I read the article and it irked me. Sorry if my rant sounds like a lecture . . .

Doctors and journalists are so quick to analyze "findings" from studies without pausing to consider all of the information left out such as the type of person selected for each diet, the number of dieters, their health risk factors, the numbers of calories consumed, the activity levels of the dieters, their resolve, instructions to the patients, etc. All we know is that all of the participants were morbidly obese.

The conclusion is that the diets are all equal, but I take that to task. Half of the Ornish diet populace dropped out. Lots of the people on Atkins and the Zone cheated. Does that prove anything? If the diets were followed 100%, I'm sure the findings would vary substantially. In fact, all I think this "study" proved is that nothing was proven. The target of the study was to see what diet led to the most weight loss and reduced heart disease risks. Cholesterol levels varied but then cholesterol is a mystery substance. It could be a leading indicator for heart disease risk. Then again, there are too many people with really high cholesterol and no history of heart disease to make any claims whatsoever.

Weight loss is another issue. Did the people exercise? How much? Was the reason for minimal weight loss because people gained muscle mass? Was their any history of thyroid conditions in these people?

Regarding the question on insulin, if you read real scientific research and not some fru-fru comparison study, under higher protein, high(er) fat diets, insulin levels will be regulated more than with high carb diets. This is a straight forward statement as carbohydrates almost immediately upon consumption cause blood sugar levels to rise, which leads to a rise in insulin. With ingestion of mostly protein and fat, insulin doesn't have the occasion to rise so quickly. A real world example are the Eskimos. When they switched to western high-carb diets, diabetes rates grew substantially.