In article on the front page of the LA Times today reaffirms what I’ve been saying all along about the truth behind Eat Less Lose Weight weight loss. It all boils down to lowering your caloric intake (LA Times):
In light of another highly regarded study published last year that reached a similar conclusion, medical experts are embracing the back-to-basics idea that the simple act of cutting calories is most important when it comes to losing weight.”
But despite the findings of the study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine, which indicate that the reduction of your calorie count and calorie count alone is responsible for weight loss, the LA Times can’t help themselves. They just had to plug whole grains and slam saturated fat in the article:
That is, any diet that is low in calories and saturated fats and high in whole grains, fruits and vegetables — and that an individual can stick with for a lifetime — is a reasonable choice for people who need to lose weight. That’s the conclusion of a study published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine, research that represents the longest, largest and most rigorous test of several popular diet strategies.
Was that really their conclusion?? That’s funny, I didn’t hear the experts who conducted the study mention anything about whole grains. Let’s check for ourselves. Here is the verbatim conclusion from the actual study:
Conclusions Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00072995 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)
So why is the author of the article inserting their own assumptions which are clearly not consistent with the studies conclusions? It is the same dogmatic mindset that results in the inclusion of grains as a staple in our diets. The facts are clear, it doesn’t matter what you eat but simply that you cut your calories… if all you want to do is lose weight.
Now, if you want to lead a healthier life on top of losing weight, obviously the debate opens up to many more possibilities. But when the facts are clearly stated in the conclusion of a study, there should not be any kind of interpretation derived from the aforementioned conclusion that is not supported by the study. I guess that’s why the article in the LA Times didn’t put a link to the study.