  • How the food is cooked. Fish cooked in a cream sauce may not be any better for weight control than a slab of red meat.
  • Exercise. We need to maintain muscle mass to keep metabolic rate high.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • A recent study has broken new ground and provided some new insights into how to prevent those extra pounds from sneaking up on us over time. This study evaluated how some simple changes we could make in the foods we eat can influence whether we gain or lose weight.
  • One part of the study looked at the effects of replacing a serving of carbohydrate rich foods with a serving of protein rich foods. If that protein rich food were a hamburger, we could expect to gain about 2.3 pounds/year. If that protein rich food were seafood, we could expect to lose about 1.5 pounds/year. Other protein foods fall in between those extremes. The specifics are covered above.

This is a new insight. Many people advocate a high protein diet for weight control or weight loss, but many of them will tell you the type of protein doesn’t matter. This study suggests that the type of protein foods we eat are important in determining whether we lose or gain weight.

  • Another part of the study looked at the effect of different carbohydrate foods based on their glycemic load (the effect they have on blood sugar). Simply replacing 1 serving of high glycemic load foods (refined grain foods, cookies, cakes, candy) with low glycemic load foods (whole grains, fruits and vegetables) was associated with a one pound/year weight loss. This should surprise no one.
  • Finally, one part of the study looked at the influence of glycemic load on the effect that various proteins have on weight gain or loss. For example, adding a serving of eggs to a high glycemic load diet resulted in a 0.6 pound/year weight gain, while adding that same serving of eggs to a low glycemic load diet resulted in a 1.75 pound/year weight loss. Other examples are given above.

This is also a new insight. Everyone knows that switching from white grains, pastries and candy to whole grains, fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight, but this is the first study I’m aware of that suggests those same changes will influence whether the protein foods we eat lead to weight gain or weight loss.

  • Some in the media have interpreted this study as saying that fat and calories don’t count. However, this study was not designed to be fat and calorie neutral. The real take home message from this study is that we may not need to focus so much on fat and calories. When we focus on eating healthy foods the fat and calories tend to take care of themselves.
  • Even that message is a bit too simplistic. It is not enough to just focus on healthy foods. We need to consider things like portion size, how the food is prepared, and our exercise habits among other things.
  • I would be the first to acknowledge that many people need strict guidelines and a well-designed diet program to lose the extra pounds that have built up over the years. However, to keep the weight off they simply need to embrace a lifestyle that includes healthy food choices and regular exercise.  You can lose weight without counting calories.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Debra Barry

    |

    Very insightful! Thank you for breaking down, interpretations, and sharing the results of this study. So many diets, “lifestyle programs”, and even the smart phone nutrition tracking apps focus on caloric intake and not the quality and types of calories. This is another reminder to be mindful of what we eat! Thank you again, and also, thank you for your newsletter!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

Should We Use Supplements For Cardiovascular Health?

Posted July 10, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Are You Just Wasting Your Money On Supplements?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

supplements for cardiovascular health wast moneyYou’ve seen the headlines. “Recent Study Finds Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.”  You are being told that supplements are of no benefit to you. They are a waste of money. You should follow a healthy diet instead. Is all of this true?

If I were like most bloggers, I would give you a simple yes or no answer that would be only partially correct. Instead, I am going to put the study behind these headlines into perspective. I am going to give you a deeper understanding of supplementation, so you can make better choices for your health.

 Should we use supplements for cardiovascular health?

In today’s article I will give you a brief overview of the subject. Here are the topics I will cover today:

  • Is this fake news?
  • Did the study ask the right questions?
  • Is this a question of “Garbage In – Garbage Out?
  • Reducing Heart Disease Risk. What you need to know.

All these topics are covered in much more detail (with references) in my book “Slaying The Supplement Myths”, which will be published this fall.

 

How Was This Study Done?

supplements for cardiovascular healthThis study (D.J.A. Jenkins et al, Journal of the American College Of Cardiology, 71: 2540-2584, 2018 ) was a meta-analysis. Simply put, that means the authors combined the results of many previous studies into a single database to increase the statistical power of their conclusions. This study included 127 randomized control trials published between 2012 and December 2017. These were all studies that included supplementation and looked at cardiovascular end points, cancer end points or overall mortality.

Before looking at the results, it is instructive to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Rather than giving you my interpretation, let me summarize what the authors said about strengths and weaknesses of their own study.

The strengths are obvious. Randomized control trials are considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine, but they have their weaknesses. Here is what the authors said about the limitations of their study:

  • “Randomized control trials are of shorter duration, whereas longer duration studies might be required to fully capture chronic disease risk.”
  • “Dose-response data were not usually available [from the randomized control studies included in their analysis]. However, larger studies would allow the effect of dose to be assessed.”

There are some other limitations of this study, which I will point out below.

Is This Fake News?

supplements for cardiovascular health fake newsWhen I talk about “fake news” I am referring to the headlines, not to the study behind the headlines. The headlines were definitive: “Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.” However, when you read the study the reality is quite different:

  • In contrast to the negative headlines, the study reported:
    • Folic acid supplementation decreased stroke risk by 20% and overall heart disease risk by 17%.
    • B complex supplements containing folic acid, B6, and B12 decreased stroke risk by 10%.
    • That’s a big deal, but somehow the headlines forgot to mention it.
  • The supplements that had no significant effect on heart disease risk (multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C) were ones that would not be expected to lower heart disease risk. There was little evidence from previous studies of decreased risk. Furthermore, there is no plausible mechanism for supposing they might decrease heart disease risk.
  • The study did not include vitamin E or omega-3 supplements, which are the ones most likely to prove effective in decreasing heart disease risk when the studies are done properly (see below).

Did The Study Ask The Right Question?

Most of the studies included in this meta-analysis were asking whether a supplement decreased heart disease risk or mortality for everyone. Simply put, the studies started with a group of generally healthy Americans and asked whether supplementation had a significant effect on disease risk for everyone in that population.

That is the wrong question. We should not expect supplementation to benefit everyone equally. Instead, we should be asking who is most likely to benefit from supplementation and design our clinical studies to test whether those people benefit from supplementation.

supplements for cardiovascular health diagramI have created the graphic on the right as a guide to help answer the question of “Who is most likely to benefit from supplementation?”. Let me summarize each of the points using folic acid as the example.

 

Poor Diet: It only makes sense that those people who are deficient in folate from foods are the most likely to benefit from folic acid supplementation. Think about it for a minute. Would you really expect people who are already getting plenty of folate from their diet to obtain additional benefits from folic acid supplementation?

The NIH estimates that around 20% of US women of childbearing age are deficient in folic acid. For other segments of our population, dietary folate insufficiency ranges from 5-10%. Yet, most studies of folic acid supplementation lump everyone together – even though 80-95% of the US population is already getting enough folate through foods, food fortification, and supplementation. It is no wonder most studies fail to find a beneficial effect of folic acid supplementation.

The authors of the meta-analysis I discussed above said that the beneficial effects of folic acid they saw might have been influenced by a very large Chinese study, because a much higher percentage of Chinese are deficient in folic acid. They went on to say that the Chinese study needed to be repeated in this country.

In fact, the US study has already been done. A large study called “The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)” study reported that folic acid supplementation did not reduce heart disease risk in the whole population. However, when the study focused on the subgroup of subjects who were folate-deficient at the beginning of the study, folic acid supplementation significantly decreased their risk of heart attack and cardiovascular death.  This would seem to suggest using supplements for cardiovascular health is a good idea.

Increased Need: There are many factors that increase the need for certain nutrients. However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s only focus on medications. Medications that interfere with folic acid metabolism include anticonvulsants, metformin (used to treat diabetes), methotrexate and sulfasalazine (used to treat severe inflammation), birth control pills, and some diuretics. Use of these medications is not a concern when the diet is adequate. However, when you combine medication use with a folate-deficient diet, health risks are increased and supplementation with folic acid is more likely to be beneficial.

Genetic Predisposition: The best known genetic defect affecting folic acid metabolism is MTHFR. MTHFR deficiency does not mean you have a specific need for methylfolate. However, it does increase your need for folic acid. Again, this is not a concern when the diet is adequate. However, when you combine MTHFR deficiency with a folate-deficient diet, health risks are increased and supplementation with folic acid is more likely to be beneficial. I cover this topic in great detail in my upcoming book, “Slaying The Supplement Myths”. In the meantime, you might wish to view my video, “The Truth About Methyl Folate.”

Diseases: An underlying disease or predisposition to disease often increases the need for one or more nutrients that help reduce disease risk. The best examples of this are two major studies on the effect of vitamin E on heart disease risk in women. Both studies found no effect of vitamin E on heart disease risk in the whole population. However, one study reported that vitamin E reduced heart disease risk in the subgroup of women who were post-menopausal (when the risk of heart disease skyrockets). The other study found that vitamin E reduced heart attack risk in the subgroup of women who had pre-existing heart disease at the beginning of the study.

Finally, if you look at the diagram closely, you will notice a red circle in the middle. When two or three of these factors overlap, that is the “sweet spot” where supplementation is almost certain to make a difference and it may be a good idea to use supplements for cardiovascular health.

Is This A Question Of “Garbage In, Garbage Out”?

supplements for cardiovascular health garbage in outUnfortunately, most clinical studies focus on the “Does everyone benefit from supplementation question?” rather than the “Who benefits from supplementation?” question.

In addition, most clinical studies of supplementation are based on the drug model. They are studying supplementation with a single vitamin or mineral, as if it were a drug. That’s unfortunate, because vitamins and minerals work together synergistically. What we need are more studies of holistic supplementation approaches.

Until these two things change, most supplement studies are doomed to failure. They are doomed to give negative results. In addition, meta-analyses based on these faulty supplement studies will fall victim to what computer programmers refer to as “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. If the data going into the analysis is faulty, the data coming out of the study will be equally faulty. It won’t be worth the paper it is written on. If you are looking for personal guidance on supplementation, this study falls into that category.

 

Should We Use Supplements For Cardiovascular Health?

 

If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for everyone, this meta-analysis is clear. Folic acid may decrease the risk of stroke and heart disease. A B complex supplement may decrease the risk of stroke. All the other supplements they included in their analysis did not decrease heart disease risk, but the analysis did not include vitamin E and/or omega-3s.

However, if you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for you, this study provides no guidance. It did not ask the right questions.

I would be remiss, however, if I failed to point out that we know healthy diets can decrease heart disease risk. In the words of the authors: “The recent science-based report of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, also concerned with [heart disease] risk reduction, recommended 3 dietary patterns: 1) a healthy American diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, and meat, but high in fruits and vegetables; 2) a Mediterranean diet; and 3) a vegetarian diet. These diets, with their accompanying recommendations, continue the move towards more plant-based diets…” I cover the effect of diet on heart disease risk in detail in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths”.

 

The Bottom Line

 

You have probably seen the recent headlines proclaiming: “Vitamin and Mineral Supplements Don’t Lower Heart Disease Risk.” The study behind the headlines was a meta-analysis of 127 randomized control trials looking at the effect of supplementation on heart disease risk and mortality.

  • The headlines qualify as “fake news” because:
    • The study found that folic acid decreased stroke and heart disease risk, and B vitamins decreased stroke risk. Somehow the headlines forgot to mention that.
    • The study found that multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium, and vitamin C had no effect on heart disease risk. These are nutrients that were unlikely to decrease heart disease risk to begin with.
    • The study did not include vitamin E and omega-3s. These are nutrients that are likely to decrease heart disease risk when the studies are done properly.
  • The authors of the study stated that a major weakness of their study was that that randomized control studies included in their analysis were short term, whereas longer duration studies might be required to fully capture chronic disease risk.
  • The study behind the headlines is of little use for you as an individual because it asked the wrong question.
  • Most clinical studies focus on the “Does everyone benefit from supplementation question?” That is the wrong question. Instead we need more clinical studies focused on the “Who benefits from supplementation?” question. I discuss that question in more detail in the article above.
  • In addition, most clinical studies of supplementation are based on the drug model. They are studying supplementation with a single vitamin or mineral, as if it were a drug. That’s unfortunate, because vitamins and minerals work together synergistically. What we need are more studies of holistic supplementation approaches.
  • Until these two things change, most supplement studies are doomed to failure. They are doomed to give negative results. In addition, meta-analyses based on these faulty supplement studies will fall victim to what computer programmers refer to as “Garbage In, Garbage Out”. If the data going into the analysis is faulty, the data coming out of the study will be equally faulty. It won’t be worth the paper it is written on. If you are looking for personal guidance on supplementation, this study falls into that category.
  • If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for everyone, this study is clear. Folic acid may decrease the risk of stroke and heart disease. A B-complex supplement may decrease the risk of stroke. All the other supplements they included in their analysis did not decrease heart disease risk, but they did not include vitamin E and/or omega-3s in their analysis.
  • If you want to know whether supplements decrease heart disease risk for you, this study provides no guidance. It did not ask the right questions.
  • However, we do know that healthy, plant-based diets can decrease heart disease risk. I cover heart healthy diets in detail in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths.”

 

For more details, read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

UA-43257393-1