This article from last year is the best I've seen on the subject. [Disclaimer: never been on the Atkins diet nor any other named diet.]

All the evidence for Atkins is anecdotal. It does not make sense in terms of current scientific theories of energy metabolism. It especially does not make sense for athletes.

That said, there is a study that's just started on the Atkins diet, which will be the first actual scientific test (randomized controlled trial) of the theory in its twenty-odd years of existence. It was started because of the large body of anecdotal evidence that does exist, saying that the diet works. See
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/show/NCT00006193?order=35

I await the results of this with interest, especially since it may help to put a stop to atkins threads..

Atkins himself did fund some 'research', which oddly enough supported his contentions. The NY Times article referenced in one of the other posts in this thread does a good job of eviscerating that 'research'.

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

There have been no studies of low carb diets?

http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/...esults.asp?catid=215

Links to 12 independent studies on low-carb/atkins/ketogenic type diets. Guess what they all found, the people on those diets lost weight and lowered their cholesterol. They had a higher success rate than the "typical" low-fat type diet.

Atkins however has never had any long-term studies done on it, the above are mostly 6 months to a year in length, which is the same as the study you linked to. Most people have questions about the long term effects of Atkins, what happens after 10 years, 20 years, etc are the typical objections I hear about (again from people who don't understand the whole plan).

Andrew

Pyker,

Thank you so much for the URL to that great article. I found the article to be objective in a way that I wish others could be.

---

Sean

Yep there has been lots of research on low carb diets. Lot less good research on balanced diets with good and bad carbs.

Low carb diets are all 'low calories diets' so you will lose weight.

There has been studies (researchers at Laval University amongst others) who have shown in a very controlled environment that people who loose weight on low carbohydrate diets do so because they take in less calories (even when allowed to eat as much as they want).

If your energy output (Work + metabolism) is greater than your caloric intake, you will loose weight. That's thermodynamics.

Carbs are good for you !!! But all carbs are not created equal !!! Strive for low-glycemic index carbs. Or, if you want to keep it simple, avoid products with refined sugar, white flour (includes basic white rice and pasta). Go for fruits and veggies, whole grain pasta and bread and basmati rice. You will loose weight on such a diet. But, it's very very hard to avoid products with refined sugars and flours.

Another good simple rule is to strive for quality of the macronutrients and not quantity or ratios

Simple maths:

For 500 calories you can get:

One Big mac OR 2.3 Krispy Kreme donuts OR 5 cantaloup melon OR 10 cups of brussels sprouts OR 30 8inches long cucumbers OR 8 apples

Guess which will make you feel full and which will make you healthy.

Diets don't work. Changing your eating habits does.

Francois

Good reading on low-carb diets: http://www.quackwatch.org/...latedTopics/lcd.html

I agree with you and disagree with you. here's why-

Mike Plumb asked me to collect some data about my personal Atkins regimen. Preliminary results for one day (yesterday) is that my total caloric intake was 1,908. Low by "standard" dietary guidlines, but not really a concern for the Atkins regimen. I agree with your first point, to a degree.

Studies are fickle and be skewed to support the theory of whoever is paying for them. But, since it relates to your first statement, I agree with your second point regardless of the study.

Thermodynamics. Won't dispute that because it makes sense. Agree

Low Glycemic Index (LGI) - I agree with this statement. Definitely an underdiscussed topic. Agree

Quality, not quantity - Common sense, not always adhered to. Agree

Simple math for 500 calories - Agree, but what happens when you eat 5 cantaloupe melon OR 10 cups of brussels sprouts OR 30 8inches long cucumbers OR 8 apples, Diarrhea. I know it's just an example, but some people take this too seriously.

Diets don't work. Changing your eating habits does. Agree, but getting Americans to do this is disheartening. Atkins results gets people started down this road quicker than a Brussell Sprout diet.

As for quackery, I say the time is now for ketogenics, others continue to debate this. Debate all they will, I have personal results and a respectable lipid profile to back it up. Disagree.

---

Sean

did you read any of those studies' conclusions ?

The first one, for example:
" The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups."

No significant weight loss advantage, higher risk for heart attacks, and people fell off the wagon just as much with Atkins as with a conventional diet. That doesn't support any of Atkin's assertions..

The second one found some small improvements, but went on: "This finding should be interpreted with caution, given the small magnitude of overall and between-group differences in weight loss in these markedly obese subjects and the short duration of the study. "
This is a tri forum - we're not interested in the problems of the morbidly obese. Nor does this study support Atkins.

The third study again finds no significant differences: "Atkins' dieters lost twice as much weight during the first six months of the study. However, over the next six months, dieters on both plans tended to regain weight, and there was no statistical weight difference between the groups at one year. "

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the studies, frankly. I think I see a pattern emerging.

Yes, I did read the conclusions along with all the rest of the information posted, did you? From the first study;

Results Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [±SD], –6.8±5.0 vs. –2.7±3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (–7.0±6.5 vs. –3.2±5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (–4.4±6.7 vs. –2.5±6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load.

Conclusions The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.

Hmmmm, now let's see. In the first 6 months people lost more weight on the low-carb diet than the "normal" diet, after a year they were much closer. And suprise suprise people didn't stick to either diet, wow, that's a shocker!

Hmmm, how about that second study?

Results Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [±SD], –5.8±8.6 kg vs. –1.9±4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, –20±43 percent vs. –4±31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications. Insulin sensitivity, measured only in subjects without diabetes, also improved more among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet (6±9 percent vs. –3±8 percent, P=0.01). The amount of weight lost (P<0.001) and assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet (P=0.01) were independent predictors of improvement in triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity.

Conclusions Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost. This finding should be interpreted with caution, given the small magnitude of overall and between-group differences in weight loss in these markedly obese subjects and the short duration of the study. Future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed.

Hmmm, the third study even has a title - Atkins' Dieters Lose More and Improve Lipids Over Conventional Dieters

In the first multicenter trial to look at the high-fat, low-carbohydrate Atkins' diet, researchers have found that at three and six months, the Atkins' diet produces significantly greater weight loss than a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

The study also found that people on the Atkins' diet had greater improvements in blood lipids than those on the conventional diet. High-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good" cholesterol, increased more in the Atkins' group, and their serum triglycerides decreased more than conventional dieters. Low HDL and high triglyceride levels increase risk of cardiovascular disease.

At 12 months, the Atkins' diet group was down an average of 15.9 pounds versus 9.7 pounds for those on the conventional diet. The difference is not considered statistically significant, partly because almost half of the participants dropped out of the study before the one-year mark.

HDL cholesterol levels were up 11 percent at one year in the Atkins' diet group, compared to an increase of only 1.6 percent on the conventional diet. Serum triglycerides declined an average of 17 percent after one year on the Atkins' diet versus no significant change among conventional dieters. Part of that improvement may result from greater weight loss, but the changes in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were greater than expected from moderate weight loss alone.

Because of the high amounts of fat that people consume on the Atkins' diet, many have worried that over the long term, it might have serious side effects. The researchers found no differences in side effects during the 12 months of this study and even found benefits in blood lipid profiles, but they say they'll look more closely at potential side effects in their next study.

Wow, I do see a patern as well. After 12 months most people give up on a diet (regardless of what the diet is), those that don't have lost more weight on Atkins and have reduced their chance of heart disease. How horrible!



I think anybody who reads the studies may come away with a different conclusion that you have jumped to. That the diet/lifestyle works if you follow it. However long term studies have yet to be done. Oh and this is a Tri forum, one that I thought welcomed everybody not just those with 3% body fat. Maybe somebody should post a link to the IMH competitor who was/is on Atkins...

Andrew