Low Carbohydrate Diet Gets Best Results

[James L]

A study by Stanford University researchers Dr. Christopher Gardner and Dr. Randall Stafford will be published in JAMA this week. It supports the title of this thread. (Atkins was the specific low-carb diet included in the study.)
... Dr. Randall Stafford, specializes in preventing heart disease. He says that in a world where obesity and heart disease are rising, this diet could help, because healthy weight reduces heart disease risk.

'This study will change my practices,' he noted.
This story was carried by many news outlets. But perhaps the Voice of America (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-06-voa66.cfm) coverage will help spread this information around the planet.

[mcsblues]

I think we can use the "A" word here James! ;)

Mike has promised to comment once the study is published, and since it was published today ...

Here is the abstract (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/9/969)

I briefly skimmed it at lunch time and one of the highlights for me was (yet again) the drop out rate on the other diets was way higher (in this case double) - while very few people were honest enough to say they hated being on Ornish (or any of the diets) twice as many some how suddenly had problems with their "schedule" or "other" reasons got in the way!!:lol:

Its also great to see a paper not only discounting the very slight rise in LDL, but noting that slashing triglycerides normally indicates a change in the type of LDL (to larger, fluffier, "which is known to decrease LDL atherogenicity" :rolleyes: ) and who regrets not actually documenting this change.

Also the point was made that the health improvements noted for the low carb diet occurred independently of weight loss.

Oh yes, one other thing would have been worth watching ... you see they had the same dietitian conducting classes over 8 weeks instructing participants in the particular program of the 4 they were assigned to ... you'd have to imagine she must have just hated promoting low carb! :lol:

[Gaelen]

Malcolm, actually I subscribe to JAMA (well, my employer does...) so I've attached the .pdf file here for anyone who'd like to read it. That way we don't infringe on any other host's copyrights...members are free to 'share' their copies.

[Gabriel Guzman]

Nothing particularly surprising that hasn't been reported by others in one way or another (though nicely presented data on their tables, particularly the secondary outcomes, which to me should be the primary ones, not weight loss). Of course they always have to write something like this to please the reviewers...

While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.

Researchers are too afraid to categorically say it like it is even if they see the superiority of one approach over the others.

The 'long-term effects' comment is getting too old... and so the 'high protein' misconception. I failed to see the 'high protein' part in Table 2... At 12 months, there is no difference in % of energy from protein between groups. It looks more as if people on Atkins and The Zone eat more protein at the beginning of the the study and then reduced it towards the end... satiety you think? ;)

For those who read this article, maybe we could have an 'in-depth' discussion of Ref 17 (Nordmann et al), which to me is one of the 'phoniest' meta-analyses published about comparing diets. So absolutely misleading and biased that it provides a good example of how not to write meta-analyses, or in other words, how using the wrong premise, somebody can still conclude something apparently 'right'. The reason I mention that particular article is because it seems to be used as 'the proof' by some researchers that carbohydrate restriction is 'at least' as effective as low-fat/high-carb diets in inducing weight loss, etc., etc. I can make that article available if there is interest.

[mcsblues]

Ah well, the person who posted/hosted it originally was also a member!;) Either way, I'm glad it is out there for free.

I notice Messrs Ornish and Sears are none to happy (there's a surprise) - something about 'their' dieters not complying with the requirements of their plan. Well strangely enough of course, neither did the Atkins group. They were eating 17% carb calories at 2 months and 34% at 12 months - giving rise to Sears suggestion they were almost eating "the Zone" (at the end). But the point is there were greater health and weight returns for greater carb restriction (it was dose dependant) so one can only imagine the outcome if the real plan (or PP) had been followed to the letter - the Atkins dieters were beginning to regain some of the weight lost during the last 6 months - at least some of which could fairly be assigned to 'carb creep'. One of the really strange stats was the minimal change in fasting blood glucose at any stage - whereas insulin, BP, triglycerides etc, etc were all significantly improved.

The other spin that has been placed on this in news reports is that there is now virtue in cutting back on 'refined' carbs such as soda and white bread. Whilst I agree 'we' should stop consuming these things (not just cut back!), the study made no distinction as to the type of carbs restricted (apart of course from the DANDR suggestions for allowable foods on each stage) - so it is carb restriction of any kind (refined. unrefined, 'complex' or 'simple') that is supported by this study.

[mcsblues]

As promised Mike's comments;

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=551

- and I thought Ornish was a prat - check out the low carb/cholera analogy from Dr Katz!!:rolleyes: :)

- and Regina as well (http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2007/03/bad-science-good-publicity.html#links) - I agree with her to a point, but even with defective instruction and assigned rather than chosen programs, the drop out rate is (as always) instructive as to what is more likely to work in real world conditions. (they could have achieved close to optimal compliance by providing all the food - (hard to police snacking) - but that style of study would be criticised for not examining whether dieters would be able to follow the program on their own.)

[~april~]

I noticed that too...in the study. It did not seem like they ate enough protein, and the carbs seemed way too high. I suppose that would be why such a small amount of weight was lost in that time frame!! Anyone who was at a 40% BMI at the beginning and followed it to the letter should have dropped a LOT of weight. It was only after really looking at how much and what they were eating did I realize why.