http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969/T2.large.jpg

This is the caloric intake, from the study. The low-carb group does not seem to be eating more calories than each of the other diet plans. Yes, at 12 months, the low-carb group ate 5 more calories than the Zone group. But less than the LEARN group and more than the Ornish group. That is the 'snapshot' at 12 months.

Taking the data for each milestone, for each group, the Atkins group had an average over the year: 1601.5 calories. The Zone was higher (1631.75) and LEARN was higher intake (1663.25) but Ornish was around 20 calories lower. 20 calories, hardly anything.

It seems to me that for the paltry weight loss over an entire year, participating in a diet study, with some claims that the participants are adhering to their plans, everyone probably gained and lost pounds, in every group. Like any diet, losing the same pounds over and over again!

And the caloric intakes, in any case, were estimated (no weighing, the participants were given pictures to estimate the amounts they thought they were eating). Then the calorie intake data were the results of phone calls to the participants.

And at the end, 'The amount of weight loss at 12 months relative to baseline among all groups was modest at 2% to 5%.' (from the study) That's a year of dieting. And they all lost weight.

I think that table tells an interesting story about compliance. Compare Atkins and Ornish. On Atkins, carbs should be the most restricted; on Ornish, fat should be the most restricted. On both diets, after two months they're doing pretty well, but at the end of 12 months, the Atkins dieters are up to 34.5% carbs and the Ornish dieters are up to almost 30% fat.

Ubizmo

Yes, by the end you can't even call those the Atkins Diet or the Ornish Diet. Not even close.

I think there's a basic problem with studies like this one. People are randomly assigned to the diets, this is good and necessary. But because of this, the study can only show what happens when people are assigned diets, and the process of choosing might itself be important to long term compliance. If you assigned me to Ornish, I know I wouldn't last long. It's even possible the relative popularity of Atkin's at the time of the study skewed results in favour of Atkins, although it pains me to say that.

The people who were recruited for the diet were premenopausal women from 25 to 50 years. They were motivated to lose weight - they had to have BMI between 26 and 41. They volunteered. They got the books for each diet, went to classes, had their (same) teacher rated so the teacher was not favoring one diet over another. The participants got PAID to be in the study. They knew they could lose weight on every one of the diets because they had the literature, the lectures, and the phone call reminders and e-mail from staff that kept them on track.

They were set up to succeed. The Ornish is probably the hardest to adhere to and, given that participants were randomly assigned to that diet, they still lost weight on it. Zone and LEARN actually had calorie limits - the Atkins and Ornish didn't have any calorie limits. Given that, all the groups still lost modest amounts of weight and weren't THAT different after a year with their successful losses. I think they all lost and gained and lost and gained again. Just like any diet. The Beverly Hills Diet, the F-Factor Diet, the Shangri-La Diet, etc.

This forum is full of people with better long-term weight loss success than is to be seen in studies like this one. Yeah, some people struggle, weight goes up and down. But that's not "everyone." Motivated to lose weight isn't the same as motivated to stay on a particular plan. I still have relatives who are certain that a high fat, low carb diet is just a recipe for heart disease. Ornish might be hardest to stay on-- but people do stay on Ornish-style diets long term, or even more restricted and ill-advised vegan diets. Because they wanna. You gotta wanna.

Motivation is critical and I doubt people in a study going on "whatever" diet they're assigned could have the passion and commitment for that way of eating when compared to someone who KNOWS this or that way is right for them.

I'd like to see a study of successes over the long term (like 3-5yrs) with these diets. Uncontrolled...that would be fine...if the population of people who "self selected" for their diet plans was large enough, I think some conclusions could be drawn. Anybody know of a big nationwide study like that? I bet low carb comes out on top in people who have sustained losses and greatest satisfaction with their way of eating.

For me it's LC now and forever. Sure, sometimes it's hard to not have carb foods...but only about 1% of the time....as opposed to starving on low cal most of the time. To me the "metabolic advantage" is the amazing lack of cravings when I eat low carb. 40# in a few months at age 50 has been really quite easy!

I too wish there were more studies, that would be awesome but my gnostic approach... listening to my body... has me 100% convinced this is what my body wants. I think a large portion of the overweight US population would have the same response to this way of eating if conventional wisdom would move over and give this way it's due.

I agree wholeheartedly that you gotta wanna. No one can force you to stay on a diet. Dieting is hard. Yes, this forum is full of people who do well. So are the forums of other diet plans - people lose weight on all of them. And a lot of weight!

People lose, gain, lose, gain, repeat. I think that is what happened on these diets - they were on these diets for a year, with all the support and accountability and were even paid! The Atkins and Ornish didn't even have to restrict calories.

The National Weight Control Registry keeps track of people who diet ('self selected') and they have some stats. The low-carb people do as well as the non-low carb people. (This stuff has all been studied to death!)


http://www.nwcr.ws/people/default.htm

See number 24 of:
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/published%20research.htm


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...Pubmed_RVDocSum

It's a small sample, but I used to know a lot of people doing Ornish when it was big; and no one lasted as long as a year.

Whereas I lost 70 pounds in six months, first try, and kept it off for six years. I backslid last winter, but only by 30 pounds, and I've lost half of that again, without struggle or hunger.

I'm a diet veteran; you name it, I've lost on it. But it never lasted, until Atkins.

I agree, a combination of truly believing and understanding the science behind low carb, plus no hunger, has meant that this has been the only way of eating I've ever continued with for so long, even getting back on it pretty quickly after cheats etc. I also think that commiting to something as your normal way of eating is very important - saying this is how I'm going to eat for the rest of my life.

The people in the research studies are on 'diets' - short term changes in eating before you go back to your normal way of eating.

And on the subject of eat less, move more - if you can't stick to it, then it doesn't work. Even if you lose weight in the short term, if you can't continue that way of eating for life, then it doesn't work.

Lee

Anecdotal again, but I'm the only person I know who has sustained a major weight loss over time. I know plenty who lost weight and regained it. I started at 360 pounds in 2003. Today I weigh 265. My lowest was 249, so I've backslid, but that 249 was in 2005 or so. I am imperfect in my diet, but I'm good enough to keep 95 pounds off for seven years because I can stick (mostly) to low carb.

My weight watchers friends are yo-yo's. They eventually give it back. That to me is the chief difference. I gave back a little, but they give it all back and pay some interest. None of them have come close to sustained loss for seven years.

I called them up and was sent the packet of information, they refused to accept my stats because they weren't signed off by a doctor. So no- they're only keeping track some people who have had their stats "verified" by a doctor. Most doctors prescribe a low fat, high carb diet, so the results at TNWCR are inherently dishonest.

I know people who've lost weight on WW and kept it off ever since (many years). I know someone who lost a massive amount of weight on a Slimfast/treadmill/limited carb diet and - after becoming slim and trim for the first time after 30 years of obesity - put it all back on.

It's your head, your mind, your lifestyle, your commitment and acceptance that your life has to be different than when you were fat. The diet is just the start.

KarenJ, whenever I've mentioned the National Weight Control Registry on this board, people have not responded favorably to the response they get from the registry. If it's going to be a problem to have a doctor 'sign off,' then so be it. I can understand the requirement totally: they want verification.

I don't care if most doctors don't advise the low-carb or even no-carb diet. I guess I'm spoiled because there is more than one doctor in my town. Also, my doc and I are in sync enough that he encourages me to 'just lose the weight' and, once the weight is lost, he's then willing to discuss the finer points. Ultimately, a diet is a short-term thing and if it's going to be long-term, what you put in your mouth is your business. No one monitors that. Few doctors are so rigid that if you are in relatively good health, they would refuse to keep you as a patient if you want to low-carb.

A doctor has to deal with his patient and they have to come to an understanding on health issues. I also realize that there are people who live in towns with only one doctor and don't have cars to drive to another town. I sympathize if that's your case.

That said, 'Most doctors prescribe a low fat, high carb diet, so the results at TNWCR are inherently dishonest.' That doesn't even follow: the people who are in the registry and have lost their weight through low-carb diets obviously had their doctors 'sign off' - which, to the registry, is a way of validating that yes, you lost the weight consistently and kept it off by low-carbing. They can't videotape your meals, they have to go by what you say and they also have to go by some measures, such as weigh-in with your doctor and his observations that yes, you've been losing the weight.

I'm hampered somewhat by the fact that I haven't gotten the materials from the registry so I can't understand the 'my doctor shouldn't have to be involved' reaction. But people ARE put off by that, and yet they want the registry to acknowledge them. Every other variety of dieter does the same thing for the registry - no reason this should be a special case. I don't consider the registry to be dishonest.