Skip to comments.Comparison of Atkins, Zone,Ornish and Learn Diets For Weight Loss and Related Risk Factors
Posted on 03/07/2007 5:16:41 AM PST by shrinkermd
This is from the Journal Of American Medical Association published on 7 March 2007. The authors are Christopher D. Gardner, PhD et al and the study was sponsored by Stanford University.
This is a prospective study of these diets. The Atkins Diet is very low carbohydrate. The LEARN DIET is a comprehensive lifestyle, excercise, attitude and relationship approach that includes a diet low in fat and high carbohydrate. The Ornish Diet is very high in carbohydrates. The Zone Diet is low in carbohydrate. These diets are popular and can be easily Googled.
Seventy or more premenopausal women randomly assigned to each diet. They were instructed in the diet over two months and the final determination of efficacy was made at 12 months.
The Atkins diet lost more weight and had more favorable metabolic effects than the other three diets. At the end of 1 year women in the Adkins cohort lost, on the average, 4.7 kilograms (10.4 lbs);the others scaled down from this figure. Similar results were found at 6 months and also for the trigylcerides and other measurements
I think low carb is the way to go. Even South Beach is pretty low carb but if you have more than just a few pounds to lose, Atkins is best.
This is another article about low carb.
ATKINS IS BEST 'WEIGH'
AMA FINALLY APPROVES
By DAVID K. LI
THE SKINNY: A study found Atkins was most successful diet for young and middle-aged women.
THE SKINNY: A study found Atkins was most successful diet for young
and middle-aged women.
March 7, 2007 -- The Atkins Diet is back - and this time with the beefy backing of American Medical Association researchers.
The much-maligned, carb-cutting weight-loss plan gained grudging approval in yesterday's Journal of the American Medical Association, which published findings that showed women shedding pounds under Atkins.
"Many health professionals, including us, have either dismissed the value of very low carbohydrate diets for weight loss or been very skeptical of them," said lead researcher Christopher Gardner, an assistant professor of medical research at Stanford University.
"But it seems to be a viable alternative for dieters."
Despite JAMA's reserved praise for Atkins, critics said they've never doubted that an all-meat diet spurs immediate weight loss.
"I don't think anyone should be surprised by this, that some people find it easier to lose weight by getting rid of whole categories of food," said NYU nutrition professor Marion Nestle. "But is it a long-term strategy? Absolutely not!"
A pound of bacon today will end up as a pound on your body tomorrow, the NYU prof said.
"I know loads of people who lost a lot of weight [on Atkins] - and they all gained it all back, every single one of them," Nestle insisted.
The JAMA study put Atkins up against three other popular diets: the low-carb Zone, high-carb Learn and low-fat, high-carb Ornish diets, measuring them for weight loss in 300 young and middle-aged women.
Atkins followers shed an average of about 10 pounds in a year, besting the U.S. government guideline-backed Learn (average weight loss of six pounds), Ornish (five pounds) and Zone (3.5 pounds).
Blood pressure and cholesterol also appeared to stay in check, despite the mass fat intake of Atkins, researchers said.
But to lose weight on Atkins, followers had to stay true to the anti-sugar restrictions, trading in soda pop for water.
"One of the concerns that health professionals have had about these very low carbohydrate diets is that, possibly, the high fat content would be bad for people in terms of their cholesterol levels or their blood pressure," Gardner said.
"Cutting out those simple refined carbohydrates [is key] - the white bread, the white rice, the high-fructose corn syrup, the soda pop."
A diet is worthless if you just gain the weight back again. Adkins is more of a fast
That would apply to any diet that's working for you. Return to your old eating habits and you will more than likely regain what you lost.
As for Atkins being a fast - the things "fasted" away were sugars, breads, pastas, and some fruits. Between the proteins, vegetables, and better oils (such as olive oil), the cravings go away.
Sorry,can't agree with you.I did Atkins for some time and it worked for me and worked well.I lost weight...dare I say...easily,thanks to combining regular exercise with the diet.
In a nutshell,my doctor at the time (a graduate of Harvard Medical School practicing at a major Boston hospital) said that Atkins works because protein (which is what Atkins is all about) is more effective than anything else in turning off the "switch" in the brain that tells us that we're hungry and,as a result,you take in fewer calories.
People who do not read the facts about Atkins are really under a misconception of what Atkins really does. For one thing, Atkins burns fat instead of surger because you are not taking in high carbs which convert to surger. How do we know this? We've been on Atkins for 10 years, we're lean and mean and our doctors keep encouraging us to keep on Atkins. Physicians encourage patients with Diabetes and Heart problems maintain a diet on Atkins.
The only problem I have with Atkins is my own lack of imagination. I can never think of enough things to add varity to my diet and end up eating the same thing over and over until I get sick of it.
please tell us your thoughts on scam diets, I mean Atkins.....
A diet is worthless if you have to take 'supplements' to get missing nutrients. The standard, even with brittle diabetics on tube feedings and sliding scale insulin is no less than 45% of kcal from CHO, 25% of Kcal from PRO and 30% from fat.
Oh yeah, and 35gm of fiber, adequate calcium, Vitamin C and iron :)
You are so bad.
Thanks for the heads up.
"All I am saying is that people who develope the food pyramid are pretty smart people"
Actually - the food pyramid is horrible and largely created to appease lobbyist interests. LOTS of money went into making breads and grains the largest group. They may be smart, but they also knows who butters their bread, so to speak.
I call BS.
I was around when the FP was being planned and discussed. Money wasn't an issue. Input from the American Cancer, Diabetes and Heart associations were. As well as about 2 decades of clinical findings supporting the structure. The goals were to increase overall fiber and plant food intake to meet nutritional needs and decrease intake of saturated fat and refined sugars.
The lobby that was hitting the hardest and the meanest was the US Beef Board. They make big tobacco look like pansies.
Scary group of folks.
You can call BS, but you're wrong.
When Atkins and South Beach were at their peaks a year or two ago, the USDA was reviewing the pyramid. The corn and wheat lobbies were all over the place, even placing ads on local televison (we get tons of lobbyist ads in the DC market. Beef wasn't nearly as aggressive - they didn't need to be, everyone was buying into high protein, low carb. Corn and wheat had sponsored articles in the Post, the Times, all over.
If you really doubt the power of the corn lobby, look at the ethanol requirements. They don't really solve any problems enviornmentally, but we're all required to use it now.
NEVER trust anything that the gov't puts out as required or "recommended". It's always cash-based.
You'd be surprised. In DC, money talks - not much else.
The only thing more powerful than cash in the dc gov't is pet agendas of the party in power, and even then it's back to who donates the most to campaigns and the party.
I've only been in DC for 4 years, but it's been more than long enough to open my eyes to the BIG difference between inside the beltway mentality and the rest of the country.
then are you saying all my nutritional assessments are wrong?
That humans don't need 30cc of fluid per KG of body weight, or they don't need 35gm of fiber (ideally). That women are best served by consuming 1500mg of calcium a day or that most need around 15mg of iron? That the standard of .8 kg of protein for an average healthy individual is wrong and that 50% of kcal from CHO is based on myth? All this ties back into the recommendations and the way we right diets and menus.
Are you saying that the ACA recs for plant based plates is money driven? Same with the AHA and ADA? That we just made all this up for money?
And on and on and on. Honestly, if the 30% of professionals I know were writing the FP today, there would be very little animal on it. But that's more from working with sick people and bad diets. That's from hearing more than one diet history where there were almost no fruits or veges, but lots and lots of meat, fat and sugar.
Look, I accepted a long time ago that being an RD AND being on FR was like being a Wiccan at a tent revival. Unwelcome and unwanted. :) So I avoid these threads.
But I love my job, I believe in what I do and I believe in the results that I see on a daily basis. And I do see positive results which makes glad I chose this profession. Even though I'm WAY underpaid.
I'm outta here,
thanks for the ping hun. :)
Beef's good, tofu sucks. ;-)
What's for lunch?
An RD? Pardon my ignorance...what's that stand for?
Simply eating "normal" foods, avoiding high-fructose corn syrup when possible, and going easy on the sweet desserts, fast food, and heavily processed foods is just fine for most people. While the basic "recommendations" are probably a good guide to go buy, you can't tell me that lobbying wasn't involved in the FP decision.
It's short for
hated by conservatives (Why AM I here come think of it?)
And I happen to like tofu as much as meat.
Would you believe that the ONLY lobbying I heard about was from the Beef Board?
That most RDs wanted MORE plant on it, not less than what was on it?
Believe me, what you got isn't anything like the fighters in the trenches wanted.
Absolutely not. I'm saying that the gov't recommended food pyramid is based largely on lobbyists. You even admit that most successful diets are veggie and fruit based. The problem is that the USDA says it should be based on grain - and includes pasta and refined flour based products in that category - which have very little nutritional value. And the reason they include those products is $$$.
Diets like SB and atkins steer towards "good" carbs - those with high fiber counts, as opposed to the crap that the USDA includes.
So nice of you to join us.
I'll see if I can find a stripper thread to ping you to after while...
I'd agree, but I'll be the first to admit that I do love high-carb and starchy foods of both the "good" and "bad" variety.
Human beings aren't rabbits, we're meant to eat more than celery and carrots.
It's not about "Diets" it's about nutritional needs.
It's like saying humans don't need air. The FP wasn't about weight loss, it was about an easy referrence for getting the nutrients you need on a daily basis. DIET isn't weight loss.
We are talking human nutritional needs.
do I insult what you do for a living?
No, there is way more to eat than celery and carrots.
You'll die in 5 minutes without air, but you can still live to be 100 if you don't follow the FP perfectly...
I know what you're saying, Naj, but the two aren't the same.
I so love the insults and slams :P
I didn't insult what you do! Nor have you insulted my job...although plenty of others at FR have.
I don't know why they don't just do away with the US Food and Drug Admin and fire the thousands of nutritionists that support the FP. They don't know what the heck they are talking about.
The handfull of diet salesman and Beef Board lobbyists really know what we need.
What we are talking about is
a. Educating groups who are clueless about what they need and getting more confused every day.
b. 'Institutional' settings were choices are being made for people.
In both, we have to have guidelines to follow. That's what I base my assessments on, the ideal. No one follows it 100%, but there is this framework.
That's all. Just a 'Try to get adequate amounts of XYZ' in teaching and 'Are they getting adequate amounts of XYZ' in the institutionalized settings.
you just reposted something that I saw my first month here.
My job, and what I do is 'evil' to some.
Hey, my grandmother would eat a fatback sandwich with a glass of buttermilk while dipping snuff and smoking a cigarette and she was 94 years old...
A piece of brocolli probly would have killed her.
Maybe neither group really does...
Go visit a mortgage or real estate thread - I get the same thing. I wasn't insulting your job. Nothing that's been said here is anything against YOU PERSONALLY or the average nutritionist. Just that when government is involved, money gets involved too. You admitted yourself that the beef lobby had influence, so if they did, why would other groups not have influence too?
The beef lobby had some influence, but honestly,
I see nothing wrong with the pyramid they way it is now...... The issue being portion sizes and choices.
You just implied I didn't know what folks needed nutritionally in the above post.
However, I just have a stage 4 wound that healed because I got the Dr. to finally pay attention (after the the patient nearly lost her foot). I know what I do works.
That's why I keep doing it. It's not for the money, and it sure as hell ain't for the respect. :P
Perhaps, but the FP was brought up in relation to weight loss. As you state, the FP has nothing to do with weight loss. As for the "easy guide" you and I will have to disagree on that one. The first one was easy, but wrong (6-11 servings of bread and pasta per day? now wonder we're a nation of heifers). The new one is confusing as hell but a bit more balanced. At least it tries to distinguish between whole grain carbs vs crap refined carbs.
If the gov't actually wanted to suggest something helpful, it would toss out the food pyramid nonsense and start a campaign against processed food and promote veggies and exercise. Of course, the $$$ isn't there for that campaign.
Won't happen - the corn and wheat lobbyists have too much money for that.
The issue being portion sizes and choices.
Portion size is the single biggest problem we have here in the US. In fact, I realize you're talking nutrition as opposed to weight loss, but since I have been trying to lose a few pounds, I've noticed that what is considered a serving is PATHETIC in comparison to what I'm used to eating.
Well, on more than one occasion I've known something my doctor didn't even after I told him.
The issue with the 6 to 11 servings of Breads and cereals are portion sizes and fiber content. I agree there that a lot of confusion could have been avoided over portion distortion.
An average bagel is about 3 portions of bread.
The average serving of pasta is about 3 to 4 servings. etc. So if someone just eats the bagel and pasta, they only need a sandwich at night and thats it!
Then there is the whole grain issue also.
Going to whole grain pastas & breads, eating 1/2 a bagel for breakfast etc are all part of the teaching tools we use.
The issue is imparting the information. The FP is what we use to educate caregivers and clients.
Granted, I'm no longer teaching because I'm just too damn mean. However, I'm kickass in assessments and getting stuff to heal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.