• Upgrades have been completed! Including conversations, 😁😎🏀⚾⚽ Emojis and more.. Read more



Interesting research paper

#1
For those of you interested in the science of it all There is quite a bit on the science of VLCD, mostly good and I can not understand why LL have not done a litterature review. They really would come out looking well...only reason I guess is that they do not acctually have the academic researchers to do it. I did a scientific lit search and there are over 300 papers on VLCD including the one below specificially on LL. There are other LL ones, but they are written by LL and I am not sure of their impartiality and I do not think they are in peer reviewed journals and they are simply case studies of their data as opposed to research. I am not sure about their sample sizes (but pretty standard for a clinical study) and also using ANOVA as there is lots more they could have done, but it does show LL benifits of 3 and 9 months outweigh conventional dieting. anyway happy reading

Randomized clinical trial of standard dietary treatment versus a low-carbohydrate⁄high-protein diet or the LighterLife Programme in the management of obesity
Catherine ROLLAND, Michelle HESSION, Susan MURRAY,Alan WISE and Iain BROOM

Journal of Diabetes 1: (2009) 207–217

Abstract
Background: With the current obesity epidemic, the search for effective
weight loss approaches is required. In the present study, changes in weight,
body composition and cardiovascular (CV) risk in response to a lowfat,
reduced-energy diet (LFRE), a low-carbohydrate ⁄ high-protein diet
(LCHP), or a commercially available very low-calorie diet (LighterLife;
LL) were assessed.
Methods: One hundred and twenty obese patients (body mass index
‡35 kg ⁄m2) underwent a screening period of 3 months on the LFRE.
Those who lost >5% of their body weight were maintained on this
approach for an additional 3 months, whereas those who lost >10% at
this time were maintained for 1 year. Patients failing to achieve these targets
were randomly allocated to either the LCHP (n = 38) or LL (n = 34)
for a period of 9 months.
Results: Significantly greater weight loss was seen for patients on the LL than
the LCHP at 3 (mean (±SD) )11.6 ± 12.9 vs )2.8 ± 4.5 kg, respectively;
P < 0.0001) and 9 months ()15.1 ± 21.1 vs )1.9 ± 5.0 kg, respectively;
P < 0.0001) after screening. Significantly greater improvement in total cholesterol,
low-density lipoprotein–cholesterol, fasting glucose, and diastolic
blood pressure was seen at 3 months in patients on the LL compared with
the LCHP (P < 0.05). These differences were no longer significant at
9 months, with the exception of fasting glucose. The attrition rate was elevated
in the LCHP group, but did not differ significantly from the LL group.
Conclusion: Greater weight loss and improved CV risk were achieved with
the LL, which mostly reflects the patient support provided for each dietary
treatment.
 
Get Rid of this ad and join in on the conversation for free today! Tap here!
Last edited by a moderator:
#2
Yes, I agree, but it's "Horses for Courses"
LL certainly worked for me. I am aware that is because it was the right thing at the right time. My head and body were both ready for it when I started.
After years of being "fat and happy" I realised I was in denial and wanted to change my life.
It was definitley the psychology and having a great LL counsellor and peer support in my special group (including BL x) that made the difference for me.
Whatever weight loss regime I might have chosen at a different time in my life wouldn't have worked because I wasn't ready to address the issues.
It has certainly been life changing for me. Thank God.
 


Similar threads