Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top Diets....You have to read this!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Top Diets....You have to read this!

    Meetings and shakes trump counting carbs when it comes to long-term weight loss, according to a recent analysis of diets by Consumer Reports magazine. The publication, best known for rating cars and electronics, put Weight Watchers, with its support group meetings, and Slim-Fast, whose shakes let you opt out of cooking, at the top of the heap.

    The ratings were based on pounds lost, nutrition, how easy the diet was to follow and dropout rates after six months and a year.

    Though low-carb diets have dominated headlines, the highest marks went to Weight Watchers, which uses weekly meetings to reinforce its decidedly simple philosophy — eat less and exercise more. After a year, its followers were far more likely to stick with the plan.

    Weight Watchers did not, however, earn the strongest scores on weight loss, a distinction that went to second-ranked Slim-Fast, which replaces parts of two meals a day with shakes and bars.

    Too much fat in Atkins diet
    Atkins, which has led the low-carb charge, got good scores for short-term weight loss, but landed at the bottom of the ratings because of poor marks on retention and nutrition.

    The report, released in the magazine’s June issue, said the Atkins diet calls for too much fat and saturated fat, too few fruits, too little fiber and “might have a negative effect on some dieters’ health.”

    Colette Heimowitz, vice president of education and research at Atkins Nutritionals, criticized the study, saying it focused only on Atkins’ weight-loss components, ignoring its more flexible weight maintenance stages.

    The magazine’s conclusions are based on a review of published clinical research on each diet, and a nutrient and calorie analysis of a week’s worth of menus, including how closely they follow federal dietary guidelines.

    Heimowitz took issue with the use of the federal guidelines as a way to evaluate the diets, saying those standards are intended for maintaining a healthy weight, not losing fat.

    Sticking with diet plan is key
    All of the diets reviewed are low enough in calories to produce results, but success relies on sticking to the plan, said Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports.

    That accounts for the strong showing by Weight Watchers, which backs up a flexible, low-calorie, low-fat approach with weekly motivational meetings, Metcalf said.

    “We are not necessarily the fastest kids in town, but we’re livable and sustainable, and we feel that’s very important,” said Karen Miller-Kovach, chief scientist at Weight Watchers.

    Slim-Fast, which sells its bars and beverages in grocery and drug stores, was praised for its ease and balanced nutrition. Its retention matched Weight Watchers’ during the first six months, but then dropped considerably.

    The high-protein “Zone” diet, from a book by Dr. Barry Sears, was the magazine’s No. 3 program. Though its followers tended to drop out over time, the diet earned points for having considerably less fat than the Atkins approach.

    Ornish diet had worst retention rate
    The fourth-ranked ultra-low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian Ornish diet, from Dr. Dean Ornish, had the worst retention rate, though it had good long-term weight loss and was praised as a treatment for heart disease.

    Thomas Wadden, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert, said the ratings seem sound, but noted the challenge of making comparisons when some diets involve structured meetings and others are do-it-yourself.

    He added that the Atkins diet might have ranked better if weight loss was the only criterion. But Wadden said the magazine rightly considered the overall healthfulness of the diets’ approaches.

    Four other programs, Internet-based eDiets, Jenny Craig, South Beach and Volumetrics, were included in the review, but not ranked because not enough independent clinical studies had been done on them to allow comparison, the magazine said.



    This article can be found at the above address. And there you have it, Atkins, again, gets blamed and no honor...let me know what you think.
    ~Amanda~


    "The Lord Makes Us Strong" Psalm 81:1
    SW: 250, CW: 242.2, GW: 145
    Mini Goal ~ 225
    http://www.frappr.com/atkinsdietbulletinboard



  • #2
    It's a cryin' shame Atkins was not given a better review! This man has changed my life! Bless him and his scientific discovery regarding this WOE!
    Start weight 01/01/10 ~ 212lbs./Current 200



    Stats as of 05/01/2007
    Starting to believe thin is possible!








    SW-295.5/CW 168/GW 155-160?

    Comment


    • #3
      I read this at another board I post at (not a carb board) and I began proselytizing! *lol*

      I can't believe Consumer Reports could say what they did with a straight face.
      ADBB Moderator Emeritus
      My blog: The Lighter Side of Low Carb: Food, fun and fidgeting
      Low Carb Lolitas: Hip low carb bloggers

      Comment


      • #4
        Atkins, which has led the low-carb charge, got good scores for short-term weight loss, but landed at the bottom of the ratings because of poor marks on retention and nutrition.
        I'd be curious to see the whole CR article. We can certainly argue the validity of docking points from Atkins for nutrition for too much fat. But retention is a valid concern. Though it does not affect us as individuals who stick to this WOE, how many folks stay on it is something I'd want to consider when deciding to embark on a new diet.


        M 37
        started 9/02/03
        198 / 174 / 160-165

        Comment


        • #5
          I subscribe to Consumer Reports. I read the article too. They "analyzed" studies done on Atkins---Atkins Induction and Atkins "OWL". CR's criticism about Induction being nutrient poor has some validity: if you make poor food choices during Induction and OWL (processed meats, nutrient poor veggies---if you even eat your veggies), your Atkins won't be very nutritious/healthy. Too bad CR doesn't say what I just wrote. It also didn't point out that on Atkins Induction, you ARE eating more than the required 2.5 cups of veggies the "new" Food Pyramid wants you to eat daily.

          Their criticism of OWL is that you don't eat enough fruits and you eat little grains. Apparently, eating more vegetables than the old (and new) Food Pyramid doesn't count. Nor does eating the "required" daily servings of dairy or nuts. :sarcasm

          They didn't report on the Pre-Maintenance or Maintenance phases because no studies have been done on it. So, CR based their rating on the first 2 phases of Atkins, not the entire diet.

          Swag, I think you can see why the retention rates are poor for Atkins by many of the posts on ADBB---alot of people think that the Induction phase is the entire Atkins Nutritional Approach. Alot of people (the media included) think that 20 net carbs is the amount you'll be eating for the rest of your life and you'll never, ever, ever, EVER eat fruits, grains, starchy vegetables and legumes. Gives new meaning to "Read the book!", imo.
          ~Megs~
          242/141/160 (130)
          dress size 26/10/8
          5'4", Female, May 2, 2003
          My blog:
          http://mformiscellaneous.blogspot.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            I am so OVER listening to people trash talk this WOE. Whatever, man.
            All I know is, I've never looked better, felt better, ate better, slept better and been healthier.

            If you can eat lowfat and say those things, then good for you, but I'm sticking with this for life!

            Betty
            [/IMG]

            Comment


            • #7
              What not2late says is absolutely true. I can't count the number of times I've heard that Atkins isn't good for you because all you eat is meat and cheese and butter.

              If these so called experts read the book and looked at ATKINS from beginning to end, they would know what we do...that it is a completely safe and healthy WOE.

              They also seem to interview a lot of people who go on programs and quit for their studies. Why not interview some of us who have made the committment to live this way forever.
              Starting Date 3/12/04 285/165/145 - F



              Dedication gives wings to our dreams and keeps them in flight! In One Word...COMMITTMENT.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yea, I saw the article a week or so ago. It was a bunch of gobbley gook IMO. But I didn't see where it said that all we ate was meat.

                They also said that south beach hasn't been around long enough to really rate.


                5'4"
                45 yrs (F) a.k.a. "Butterbean"
                Start date 5/18/2003
                197/163.5/130

                Comment


                • #9
                  I read this....Oh well let people think what they want! I know it works for me!
                  SW226(in 2005)CW204 GW145 36F 5' 6"
                  LOWEST WEIGHT 160! UGH!
                  226

                  Lowest Weight...UGH!160

                  "You can never be to thin or have too many shoes!"
                  Day 11 - Cheat FREE!
                  Ran/Walk(it's HOT!) 14.5 Miles & 10 miles bike in June










                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes and if you judge all the diets based on what fits your best criteria for what you consider the perfect diet..... What is that? The zone ranked higher for having less fat, but that is the point, isnt it. FAT ISNT BAD FOR YOU (just trans fat).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ugh...I had an argument with my mom about this I was so mad...the woman from CR was on the Today Show and she said the reason Atkins rated so low is because it is a NO CARB diet...give me a break...I'm so sick of the misinformation...yes Atkins done incorrectly can have serious consequences...but almost any diet not followed properly will result in failure.
                      32yr old Female

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ttdriver
                        I am so OVER listening to people trash talk this WOE.

                        All I know is, I've never looked better, felt better, ate better, slept better and been healthier.
                        Ok, at this point I HAVE "looked" better. But ditto what Betty said. Even when I was skinny (yes at one time I was :raving ) I felt crappy.

                        I told my family to not slam me anymore until they have the facts. I'm the only one in my family NOT on prescriptions and they dig me on my way of eating... LOL... sorry, sometimes I have to laugh to keep my sanity. :guns
                        51/F 5' 152.5/150/110







                        Fitday: http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJ...ebbietheHugBug

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          There will always be stupid ignorant people. No use arguing with an idiot. You'll only prove that he really is one.

                          I've got a sisterinlaw who thinks I'm stupid for taking vitamins cuz vitamins are dangerous.. She pops medications for every ailment under the sun without a second thought. I just say whatever....

                          My brother said Atkins is a heart attack on a plate. Meanwhile, he stuffs his face with fries and onion rings and a double cheeseburger, then takes his cholesterol medicine and his antacid for his acid reflux.

                          He also thinks I'm crazy for running 35 miles a week at age 49. He's 55 and has actually worn out his Lazyboy recliner.

                          Stupid people.

                          Betty
                          [/IMG]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            alot of people think that the Induction phase is the entire Atkins Nutritional Approach. Alot of people (the media included) think that 20 net carbs is the amount you'll be eating for the rest of your life and you'll never, ever, ever, EVER eat fruits, grains, starchy vegetables and legumes.
                            This is what I am dealing with all of the time when I discuss this WOE with people I know. People do listen, but it is hard to undo what the media has done.
                            ADBB Moderator Emeritus
                            My blog: The Lighter Side of Low Carb: Food, fun and fidgeting
                            Low Carb Lolitas: Hip low carb bloggers

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ttdriver
                              There will always be stupid ignorant people. No use arguing with an idiot. You'll only prove that he really is one.
                              I was at a pub lunch with work colleagues on Friday and was happily tucking into my Caesar salad with no crutons.

                              I was asked by someone from another department why I didn't like crutons when a close co-worker answered for me that I was "on Atkins" - the person from the other department straight away came up with the most riduclous response I have heard to date:
                              "Don't do it, it is too harsh and you'll get shingles"

                              I was a little gobsmacked at this and asked him if he was referring to the disease or roofing.

                              No, he was quite adamant that he knew two women who as soon as they "gave up Atkins because it was too unhealthy" they both got shingles.

                              I went on to explain that I have been doing this for months, felt healthy and happy and shingle-free.

                              He remained unconvinced and then went on to explain he was on the liver-cleansing diet....
                              27 / f / 180cm

                              New Life / New Start - October 2005

                              HW: 94kg
                              LW: 83kg
                              CW: 89.8Kg

                              Goal - 82kg (BMI 25) by Christmas

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X