A study came out yesterday showing that anAtkins diet is betterfor weight loss, cholesterol levels, and blood sugar control. Let’s take a look.
So first, some good points:
- It was a 2-year trial, meaning no one can say “well, it works well in the short-term, but…”. I suppose they can still say it (and they will), but it just shows their density.
- At baseline, the participants’ diets were significantly the same in terms of composition. That means we can attribute benefits to the diets prescribed.
- It’s peer-reviewed and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the top medical journals.
And a few bad points:
- Very few women were enrolled in the study. There were 277 men (86%) and 45 women (14%).
- The diets weren’t really “low-fat” or “Atkins”. See the discussion below.
- Why was the Atkins group advised to eat vegetable proteins and fats instead of animal sources?
Now the results:
First of all, let me just establish that if I were obese and spent two years on a diet and only lost 12 pounds, I’d be very loathe to call that much of a good thing. So we’re already starting out knowing that the weight loss isn’t very impressive. For men, the average weight loss for the low-fat group was 7.5 pounds, 8.8 pounds for the Mediterranean group, and 10.8 pounds for the low-carb group. The women lost 0.2 pounds, 13.6 pounds, and 5.2 pounds, in the low-fat, Mediterranean, and low-carb groups, respectively. I’m having trouble seeing what conclusions can be drawn from such a small sample of women though.
If youlook at the graph, you can see that every group pretty well leveled out after the 1-year mark. Of course, some disingenuous twit is going to point to the low-carb line and say, “See, the weight loss is unsustainable.” And the correct answer would be, “The low-fat line looks the same, only at a lower level of weight loss.”
Second, let’s look at adherence. Adherence was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years, overall. But looking at the individual diets, we get values of 90.4% in the low-fat group, 85.3% in the Mediterranean-diet group, and 78.0% in the low-carbohydrate group. Basically, the low-carb group lost more weight, for men at least, with a lower level of adherence. Hmmm…
Neither blood pressure nor waist circumference reached significance. But changes in cholesterol levels did. Let’s lookat that graph. The low-carbers jumped out to an immediate lead in HDL increase and triglyceride decrease. The advantage in increased HDL was sustained throughout the 24 months, though the triglyceride improvements fell back some to be about even with the Mediterranean Diet. LDL decreased 6x more in the low-carb group than in the low-fat group, but only half as much as in the Mediterranean group. But the all important Total CHOL:HDL ratio fell more in the low-carb group than in the others.
Third, the diets were most certainly not what they are categorized as (chart). The low-fat diet was 50.5% carbohydrate, 19.6% protein, and 30.7% fat at 6 months. The Mediterranean Diet came in at 49.8% carb, 18.9% protein, and 33.2% fat. And the so-called Atkins Diet came in at 41.4% carb, 21.6% protein, and 38.8% fat. The low-fat is hardly low-fat, at least as defined by people like Ornish and only barely as defined by the study (30% of calories as fat). The Mediterranean Diet, which is supposed to be pretty low fat as well (25-35% of calories), fell in its proper range. And the Atkins Diet group was most certainly not eating low-carb at 40% of calories from carbs. Nonetheless, it is instructive that the group eating the least carbs lost the most weight, at least in the men.
Other changes of note:
- C-reactive protein fell 21% in the Mediterranean group and 29% in the low-carb group. That is indicative that there is less inflammation going on.
- Amongst those with diabetes, only the Mediterranean group had decreases in fasting blood glucose levels. The low-fat group’s fasting levels increased. Oops!
- All groups saw a decrease in insulin levels, differences being insignificant.
- The low-carb group saw the only statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin, a marker of blood sugar control.
It’s pretty obvious that the low-carb diet, which wasn’t even all that low-carb, soundly trounced the low-fat diet and was superior to the Mediterranean Diet as well in nearly all relevant markers.
And yet the AHA says:
“The American Heart Association doesn’t recommend high-protein diets for weight loss,” the statement reads in part. “Some of these diets restrict healthful foods that provide essential nutrients and don’t provide the variety of foods needed to adequately meet nutritional needs. People who stay on these diets very long may not get enough vitamins and minerals and face other potential health risks.”
What level of absolute absurdity does one have to possess to come up with this stuff? First of all, they call it a “high-protein diet”. Scroll back up and tell me what the percentage difference was between the low-fat and low-carb diets. Am I subtracting 19.6 from 20.6 correctly and getting1%?! Yet it’s a high-protein diet.
The AHA also sayshere:
Some high-protein diets de-emphasize high-carbohydrate, high-fiber plant foods. These foods help lower cholesterol when eaten as part of a nutritionally balanced diet. Reducing consumption of these foods usually means other, higher-fat foods are eaten instead. This raises cholesterol levels even more and increases cardiovascular risk.
I’ll wait again while you scroll up to see that the low-carb diet was markedly better than the low-fat at decreasing cholesterol levels. I guess when you keep your head in the sand, it really is possible to keep repeating this nonsense. But no logical thinking person can read this data and reconcile it with what the AHA spews.
They also continue with the garbage about low-carb diets restricting fruits and vegetables.Recall that my diet is about 15% carbohydrates.Anyone want to find me a low-fat dieter that eats more vegetation than me? I’m sure they exist, but I bet they’re rare.
So In The End
We get unsurprising results: the low-carb diet tops the others and the Mediterranean Diet, which is a pretty decent choice as well, tops the low-fat diet. We also get another unsurprising result: The AHA refuses to face reality and even think about advising a *cough cough* “high-protein diet”. It’s a sad state of affairs in the AHA world.
A study came out yesterday showing that anAtkins diet is betterfor weight loss, cholesterol levels, and blood sugar control. Let’s take a look.
So first, some good points:
And a few bad points:
Now the results:
First of all, let me just establish that if I were obese and spent two years on a diet and only lost 12 pounds, I’d be very loathe to call that much of a good thing. So we’re already starting out knowing that the weight loss isn’t very impressive. For men, the average weight loss for the low-fat group was 7.5 pounds, 8.8 pounds for the Mediterranean group, and 10.8 pounds for the low-carb group. The women lost 0.2 pounds, 13.6 pounds, and 5.2 pounds, in the low-fat, Mediterranean, and low-carb groups, respectively. I’m having trouble seeing what conclusions can be drawn from such a small sample of women though.
If youlook at the graph, you can see that every group pretty well leveled out after the 1-year mark. Of course, some disingenuous twit is going to point to the low-carb line and say, “See, the weight loss is unsustainable.” And the correct answer would be, “The low-fat line looks the same, only at a lower level of weight loss.”
Second, let’s look at adherence. Adherence was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years, overall. But looking at the individual diets, we get values of 90.4% in the low-fat group, 85.3% in the Mediterranean-diet group, and 78.0% in the low-carbohydrate group. Basically, the low-carb group lost more weight, for men at least, with a lower level of adherence. Hmmm…
Neither blood pressure nor waist circumference reached significance. But changes in cholesterol levels did. Let’s lookat that graph. The low-carbers jumped out to an immediate lead in HDL increase and triglyceride decrease. The advantage in increased HDL was sustained throughout the 24 months, though the triglyceride improvements fell back some to be about even with the Mediterranean Diet. LDL decreased 6x more in the low-carb group than in the low-fat group, but only half as much as in the Mediterranean group. But the all important Total CHOL:HDL ratio fell more in the low-carb group than in the others.
Third, the diets were most certainly not what they are categorized as (chart). The low-fat diet was 50.5% carbohydrate, 19.6% protein, and 30.7% fat at 6 months. The Mediterranean Diet came in at 49.8% carb, 18.9% protein, and 33.2% fat. And the so-called Atkins Diet came in at 41.4% carb, 21.6% protein, and 38.8% fat. The low-fat is hardly low-fat, at least as defined by people like Ornish and only barely as defined by the study (30% of calories as fat). The Mediterranean Diet, which is supposed to be pretty low fat as well (25-35% of calories), fell in its proper range. And the Atkins Diet group was most certainly not eating low-carb at 40% of calories from carbs. Nonetheless, it is instructive that the group eating the least carbs lost the most weight, at least in the men.
Other changes of note:
- C-reactive protein fell 21% in the Mediterranean group and 29% in the low-carb group. That is indicative that there is less inflammation going on.
- Amongst those with diabetes, only the Mediterranean group had decreases in fasting blood glucose levels. The low-fat group’s fasting levels increased. Oops!
- All groups saw a decrease in insulin levels, differences being insignificant.
- The low-carb group saw the only statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin, a marker of blood sugar control.
It’s pretty obvious that the low-carb diet, which wasn’t even all that low-carb, soundly trounced the low-fat diet and was superior to the Mediterranean Diet as well in nearly all relevant markers.
And yet the AHA says:
What level of absolute absurdity does one have to possess to come up with this stuff? First of all, they call it a “high-protein diet”. Scroll back up and tell me what the percentage difference was between the low-fat and low-carb diets. Am I subtracting 19.6 from 20.6 correctly and getting1%?! Yet it’s a high-protein diet.
The AHA also sayshere:
I’ll wait again while you scroll up to see that the low-carb diet was markedly better than the low-fat at decreasing cholesterol levels. I guess when you keep your head in the sand, it really is possible to keep repeating this nonsense. But no logical thinking person can read this data and reconcile it with what the AHA spews.
They also continue with the garbage about low-carb diets restricting fruits and vegetables.Recall that my diet is about 15% carbohydrates.Anyone want to find me a low-fat dieter that eats more vegetation than me? I’m sure they exist, but I bet they’re rare.
So In The End
We get unsurprising results: the low-carb diet tops the others and the Mediterranean Diet, which is a pretty decent choice as well, tops the low-fat diet. We also get another unsurprising result: The AHA refuses to face reality and even think about advising a *cough cough* “high-protein diet”. It’s a sad state of affairs in the AHA world.
Other Stuff You'll Enjoy:- Study Shows Low Carb Not Unhealthy
- Diet Overkill: 25 Of the Most Ridiculous (and Ineffective) Popular Diets
- Dr. Wortman’s “My Big Fat Diet”
- Atkins Diet Damages Blood Vessels?
- New Weight Loss Drug