The perils of the Atkins diet

Atkins diet is more expensive than conventional diets, yet no more effective

By Midhat Farooqi

July 16, 2003

link to article

The Atkins diet is in fashion once again. Dr. Robert Atkins, the man behind the diet, died in April of an accidental fall, giving new life to his book, "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution," which currently holds the number one spot on USA Today's best-seller list. The book is also No. 1 on the New York Times' best-seller list of paperback advice books. This is disappointing, considering that the Atkins' diet is expensive and no more effective than a conventional diet in the long term.

The diet's revival can be attributed to the publication of recent scientific studies supporting it. The New England Journal of Medicine published one such prominent study in May. Since then, supporters of the diet have used it to claim that Atkins was correct all along: restricting carbohydrates and eating only fat and protein makes a good diet. They claim that this is the way to eat now and for life. However, the study does not completely vindicate the Atkins diet: the results, though promising, were only collected over the short term, and they may be deceptively higher due to incomplete analysis. As it turns out, this is not the way to eat, now or ever.

The study involved 63 obese men and women who were assigned to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein and high-fat diet -- namely, Atkins -- or a low-calorie, low-fat and high-carbohydrate diet -- the more conventional dieting approach. The researchers then measured weight loss at three, six and 12 months.

The study was a controlled trial -- meaning that various other factors, which could influence the results, were minimized, such as the subjects taking weight-altering drugs. The study assigned the 63 participants to either diet at random, further reducing the likelihood of bias, and professional contact was minimal to imitate the approach used by most dieters.

The study showed that the Atkins diet produced greater weight loss than the conventional diet for the first six months. Those on Atkins lost 7 percent of their body weight, while those on the conventional diet lost 3.2 percent. However, at 12 months, there was no significant difference in the amount of weight loss produced by the Atkins' diet as compared to the conventional diet.

This point is the key, as it suggests that the long-term efficacy of the Atkins' diet is similar to that of a conventional diet. But because the conventional diet is cheaper -- fruits, vegetables and low-fat products are generally less expensive than excessive amounts of meat and low-carbohydrate products -- why follow the Atkins diet?

There are two results of a good diet: one is losing weight initially, and the other is keeping it off. In the study, people on the Atkins diet gained weight they lost in the first six months off the diet, much more than those on the low-fat diet. The Atkins diet may have produced more weight loss but it also resulted in a larger weight rebound.

The authors of the experiment state that this rebound may be due to the small sample size: the smaller the sample, the larger the sampling error. But this applies to all the results: they may not represent the larger population. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that all of the subjects were obese. Some people have metabolic differences, such as a decreased sensitivity to insulin. Thus, the results might not apply to people who are merely overweight or not fat at all. More importantly, the results might have been different if normal and overweight people were included in the survey.

Not only was the sample size of 63 people too small, only 37 participants finished all 12 months. Forty-one percent of the participants did not complete the study, which further reduces the sample size, hence, increasing the sampling error. Furthermore, the results do not include the weight loss (or gain) of these individuals as produced by the two diets. Since the researchers measured only the compliant subjects, this is a potential source of bias. The results may be misleading.

The outcome would be more convincing if an intent-to-treat analysis, one that includes data from all the participants regardless of whether they dropped out of the study, was performed. A larger sample size comprised of all people, not just those who are obese, would further strengthen the results. But, experiments are needed to determine the long-term safety and effectiveness of the Atkins diet. Until then, it remains a fad diet that works questionably at best and is an expensive eating habit at worst.

two words: NO HUNGER.

But there are just so many fallacies being pushed that it isn't worth it.

The POUND DIFFERENCE was minimal. But, since both groups lost so little...the percentage difference was about 60%, which IMO is very significant. It would also be interesting to know the difference in Body Fat. In my case (on Atkins)...my weight loss slowed after 6 months. But, my fat loss accelerated. Even though, the scale is saying I'm not losing much, the tape measure BF caliper are saying I am.

I've the LF diet before. So, I know how it works. It is much slower, but the weight loss is steady. Unfortunately, a good portion of it is probably muscle. I did not check my BF% when I did the diet. But, one thing is for sure, after I lost my excess weight (BMI 31 --> BMI 25) on a LF diet (1996/1997), I was down less than a single size, and my endurance/strength took a major hit. I would love to know how much Body Fat each group lost and how their LBM changed.



Because it --

1) doesn't require me to eat < 1000 kcal/day,
2) normalized my Blood Pressure [which was 180/?? when it was last tested 6 years ago,]
3) got rid of my indigestion [which I had for 6 years,]
4) normalized my sleeping hours,
5) gave me more energy, and
6) improved my strength/endurance.



Read the words in Bold: "off the diet." Anyone will gain once they go off the diet. Granted, it may come back faster for Atkins folks...but, it will come back no matter which diet you went off. I gained over 150 pounds between going off a LF/HC/Low-Cal Diet (June 20, 1997) and going on Atkins (December 20, 2002). In between then, I tried Extremelly LF/HC and Vegetarian dieting. None worked. Atkins did. I'm not going back to my old way of eating, EVER !!!



Absolutely...I would guess those who dropped out lost very little or may have even gained. If they were figured in, the numbers would have changed somewhat...I would love to have this info.



Dr. Atkins LCed for 40 years. Can't get much longer term than that. Banting's LC Diet was popular for almost 100 years...and at that time, Heart Disease, Obesity, etc...were ALL less prevelant than they are today. Native Americans ate a diet of 80% Fat and LC...and were noted for their endurance, strength, and stamina. Eskimos have eaten Super Low Carb for centuries, and were in alot better health than most modern Americans. When White Man Food (carbs) were introduced, their health began deteorating.

Don't call it circumstantial, because these are all at least as good as most of the Pro-LF studies. Two of the biggest Pro-LF studies:

1) A guy (Ancele Keyes ???) went overseas and studied diets. He concluded that those countries who ate less fat were healthier. Interestingly enough, omitted from his reports were countries that ate High Fat and were just as healthy. Taubes (?) was decried for leaving out studies which went against his theory that LC was good. Yet, the study that found the LF lie omitted quite a few countries which would disprove the LF lie.

2) A city in Finland (?) was put on a LF Diet. Their Cholesterol went down. This was called a great success and proof that LF was the right way. Omitted was the fact that other towns (who did not go LF) also experienced decreases in Cholesterol. The reduction was merely coincidental.

Because on a lowfat, high carb diet I am listless all the time and become overwhelmingly sleepy in the afternoon and early evening. That lack of energy disrupts my life. On a low-carb plan I have energy all day and don't become sleepy until bedtime.

Even some minimal research would have dispelled the "only fat and protein" myth. That guy is either incompetent or someone with an agenda. Or both. I'm probably eating more vegetables than your average "healthy" eater. He also doesn't cite any examples of anyone supporting "only fat and protein." Guy's an amatuer, and his lack of research puts in jeopardy the health of many overweight people who'd benefit greatly from Atkins.

The Battalion, the source of this article, is a publication of Texas A&M University, which just discontinued its journalism department.