Consumer Reports Picks Best Diets, Atkins comes Last

[tamarian]

Consumer Reports Picks Best Diet Plans, Books
Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Volumetrics is the best carefully researched diet plan, and "The Best Life Diet" is the best diet book, Consumer Reports says.

Volumetrics is based on the research of Penn State nutritional science professor Barbara Rolls, PhD. The Volumetrics diet stresses eating foods with low "energy density" — that is, foods with relatively few calories per portion. Such foods include fruits, salads, and soups.

The Best Life Diet, by personal trainer and exercise physiologist Bob Greene, stresses exercise and gives personalized advice, including recipes and a recommended eating schedule.

To rate the diet plans, "Consumer Reports" Senior Project Editor Nancy Metcalf and colleagues reviewed diet studies published in major medical journals. After Volumetrics, Metcalf's team ranked Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and Slim-Fast "very close together."

The report gave middling ratings to eDiets and to Barry Sear's The Zone Diet. Bringing up the rear were Dean Ornish's Ornish Diet and, in last place, the Atkin's Diet.

To rate the diet books — newer diets that, according to "Consumer Reports," "have not been put to the acid test of a large clinical trial" — the CR staff applied their own criteria and also got input from a panel of nutritional experts.

After "The Best Life Diet," CR ranked three books as "very close to one another:" "Eat, Drink, & Weigh Less" by Mollie Katzen and Walter Willett, MD; "You On a Diet," by Michael F. Roizen, MD, and Mehmet C. Oz, MD; and "The Abs Diet" by David Zinczenko with Ted Spiker.

Ranked last among the diet books — behind "The South Beach Diet" by Arthur Agatston, MD; and "The Sonoma Diet" by Connie Guttersen, PhD, RD — was "Ultra-Metabolism" by Mark Hyman, MD.

The ratings appear in the June issue of "Consumer Reports."

Diet Authors Respond

"We set up criteria that make sense to us, and let the chips fall where they may — hopefully not chocolate chips," Metcalf tells WebMD. "The things that go into the rating are the nutritional analysis — we analyze a week's worth of menus straight off the book or Web site — and we also rate them according to how well they conform to the 2005 U.S. dietary guidelines, which we think is a good consensus on a healthy diet."

For the diet plans, that may not have been the best strategy, says low-carb-diet expert Eris Westman, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center. Westman was a member of the "Consumer Reports" expert panel that helped rank the diet books.

"When you compare a weight loss diet to a healthy-eating guideline, of course it is going to look bad because it is restricted in calories and, perhaps, in carbohydrates," Westman says. "This is a common point of confusion. If you have diabetes, can you follow the healthy-diet guidelines? No! You are not healthy: You have diabetes and need a different kind of diet."

Westman says that even though the Atkins Diet got the lowest ranking among diet plans, the highly tested plan is more likely to work than the untested diet books that got more of "Consumer Reports" coveted red bubbles (high scores) and fewer of the dreaded black bubbles (low scores).

The recipient of many blank bubbles (average scores), Dean Ornish, MD, says "Consumer Reports" misrepresents his diet and overlooks "30 years of studies published in peer-reviewed journals that support our claims."

"It's not only important to lose weight but to do so in a way that is most healthful," Ornish says. "The diet I recommend is based primarily on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, soy products, and a little fish, and is low in refined carbohydrates and high in whole grains. Most authorities consider this the most healthful way to eat."

Moreover, Ornish says he is mystified as to why the Volumetrics diet gets a high score while his gets a low score, as both stress low-energy-density foods.

Differences in Fat Restriction

Volumetrics creator Rolls says she and Ornish differ mainly in fat restriction. Ornish's diet stresses reducing fat intake to 10 percent of calories.

"You can have fat in your diet if you also have a lot of veggies and fruits to offset the fat," Rolls says. "We show that people who eat a high-fat diet — more than 30 percent of calories from fat — but who eat a high number of servings of fruits and vegetables, actually had a lower incidence of obesity than those eating a low-fat diet with few fruits and vegetables."

Understandably miffed by the "Consumer Reports" rankings is "Ultra-Metabolism" author Mark Hyman, MD. The article says Hyman's theories of nutrition "goes beyond scientific evidence."

"The science I use may be ahead of its time, but it is still science," Hyman says. "My book is the only one to deal with the underlying causes of disease, which also underlie obesity. The same things that make you sick make you fat — and the things that make you fat make you sick. This is not being paid attention to by conventional medicine."

Hyman says the consumer group's low ranking of his book is due to a "dangerous" over-reliance on the USDA diet guidelines, which he calls "watered down to meet the special interests of industry."

"Eat real foods, whole foods. That is the essential message of my book," Hyman says. "That means eating foods that come from the land and not from a food chemist's laboratory."

Exercise: 'A Tough Sell'

First-ranked diet-book author Bob Greene is less vexed by "Consumer Reports'" mild criticism of his work. The article says that dieters "might be discouraged when they don't lose weight in phase one" of the diet.

"People might very well be discouraged at first. That is why I spend most of my time motivating people and getting them away from their addiction to scales," Greene says. "Exercise is a tough sell. But we humans were meant to move, from a weight loss standpoint as well as from a health standpoint. "

Exercise alone isn't enough, Greene says, unless you are getting at least a full hour of strenuous exercise every day.

"Most of the population won't devote that amount of time to exercise, so they have to watch their food intake," he says. "But if you are consistent with moderate exercise, you place a ceiling on your weight gain. Then you earn your result: the level at which you set your calories."

CR's Metcalf warns that no diet can work miracles. Some people lose 30 pounds or more on any of the diets. But most people will get much more modest results.

"None of these diets, even the highest rated, created a lot of weight loss — 10 pounds at best," she says But people shouldn't be disappointed. Small weight losses can have big health effects."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270693,00.html

[catfishghj]

I find most CR evaluations worthless.

[Dodger]

The method used by CR to rate the diets guarantees that any low-carb approach will rate low. One of their main rating criteria is how well the diet plan adheres to the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, AKA the food pyramid.

[kyrasdad]

The method used by CR to rate the diets guarantees that any low-carb approach will rate low. One of their main rating criteria is how well the diet plan adheres to the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, AKA the food pyramid.

Yeah. There is no way a low carb diet will score well on a system that depends on the obesity, er, food pyramid. How much damage to public health has that monstrosity afflicted?

[LukeA]

I think CR should stick to items like cars and toasters.....

[bkloots]

As a devoted Atkins follower, here's my heretical thought on all this.

ANY diet that features fresh, whole foods in moderate quantities is pretty good, and (with regular exercise) will probably help most people to achieve and sustain a healthy weight. The exact calibration of fat/protein/carbs is a wash. Suit yourself.

The key is: you have to do the "diet" consistently, faithfully, and forever.

Now, imagine the American landscape without fast food, processed food, corn syrup and sugar in EVERYTHING. Does any kid growing up in the U.S. today realize that "Lunchables" is NOT actual food?:lol: It is practically impossible to sell any of the diets--healthy or otherwise--reviewed by Consumer Reports as a lifestyle.

I like Atkins because it works (for me), and I can sustain it. End of story.

[Nelson]

Westman [MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center] says that even though the Atkins Diet got the lowest ranking among diet plans, the highly tested plan is more likely to work than the untested diet books that got more of "Consumer Reports" coveted red bubbles (high scores) and fewer of the dreaded black bubbles (low scores).

Whether or not the diet worked was not the point for these guys. All that mattered was that it conformed to USDA guidelines.

What a bunch of marooons!!!! :lol:

[Samuel]

ANY diet that features fresh, whole foods in moderate quantities is pretty good, and (with regular exercise) will probably help most people to achieve and sustain a healthy weight. The exact calibration of fat/protein/carbs is a wash. Suit yourself.

The key is: you have to do the "diet" consistently, faithfully, and forever.
I have never been able to do that successfully in the past. The reason is that it means that I'll be living for my diet. Food thoughts will always be in my mind when I work, conduct business or meet with people. There is no way I can concentrate on my life unless I'm not hungry.

The only way I could maintain a reasonable average weight was to diet for 4-6 month, then let myself gain the weight back over the following 3 years. Believe it or not, I could not find any other way!

Concerning how they rank Atkins diet, I have only one thing to say to them: It's the only diet that works".

[bkloots]

Samuel, I hear what you're saying. That's been the pattern for many of us who struggle with weight management. Even "normal" quantities of "normal" foods seem to cause a "weight creep" that requires periodic "dieting" of one description or another.

So-called yo-yo dieting has been criticized as being very unhealthy--but is it more unhealthy than continuing to gain weight to an unknown ceiling? I don't know.

On Atkins, I do think about food quite a lot. But it is simpler for me than calorie-counting, and certainly more palatable than low-fat/low-cal restictions.

[eryalen]

I think CR should stick to items like cars and toasters.....
Their car reviews are all Japanese manufacturer's propaganda.

[RobLL]

Actually I like Consumer Reports a whole lot, not to say they don't have a hair in cross ways on a few subjects. Diets - don't know why they buy into the current food pyramid; coffee - they don't know beans about i.e. Mr. Coffee is as good as a 200 degree brewer; they hate Starbucks.

[lizzyLC]

They are probably basing it entirely on Induction. People can't see past Induction.
I heard the Best Life/Diet guy. He recommends frankenfoods like Slimfast, etc. That's not healthy - IMHO of course.

[Aeon]

From the article:

"We set up criteria that make sense to us, and let the chips fall where they may — hopefully not chocolate chips," Metcalf tells WebMD. "The things that go into the rating are the nutritional analysis — we analyze a week's worth of menus straight off the book or Web site — and we also rate them according to how well they conform to the 2005 U.S. dietary guidelines, which we think is a good consensus on a healthy diet."

I think you would be hard-pressed to concoct a less rigorous methodology.

Garbage in -- garbage out, you know.

Not to mention that the authors of the Consumer Reports piece doubtlessly know nothing about the special metabolic changes that makes Atkins and other LC programs so effective.

The blind leading the blind comes to mind.

[LilithD]

I've never eaten more 'volumetrically' than now. What gives more bulk: sandwiches for lunch or a big salad with meat and feta? Rice or noodles with cheese sauce or a big plate of veges with a cheese sauce?

These 'scientists' are misleading millions of desperate peoples. If we were into Schadenfreude, we could be pleased that we'll be slim while the rest of humanity gets fatter, but of course that's not how the good people here feel.

[kyrasdad]

On Atkins, I do think about food quite a lot. But it is simpler for me than calorie-counting, and certainly more palatable than low-fat/low-cal restictions.

Actually, I'm the same way, but for different reasons. I think about food in a positive way. I think about it as a great pleasure in life -- not a great source of guilt and weakness. I'm wild about smoked meats and veggies. I tried not to think about food before. I knew what tasted good, but there was not as much pleasure in it -- it inflicted too much misery along with the taste.

So now, I get downright giddy about a great steak or smoked brisket or perfectly seared chicken. I love grilled eggplant and good salad and strawberries. It's all the love with none of the damage or the guilt.

[Abd]

The method used by CR to rate the diets guarantees that any low-carb approach will rate low. One of their main rating criteria is how well the diet plan adheres to the [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, AKA the food pyramid.

Yes, that's the core of it. The article simply says,
"We set up criteria that make sense to us, and let the chips fall where they may — hopefully not chocolate chips," Metcalf tells WebMD. "The things that go into the rating are the nutritional analysis — we analyze a week's worth of menus straight off the book or Web site — and we also rate them according to how well they conform to the 2005 U.S. dietary guidelines, which we think is a good consensus on a healthy diet."

The whole rating system is based on nothing more than guesswork. "Criteria that made sense to us." That's explicitly subjective! and then, about the dietary guidelines, "which we think is a good consensus on a healthy diet."

Did they take a vote? What was the vote? How do you know what the "consensus" is on a subject? Do you go with your "gut feeling?" What you "think?" Did they look at actual research, or did they look at the degrees behind the names of experts, and the size of the government agency involved?

Consumers Reports is a business. It is not responsible to consumers. It has a particular business model that makes it look independent, and, indeed, I doubt that they were bought off. They were merely ignorant, and they did not follow any kind of scientific guidelines in judging what must be a scientific question. Instead, they appear to have had a panel of experts, and the results do not appear to be based on a consensus of those experts. There is difference of opinion, and, by not clearly reporting that, they do consumers a great disservice. And they've done it before, on this issue.

One of the great problems with nonprofits and, indeed, other kinds of "do-good" organizations is that, unfortunately, the motive ends up actually being "feel-good." I.e., if you have made bad decisions in the past, there is a strong tendency to try to shore them up and justify them. After all, you can lose your support if you look bad. Consider the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which practically bludgeoned the fast-food industry into moving from saturated fats to trans fats. Have they ever apologized?

They also say that they based their diet analysis on a "week's worth of menus." For Atkins, *what week?" Induction, that lasts for two weeks? or a maintenance diet, which is significantly higher in carbs?

If you are testing toasters, there are clear standards. Testing diets, they are way over their heads, but they pretend to know what they are doing....

[kyrasdad]

If they want to test diets, the core questions ought to be: What do people want to accomplish when they diet? Which diets help them accomplish that goal best?

Instead they used a criteria that would ensure an outcome most of us think is useless.

[Samuel]

THE 'SKINNY' ON DIET PLANS
WHICH ONES REALLY WORK
By RITA DELFINER

May 10, 2007 -- When it comes to diets, Consumer Reports agrees with Oprah - and not Atkins.

In a rating of popular diet plans and books, the consumer products rating guide gave its top marks to the "Volumetrics Eating Plan" diet and "The Best Life Diet" book.

The popular weight-loss bok was written by Bob Greene, an exercise physiologist, who is also Oprah Winfrey's personal trainer.

The magazine looked at seven diet books, coming up with grades for its June issue based on an expert-panel questionnaire and its own nutritional analysis. CR said its reviewers liked Green's "personalized advice and section on exercise" and that a talk about "emotional eating" might strike a chord with some.

On the other hand, they said some dieters might be "discouraged when they don't lose weight in phase one," which involves exercise and an eating schedule.

Greene's guide was followed by three closely ranked books, "Eat, Drink & Weigh Less," "You on a Diet" and "The Abs Diet," CR said.

It gave the lowest overall book score to "Ultra-Metabolism," by Dr. Mark Hyman, who designed the diet based on "his theory that people get fat because their systems become toxic, inflamed, stressed and imbalanced," the magazine said. CR's reviewers felt the "book's theory goes beyond scientific evidence and was overly restrictive and complicated."

As far as diet plans go, CR said it looked at eight that had been studied in clinical trials. CR gave the lowest overall rating score to the Atkins diet plan, which it described as the "granddaddy of low-carb diets."

The magazine said that many dieters "find it too restrictive, so long-term adherence is below average; long-term weight loss is average," and found that "its nutritional profile is far outside dietary guidelines."

The magazine gave its highest honors to "The Volumetrics Eating Plan" by Barbara Rolls because it asks people to fill up on "low-density foods" such as vegetables and fruits.



Weight Watchers came in second, with Jenny Craig a "very close third," closely followed by Slim-Fast, the magazine said.

CR also serves up a batch of tips for do-it-yourself dieters.

* Eat breakfast.

"Eating a substantial morning meal is recommended by every diet book we analyzed," Consumer Reports said.

* Try to bore yourself thin.

"Since variety stimulates the appetite, the more monotonous your diet, the less you'll eat," CR said. "So steer clear of buffet tables, which can be the dieter's worst enemy."

rita.delfiner~nypost.com

[brobin]

They mentioned that Atkins was effective. They suggested lowering carbs as a tip to lose weight.

Then they ranked it last and suggested people follow the high carb food pyramid, just eat less...

I don't look to them for dietary advice since the last time I checked, they don't run experiments to test them. If they want to do it the way they test other items, then devise a non-biased experiment and run the study.

[Galliard]

Several years ago (2002) CR ranked diets by surveying readers and Atkins was rated by readers as the most effective diet. Now they go to the so-called experts, and Atkins is ranked last. CR has a new editor since 2002. I guess if I were a reader I'd be disturbed by that change in attitude toward readers. (Actually I subscribe, but I can't remember the last time I read it -- I threw this latest issue out without even looking at the cover!)

[NorthPeace]

Now, imagine the American landscape without fast food, processed food, corn syrup and sugar in EVERYTHING.
I was thinking very similar thoughts the last couple of days. I work for a town in Canada, and every now and then pay attention to development applications. Thinking how the best real estate is occupied by services that we need not to have. How only 10% of what is in a grocery store is actually edible.

:idea: Of course if this rubbish did not get sold our economy would collapse. The franchises, doctors and drug companies would be out of business. Better bring them on then.

CR has helped me more times than not with their car recommendations. Correct 5x out of 6.

So this must be ok too, these diet recommendations. So healthy people, those with, umm, no CVD of dietary origin, should eat according to the diet closest to the USDA Food Pyramid. Well why not just forget about evaluating these books and diets and just recommend the food pyramid? Well it doesn't much matter, because after about a month, they will have the beginnings of CVD, therefore be unhealthy and off the diet. And on to ... what? ADA and AHA diets ...? :bash:

[dianadur]

Society has been brainwashed for so many years. It is very hard for many people to admit that eating fatty foods can actually cause one to lose weight and also get healthier. I have been on this low carb diet for less than 4 months, have lost 70 pounds, have started feeling much better and have reduced my insulin intake by 75%. Still, people will not believe how I am losing the weight. I also even eat sugar free low carb candy (yes with sugar alcohols) and I am still losing weight. I'm so grateful to this diet.

[EmmaB]

* Try to bore yourself thin.

"Since variety stimulates the appetite, the more monotonous your diet, the less you'll eat," CR said. "So steer clear of buffet tables, which can be the dieter's worst enemy."
:eek: :eek: :eek:

They really have no idea at all, do they?!

[Frederick]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

They really have no idea at all, do they?!

"Trying to bore yourself thin," has got to be one of the most stupid suggestions I've ever seen.

I'm not sure which is worse, the one spouting that rubbish, or the one idiotic enough to take it. In my view, the truly do deserve each other! :lol:

[Aeon]

I was thinking very similar thoughts the last couple of days. I work for a town in Canada, and every now and then pay attention to development applications. Thinking how the best real estate is occupied by services that we need not to have. How only 10% of what is in a grocery store is actually edible.

:idea: Of course if this rubbish did not get sold our economy would collapse. The franchises, doctors and drug companies would be out of business. ...

It is apparent that the establishment hostility to the LC WOL is not -- as many claim -- due to the lack of long-term studies of it's safety, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from longtime lowcarbers that it it healthy.

It is difficult to escape the suspicion that the medical industry (in the USA, at least) prefers to have an overflowing pool of sick people requiring their overpriced care. As someone on the forums here posted long ago: "How often do you go to the doctor when you are feeling great?"

The institutional influence of Big Agriculture cannot be overlooked either.

But the relevant point here is that Consumer Reports, despite it's title, is all about reporting on the products and interests of the major corporations. The business about them accepting no advertising is sleight-of-hand to disguise the real source of their power.

Thus, they take the "official" line on diets and what constitutes healthy nutrition.

[brnagain]

May I say I tried Volumetrics three times, because I was convinced it was my holy grail in losing weight and regaining my health. I did lose some weight, but my blood sugar shot up from all those "healthy" carbs and low fat eating, and I felt awful.

Low carb is the only way for me, and nobody will convince me otherwise.

[LStump]

The only thing I support ever done by CR is their high scores for Toyota vehicles :) LOL

[Oana60]

My understanding is that when CR tests running shoes, they have their staff putting in miles on treadmills. To take the advice of experts is like getting the shoe manufacturers together and seeing which one conforms to the editors prejudice. This is equivalent to a psychological kick-back which they would never take from a shoe manufacturer.

[Abd]

The most offensive thing about the CR report is that, if they were paying attention at all, they would know there is a serious controversy over the issue of diet. People -- consumers -- need to know where the truth lies. If there is a controversy that cannot be resolved, then that is exactly what they should report.

But they ignored the controversy, they did not make it clear that there was substantial disagreement among the experts they collected.

From the original article posted in this thread:

For the diet plans, that may not have been the best strategy, says low-carb-diet expert Eris Westman, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center. Westman was a member of the "Consumer Reports" expert panel that helped rank the diet books.

"When you compare a weight loss diet to a healthy-eating guideline, of course it is going to look bad because it is restricted in calories and, perhaps, in carbohydrates," Westman says. "This is a common point of confusion. If you have diabetes, can you follow the healthy-diet guidelines? No! You are not healthy: You have diabetes and need a different kind of diet."

Westman says that even though the Atkins Diet got the lowest ranking among diet plans, the highly tested plan is more likely to work than the untested diet books that got more of "Consumer Reports" coveted red bubbles (high scores) and fewer of the dreaded black bubbles (low scores).

Their methodology was suspect, according to this expert, yet it appears that they did not sufficiently warn the public about the controversy. Properly, they had two reasonable courses:

(1) Research the controversy and examine it with respect to actual science, as distinct from majority votes of "experts." This is what brought Gary Taubes, whose interest is science and scientific accuracy, into the low-carb world. Then report those results, including any controversy that is not thereby resolved.

(2) *Test* the "products." Imagine how ineffective it would be if, instead of actually testing cars, they merely sent out questionnaires to "car experts" and asked them to rate the cars. Consumer Reports got their reputation because they actually tested stuff! Not because they just reported the opinions of others, without direct investigation!

[rightnow]

* Try to bore yourself thin.

"Since variety stimulates the appetite, the more monotonous your diet, the less you'll eat," CR said.
Well on the bright side, this was the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time. Try to BORE yourself thin? That's hilariously stupid! Oh man. That went from misinformed into downright surreal.

I can see they'd need to make up compensatory plans for all the problems their preferred dietary guidelines invoke. Yes, I imagine putting people on eating plans where they are weak and hungry might actually make them want to eat. :rolleyes:

You're not supposed to like food or find it interesting, don'tcha know! You're supposed to just eat and get it over with, using as little variety as possible, lest you accidentally spark a genuine interest in it. Kind of like sex in a puritanical town of the 1700s. :lol:

[PS Diva]

I was disappointed when I read the article, but I did see some movement towards accepting low carb as a possibilty. More low(er) carb diets were included in their little study. And they did make the point that most diets would work if people could actually stick to them. I think one of their major goofs was thinking it would be hard to stay on Atkins because it is so restrictive. They don't know what we know, that being able to stay on it is one of the benefits of Atkins!

They used experts in the field of nutrition to come up with their criteria for a healthy diet. And that is the scary part. Because it is the experts who still want us following the food pyramid to be healthy. Consumer Reports always goes to the pros, and I'd say this time the pros let them down. And us.