Theres nothing super shocking in theDIETFITSstudy published today, but theres a lot to learn about whatdoesntmatter in dieting.
Both groups ended up eating fewer calories without being told to count or reduce calories.
Three DNA variations that were supposed to predict your success…also meant nothing.
The study itself is paywalled, but Examine.com has afree breakdownof the studys design and results.
Its the kind of study that other diet studies wish they were.
Its pretty big300 people per group.
Its a randomized controlled trial, which means people were told which diet to do.
The investigators used more reliable methods than just asking people what they ate.
Thats whats in four teaspoons of olive oil, or three-quarters of an avocado.
A single McDonalds double cheeseburger would put you way over the limit.
The low-carb dieters were told to reduce their carbs to 20 grams, as well.
For comparison, half a cup of rice has 22 grams of carbs.
Most people didnt actually achieve the 20 gram goal.
The examine.com folksput this graph togethershowing the results.
The researchers were hoping that genetics would reveal the answer.
So they looked at the SNPs, or gene variants, known asrs1801282,rs1042714, andrs1799883.
Same with the low carbers.
Anybody whose genes were a mix of low-fat and low-carb favoring genes was considered mismatched to their diet.
Sadly, this didnt work out at all.
Its super useful to know what doesnt work, especially in the era of dubious genetics-based diet coaching.)
Insulin secretion also didnt predict success on one diet or the other.
But this didnt pan out either.
What does this mean for me?
Participants lived in the Stanford and San Francisco Bay areas of California.
They tended to be fairly well educated and typically had enough money to easily afford healthy food.
And ultimately, we dont really know why some people lost 55 pounds and others gained more than 20.
The researchers are planning more analyses to look for more answers.
