Low carb study conference call

I just finished participating in a conference call with with Dr. Michael Dansinger, MD and Dr. James Hill, PhD. as they debated the findings of the latest Atkins study and the merits of a low-carb diet. A slew of low carb bloggers and medical practitioners made up the panel, including big names like Jimmy Moore, Dr. Mary Vernon, Regina Wilshire, Dr. Eric Westman, and Dana Carpender.

The call began with the host, Jason Rosenberg of RevolutionHealth.com, who introduced Dr. Dansinger and Dr. Hall. Dr. Dansinger then presented the findings of the study, which was conducted at Stanford University by Dr. Christopher Gardner. (Check out the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.)

311 overweight women were randomly assigned to one of the popular diets: Atkins, the Zone, Learn (which follows the American government's dietary recommendations) or the Ornish diet.

Subjects were coached on the respective diets for two months, attending a class every two weeks which was based on the book. After the two month teaching period, subjects were allowed to follow the diets unsupervised.

After one year, the 77 women from the Atkins group lost an average of 10lbs – twice as much as those on the low fat Learn and Ornish diets. Women on the Zone lost an average of 3.5lb.

Along with the most success in terms of weight loss, the Atkins dieters also showed a greater improvement in heart disease risk factors, with larger reductions in body mass index, triglycerides and blood pressure.

After Dr. Dansinger's description of the study, Dr. Hall of the University of Colorado offered his own analysis. He agreed wholeheartedly that weight loss is greater when following a low carb approach at the six month mark, but found that the differences after one year were not statistically significant. His main point was that while Atkins has been repeatedly shown to be the best diet for weight loss, all of the diets studied have similar rates of failure after one year. At the one year mark, most of the people, regardless of dietary approach, are regaining the weight they lost. Dr. Hall believes we need to move away from studies of weight loss and figure out how people can keep the weight off. He also mentioned that his involvement with the National Weight Loss Control Registry leads him to believe that the best predictor of successfully maintaining weight loss is a person's level of physical activity.

I was glad to hear from all the medical professional on the call an emphasis on how consistent their findings have been regarding the intake of saturated fat and associated positive lipid profiles. In plain English: eating saturated fat (in the absence of carbohydrates) will not make your cholesterol skyrocket, or your bottom get bigger.

But hey, this butter-lovin', pork-guzzlin', steak-devotee already knew that. I did find the “maintenance problem” an interesting one though. My question to the panel was: what if the social climate wasn't so hostile to low-carbing – would people have an easier time sticking with the diet long-term?

The doctors on the call agreed that the majority of mainstream practitioners would most likely not recommend a low carb diet to the patients, and a good chunk of them would actually advise against it. Bear in mind that this recommendation is completely without scientific basis. One thing everyone on the call agreed upon was the urgent need to teach other physicians the science behind low carb so that they aren't giving misinformation.

I think this is a huge problem. I haven't kicked up much of a fuss about it here, but I've had worried friends and relatives pass on their doctor's dire warnings about my diet. I've had people rolling their eyes even at the mention of low carb, and groans at the amount of fat I eat as though I'm downing plates of arsenic.

I get irritated going to restaurants and paying money for sides I won't eat. I'm frustrated by the myriad grocery options for the low fat folks, and the idiotic “heart healthy” labels slapped on sugary cereals.

The combination of uneducated doctors and nutritionists giving out faulty advice and the anti-low-carb mainstream media creates a culture very hostile to low carbers. I firmly believe that if the public health message about sugar turning into fat becomes more widespread, we'll have an easier time socially and be even more likely to stick to this delicious way of eating.

When I point this point to Dr. Hall, he countered by saying that Atkins had its spot in the limelight in 2003. If my hypothesis is correct, low carb should have taken off like a rocket back then and never come down. Why, he asked, didn't everyone stick to it when it was all the rage?

Dana Carpender made some good points in answer to this question. First, a lot of people who said they were doing low carb were really just relying on the low carb junk food that came out at the time. Atkins-certified products with white flour and high fructose corn syrup...I believe mention was made of the good Dr. A turning in his grave at the thought of this. Then there are the fad dieters to take into account, those who don't see dieting as a permanent change but skip from trendy plan to trendier plan. The fickleness of the media, who wanted the “next best thing”, and the untimely and ill-reported death of Dr. Atkins were Dana's final reasons for the decreasing popularity of Atkins.

I'd also like to add that the very “fad” aspect of 2003 Atkins did not help foster the kind of environment I'm talking about. Popular perception of Atkins at the time was not that we'd found a thrilling new approach to healthy eating, it was “Did you hear about this crazy diet where you can eat pounds of bacon and still lose weight?”

If someone states that they're trying to watch their calories, or keeping an eye on their fat intake, or cutting out meat and dairy, nobody jumps all over them with hysterical predictions of failure or diseases diagnoses. All low carbers are asking for is that the low carb approach be recommended as an option alongside low fat, since the medical safety of Atkins has been proven by this and many other studies. Oh yeah, and that the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association read some of the latest research for a change.

Comments

[Diane]

I love your account of this--thanks for sharing. I too hate it when I get flack from people. I had WLS back in 2004 and we are recommended by our docs to follow a LC WOE. Even among those I speak with who have gone the surgery route for obesity---they still buy into all that crap about lowfat and whole grains and then wonder why they are having trouble losing or keeping their weight off.

[pookie]

Great post, but I've got to tell you, as someone who has eaten Atkins food for years, no way did his products EVER contain white flour or high fructose corn syrup. In fact, ALL of Atkins products have an extremely low glycemic load. Please. Keep it factual.

[Scott Kustes]

pookie,
Regardless of the ingredients in the Atkins products, Kate's point is more of a reflection of the bastardization of the low-carb diet. Replacing low-fat junk food with low-carb junk food is not going to bring about changes in health. Atkins products, Zone bars, etc should not be a big part of a person's diet. A proper diet consists of real food, whereas most people are just looking for the most healthful junk food they can find.

Scott
http://modernforager.blogspot.com

[Scott Kustes]

And I forgot to add, thanks for this account Kate. Looks like it was an interesting call.

[pookie]

Actually Scott, I respectfully disagree with you, but I won't carry this on any further except to reiterate that Atkins products were specifically mentioned. And again, they have an extremely low glycemic load, are more than suitable for a low carb diet, and have NEVER contained white flour or high glycemic corn syrup.

In fact, if I was on the board of Atkins products and reading the posted comment, I would be more than pissed and demand a retract, as the Atkins products are really being slandered with that misinformation.

No one should live on protein bars or cans of protein shakes. But for those of us living in the real world they are a nice addition to an otherwise healthy diet. End of story.

[Kate Welch]

To clarify a couple of points:

Dana Carpender was the one who brought up the supposedly low-carb products that actually contained white flour and high fructose corn syrup. Her point was not to bash official Atkins products specifically, but to say that during the low carb boom in 2003, a number of products purporting to be Atkins-certified and labeled Atkins-friendly were actually anything but. Instead of encouraging people to eat fresh and healthy foods, they allowed the possibility Scott outlined: substituting one kind of junk for another.

Pookie, I understand that the bars and shakes can be a helpful addition to those of us on the run with less time to cook. I've used the shakes in the past, and I know very successful low-carbers who incorporate a variety of such products into their diets.

However, I've seen too many stalls fixed by cutting out the bars. Any newbie over at the Active Low Carber Forums who lists the bars as part of their daily menu is advised that bars stall some people, and still more react badly to ingredients like sugar alcohols.

On a personal note, I try to limit foods that have an hard-to-decipher, long, long list of ingredients. I do have them occasionally, but I do tend to categorize them as "junk" food: something I know is not the best choice for me health-wise, but is tasty or convenient.