Maybe the specific vegetarian diet used here leads to that conclusion, but extrapolating it to all vegetarian diets or vegetarian diets in general is not science and it's not a conclusion they can make. I wish it was true, but experience, common sense, and actual science tells otherwise. So the headline should be "Some Vegetarian Diets May Be More Effective for Weight Loss Than Some Non-Vegetarian Diets." Because there's plenty of counter examples otherwise. Well, no shit. The corollary is also true: "Some Non-Vegetarian Diets May Be More Effective for Weight Loss Than Some Vegetarian Diets."
I laughed out loud when I read that headline... I'm a vegetarian and am sitting here munching on some sickening off-brand potato-chips that I'm pretty sure will kill me if I finish the packet. No animal products though.
Embrace the goodness that is oat milk! Or almond milk. I'm not even a strict vegetarian, just try to eat meat as little as possible but these taste much better for me nowadays than cow milk, I'm not used to it anymore and it tastes weird.
It's really "Vegetarian Diets May Be More Effective for Weight Loss" for people who have Type 2 diabetes AKA are already eating very unhealthy diets, and versus the control group eating diet X. That's two separate enormous caveats.
> The vegetarian diet (∼60% of energy from carbohydrates, 15% protein, and 25% fat) consisted of vegetables, grains, legumes, fruits, and nuts. Animal products were limited to a maximum of one portion of low-fat yogurt a day.
> [non veg diet] contained 50% of energy from carbohydrates, 20% protein, less than 30% fat (≤7% saturated fat, less than 200 mg/d of cholesterol/day).
What is less than 30% fat? Were they encouraged to eat low fat foods? Were some of them eating only 10% fat?
To any high fat/keto/low carb adherents, these sound like crap diets.
It's hard to read a ketogenic diet page that begins with a long disclaimer about you only you are responsible for your health and diet and "we can't take any responsibility for the consequences", and then conclude that the result represent good advice for the overall health of average people. Normal people are not going to tune their diet by measuring their blood chemistry.
Edit to say that the point may be that those diets were broadly comparable except in consumption of animal foods; the vegetarian diet was modestly higher and lower in protein and fat, but not by much.
I have been on a whole food no oil starch based vegan diet eating mostly potatoes and some other veggies with no fat for 5 months. I have lost 43 pounds eating as much as I wanted. I have done only a little exercise walking a little more but nothing crazy. I feel like I am 21 again though I turned 41 this weekend.
The Starch Solution by John A. McDougall is a great book. Also this video that just came out has a bunch of studies that I read before going on the diet. He does a good job at explaining them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHfbqodBXdw
Counterpoint here: I went on a ketogenic, high fat, medium protein, low carb diet this past year, and managed to lose roughly the same amount in probably the same amount of time (if not less), doing basically the same thing. I ate what I wanted. I got full a lot faster, though. I also felt like I had more energy and suffered less brain fog while on the diet. I'll likely go back on it pretty soon here.
It could well turn out that the common factor here is not consuming a lot of highly refined carbohydrates (sugar, flour, etc.).
More importantly, metabolism is just incredibly complicated, with many complex relationships and effects. On top of that, there is significant genetic variation, so these will differ across individuals. For now, we pretty much have to experiment on ourselves and observe what works.
> It could well turn out that the common factor here is not consuming a lot of highly refined carbohydrates (sugar, flour, etc.).
Also monitoring food intake.
I am a huge proponent of ketogenic diets, but I also realize having a diet that completely forbids me from eating all common dessert and snack foods is what contributes in large part to calorie reduction.
Sure, I love all the other benefits from the diet, but part of what works about restrictive diets is that they are so restrictive.
I have been eating stuff with sugar and some flour so not sure that is the case. Also there are a bunch of search backing my diet but you don't hear much about it because you can't sell anything with eat potatoes :)
You can lose weight on it but you are really tricking your body into starvation. Also it does nothing to help with our number one killer in the US, heart disease. It really isn't healthy for you and most people gain all the weight back. Here is a good video on it as well. He does a way better job at explaining it with links to all the sources he brings up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzHLAqyO7PQ
> but you are really tricking your body into starvation.
Our bodies are not organisms that may be deceived. Thus, you are not "tricking" your body--it's simply utilizing a separate, historically common, metabolic pathway.
> Also it does nothing to help with our number one killer in the US, heart disease
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Most ketogenic studies and reports I've read pretty decisively say that the main predictors of heart disease improve dramatically on a ketogenic diet. LDL, HDL, and triglycerides all tend to improve.
> It really isn't healthy for you
You're mistaken.
> and most people gain all the weight back
Most people gain most of the weight back, as per any diet ever. Do you think your starch-based diet is immune to this effect? I have a very "whatever works" opinion on dieting. Your starch diet works for you, a ketogenic diet works for others, and that seems okay.
> Our bodies are not organisms that may be deceived. Thus, you are not "tricking" your body--it's simply utilizing a separate, historically common, metabolic pathway.
> I'm afraid you're mistaken. Most ketogenic studies and reports I've read pretty decisively say that the main predictors of heart disease improve dramatically on a ketogenic diet. LDL, HDL, and triglycerides all tend to improve.
Starch based diet has cured heart disease and has taken people from high 200's to under 150 and even lower.
> > It really isn't healthy for you
> You're mistaken.
See first comment
> Most people gain most of the weight back, as per any diet ever. Do you think your starch-based diet is immune to this effect? I have a very "whatever works" opinion on dieting. Your starch diet works for you, a ketogenic diet works for others, and that seems okay.
Because you can stay on a starch based diet forever, which I plan on doing, as it really isn't a diet but a choice on the food I am eating. I am not hungry like all the other diets I have ever been on.
There are many other reasons to be on a vegan diet over just health like animal cruelty and environment. I would rather see wins in all three but I agree with you that you need to find what works for you. This is a person decision as you make the choice on what you put in your own mouth.
I'm trying to formulate a reply, without sounding snarky, expressing the notion that a youtube video by "Vic the Vegan" claiming to have "debunked" an entire diet (which has more downvotes than upvotes, mind you) might not be a credible source and it's probably in no one's interest to pay it any credence. Especially, as it seems, that Vic himself has no particular expertise in the field (a field which is highly prone to Dunning-Krugerism). I'm sure if the video makes any good points you'll be able to formulate an argument around them.
> Studies show you are starving yourself
Have you read that link? I ask because it's obvious you have not as it speaks volumes to ketogenic dieting's benefit.
"""Fuel storage depots, like subcutaneous and abdominal adipose tissue, have a high calorie:weight ratio and are capable of meeting the energy requirements directly or indirectly (lactate and pyruvate powered by free fatty acid oxidation) for most tissues, without adverse effects. As we demonstrated, survival during prolonged starvation depends upon the ability of the body to spare the oxidation of vital proteins in the liver, muscle, heart, kidney, etc. Of special importance in this regard is the metabolic role of ketone bodies. Because of their association with diabetes, ketone bodies were long held to reflect a disease state; our research totally changed this view"""
Also, thepaleomom is not a good source.
> Starch based diet has cured heart disease and has taken people from high 200's to under 150 and even lower.
> Because you can stay on a starch based diet forever, which I plan on doing, as it really isn't a diet but a choice on the food I am eating. I am not hungry like all the other diets I have ever been on.
This same point can be made for a ketogenic diet.
> There are many other reasons to be on a vegan diet over just health like animal cruelty and environment.
Oh, absolutely. But that's nutritionally notwithstanding in this context. Like before, if you have found something that works for you, that's great, but it's ridiculous to say that anything else is somehow wrong or dangerous, especially when you can't claim any degree of expertise in the field.
The MSN page is pretty distracting (maybe it needs an ad/sponsored-content removal diet :)) - here is the linked article which has a pretty good summary (probably as good the MSN article) at the top of the page:
"The aim of our study was to compare the effects of a vegetarian and a conventional diet on thigh adipose tissue distribution in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D)."
The broader conclusion seems plausible to me, since a healthy vegetarian diet can have lots of high-fiber foods that give high satiation with relatively low calories. But: The study focused only on diabetic patients.
Here's what I've learned about diets over the past 5 years, anecdotally:
Being conscientious about what you eat is the most important part of losing weight. There are plenty of fat vegetarians out there. They've gotten very comfortable with what they can eat because they aren't reading every label anymore.
Oreos are vegan. There are new and improved vegetarian and vegan ice creams coming out weekly, it seems. When there are as many bad food choices for vegetarians and vegans as omnivores, they'll make the same bad food choices and suffer for it.
Why?
When the final word is written on how diets have destroyed the health of people in the Western world, it's gonna be the fat / sugar combo that is shown to be the culprit. It's much easier to be sated if you eat a lot of fats or a lot of sugar (well, starches, really) than eating a lot of fat AND sugar.
We have a tendancy to try to isolate variables, like "meat is bad" or "carbs are bad". There are probably multiple diets that work, but not all of the combinations.
I suspect that we have so much choice today that we combine things not meant to be combined in the same diet.
The whole idea that eating vegetarian will lead to a less muscular physique is just completely unfounded. There are elite athletes that are vegetarians who make no special effort to get protein. (citation: my wife was one). My build didn't change when going vegetarian. It just isn't a thing.
I have no horse in this race - but another anecdote is Tom Brady - who recently mentioned how he has a mostly vegetarian diet, except some chicken in the winter. Granted, Quarterbacks don't put on nearly the same muscle mass as other positions - in terms of overall fitness, you can't deny Tom Brady is in very good shape.
I went pescatarian 1.5 years ago and have put on 10-20 pounds. It's really been hard (for me) to feel full without those chicken breasts I used to make and the occasional steak. Fish simply doesn't keep as long. I end up eating lots of junk food :(
I don't think it's a bad idea. I just need to get more prepared, clever and disciplined. I actually wasn't looking to lose weight at all, just be healthier. It's been a surprise how hard it is to get back to my original weight.
Preparation is key for me. It's so easy to backpedal into junk food if you don't have a healthier alternative ready to go. There's just so much junk out there.
I do meal/snack prep on Sundays, which goes a long way. I eat less grab-and-go junk and I save money too.
More in the vegetarian diet, FTS: "The greater weight loss in V was accompanied by greater muscle loss in V (−5.0 cm2 [95% CI, −5.7 to −4.3] in V vs −1.7 cm2 [95% CI, −2.4 to −1.0] in C; Gxt p < 0.0001; Fig. 2B), which was reversed partially in V after the addition of exercise (+1.3 cm2 [95% CI, 0.7 to −2.0]; p < 0.05" and "Our data stress the importance of exercise in weight loss programs to preserve lean mass."
I will have been vegan for 10 years next Jan. Haven't had any problems with retaining muscle mass personally, although I have a pretty high protein diet and supplement with vegan vitamins. I do cardio a handful of times a week, and lift weights periodically. Sample size N=1 :)
It seems you're assuming that there would be a difference in that compared to any other diet, and that it has something to do with nutrition and protein. If you check out protein powders in stores, which are made with pure protein isolates and often have their specific amino acid content listed, almost all of them are vegetarian and most are vegan - pea, whey, pumpkin seed, and soy, mostly.
The world's top body builders are certainly not vegan across the board...for example the actor/competing body builder who plays The Mountain on Game of Thrones consumes almost 2000 grams of animal fat daily[0].
Also no one should emulate top body builder diets unless they plan on working out like top body builders (e.g. 2-3 intensive training sessions a day).
You might be able to find a few vegan body builders but its certainly not the norm.
It would be seriously cool, though, if anyone here could leave a link as a citation to any article, tweet, FB page, whatevs that shows even one top body builder who is vegan as back up for the claim.
Here are some [1]. These are however not selected to be 'top' athletes, as far as I know.
I imagine that diet is irrelevant for athletic training, as long as it fulfills certain macro-nutrient requisites. Further, I image vegan athletes are only faced with the increased difficulty of finding and preparing quality sufficient food, compared to others with normative diets, due to lack of demand and meat centered cultures.
Finding an equivalent vegan alternative to chocolate pudding at <500g, 350kcal, 50g protein> for $2.5 [2] seems like a challenge. I'm sure that if they plan their diet, they can meet the same targets - whereas normative diets don't require you to plan anything really. You can just eat 2 of [2] and a chicken a day, and you're done (concerning only protein).
But then again, there are protein powders which balances it out, if we don't take price into account.
All in all, I think diet choices (assuming any choice to be a most healthy variant of chosen diet) mainly impacts long term health, and not short term goals such as muscle gains.
All comment had to say is some top body builders are vegan. Even some notable NFL players are/have been vegan.
Even then, they go out of their way to get enough protein - I think the person you replied to was trying to go for shock value but it was a pretty bad comment.
Wouldn't it be more likely thay the vegitarian diets are better at restricting calories than non-vegetarian diets? In general you can't lose weight without reducing calorie intake until it is lower than the amount you use
Why would a vegetarian diet have less calories? I could eat cups of rice drowned in olive oil and suck down a gallon of Coca Cola a day and I'd still be Vegan.
In my experience the most effective diet of all is vegan, non-GMO, gluten-free. Not that there's anything special about that combination, but good luck scrounging together more than a handful of calories in the course of each day about town!
EDIT: what I mean is if society had such options plentifully available it would negate the effect. So it is similar to a diet where you can only eat foods beginning with the letter 'A'. If it's harder to meet some arbitrary criterion, it will reduce your caloric intake.
