Lots of people have linked to this article about the results of the Great Diet Off. Excerpt:

The largest and longest-running comparison of diet plans found the low-carbohydrate Atkins regimen produced greater weight loss than three other popular programs — the Zone, the Ornish and the U.S. nutritional guidelines.

The average weight reduction was small, and participants started regaining pounds by the end of the one-year study, according to the report in today’s Journal of the American Medical Assn. Still, Atkins dieters — who consume prodigious amounts of long-demonized saturated fats but shun carbs, such as pasta and breads — experienced significant drops in blood pressure and cholesterol.

The finding showed that even a small weight reduction can improve overall health, researchers said.

Atkins dieters lost an average of 10.4 pounds after one year, according to the report, compared with 5.7 pounds for those on a traditional balanced diet based on federal nutritional guidelines, 4.8 pounds for the high-carbohydrate Ornish diet and 3.5 pounds for the Zone diet, which calls for a set ratio of carbohydrate, protein and fat.

Let me state for the record my experience with the Atkins diet. About 12 years ago, I had stopped exercising and put on some extra pounds. I'd had tried going lo-cal, but my body absolutely hoards its fat reserves in the absence of heavy duty exercise. I stumbled across a copy of Atkins Diet Revolution book and decided to give it a try. Here's a brief synopsis:

1) I love meat in all its forms, except for haggis, although technically that contains meat the way Vienna Sausage contains "meat". Anyway, eating lots of high protein foods sounded great to me.

2) I also love baked potatoes, rice, pasta and bread, all of which were a complete no-no on the diet. That part sucked. A lot.

3) I learned to make sandwiches thusly: piles of meat stuck between two slices of cheese, slathered with mustard. A poor substitute for a great big hoagy, but it was better than nothing.

4) My kidneys worked overtime, nights and weekends, too. Since I don't add salt to my food, I became washed out due to the seemingly incessant stream of fluid being emitted by my body. Eventually, I started sprinkling a bit of salt onto my meals; I felt much better.

5) I lost a lot of weight, around 35 pounds or so. I lost 4-5 inches off of my waistline. I then started exercising and eating better because, let's face it, a diet low in fruits and vegetables just isn't healthy.

Anyway, I've read many articles from people, who should really know better, that Atkins doesn't work, that all of the weight lost is simply water weight. I read just such an article in Runner's World, which is a fine magazine, but was completely wrong in this case. Willful ignorance and self-delusion aren't pretty, especially when actual, you know, facts contradict you. Because Atkins works. You will lose weight, and quite rapidly I might add. But it's a sucky diet, especially for someone like me who likes to run long distances. Carbohydrates are fuel for the body, and a diet lacking carbohydrates is lacking in fuel.

For the record, I will state that a fruit, vegetable and pasta filled diet is the ideal, especially when combined with some vigorous exercise. But if you simply want to lose weight, Atkins will get you there. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

Update: I had forgotten that Ace was a proponent. He makes a pretty good point about the whole diet thingy:

Diet gurus similarly criticize the study as subjects seem to have cheated on their diets, too, and thus didn't really follow "their diets." But the piece notes that, in practical terms, a diet is not merely a plan, but rather a plan plus the most likely realistic implementation of that plan. And in that sense, Atkins seems to win -- it's simple, it's more livable than other plans (though pretty damn annoying), and easier to avoid cheating on.

Annoying yes, but effective.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 692 words, total size 4 kb.