I am quickly tiring of all the Atkins bashing that nutritionists and researchers are doing. It amazes me we can have two totally seperate interpretations of the same data. The Atkins group claims success because the studies show cholestorol levels improved, and weight loss was double after 6 months. Anti Atkins groups point out most of the weight is regained after a year and still refuse to consider it a viable diet option. A few points in this article caught my attention, mainly because of the double standards.
Quote:
|
for what it was worth. The average loss was a mere 13 pounds from that original 290.
|
Obviously the author is not impressed with only losing 13 pounds. However since the atkins group lost twice what the low cal group did we can infer that they only lost 6.5 pounds... funny the author didn't point that out.
Quote:
|
"The probable explanation" for the early weight loss said the chief researcher of the longer study (Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania), is that it while most calories in our diets are normally carbohydrates, with Atkins "You're left eating a lot of fat, and you get tired of that." So the Atkins plan is merely a low-calorie diet in disguise.
|
So what he is saying is we are actually comparing two low cal diets, so the results should be relatively equal; but wait Atkins lost twice as much.... With wonderful deductions like this it is no wonder our nutritional information is so muddled.
Quote:
|
Atkins dieters become so starved for carbohydrates that they either start cheating or quit the plan altogether. In fact, both studies were plagued by high drop-out rates from all sets of dieters.
|
Unfortunately few people have the resolve to stick with any improvement plan dietary or not. We are a society who have made "New Year resolutions" a yearly tradition. The majority of people who try Atkins will fail, simply because they view it as a short term proposition. Heck, many of the people I see doing it now haven't invested enough effort to read the book. (Obviously most people who frequent this board are interested enough to do research and view Atkins as a lifelong decision, and thus have a much better chance of success). However this lack of discipline is by no means limited to low carb, 90% of diets fail to have long term success. In fact in these two studies the drop out rate was nearly equal. I believe the Atkins lifestyle provides the best opportunity for success for someone dedicated and willing to sacrifice short term cravings for long term rewards.
Quote:
|
Eckel says probably one reason for improved blood readings in the Atkins groups is that at least part of the time they did have greater weight loss. "Generally when people lose weight, both triglycerides and HDL improve," he says.
|
Ok, so if I lose weight and then regain the weight I should expect my cholestorol to stay improved? You can't have your cake and eat it too... if you are going to bash Atkins for not having significantly improved weight loss after 12 months, you cannot then try to explain away the improved bloodwork with weight loss. We hear for years how our cholestoral is going to increase, and now studies are coming out which disproves their forcast. Now suddenly we are hearing about how the only way our numbers are decreasing is because of the lost weight...
It is also amazing that triglycerides suddenly are not important.... that could not have been influenced by the drastically reduction that Atkins provides. If the game isn't working out the way you want, I guess you just change the rules.
Fumento has made his distaste for Atkins well known, he brings nothing new in this article. Why doesn't Fumento just go away?
Threaded Mode