Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And they failed miserably when they wanted to check the effects of maintenance phases and then put the Atkins group on the weight loss phase they didn't need. They could have made this a valid study by doing one of two things.
1) Using people who were overweight and tracking the effectiveness of the diets along with the effects on overall health at the end of the weight loss AND maintenance phases.
2) Using only the maintenance phase of Atkins like they did for every other diet and then document the health effects.
The problem with 2 is that the maintenance of phase of Atkins, IIUC, is a limited sat fat plan - so they would not be testing the impact of sat fat, which I gather, was the idea.
The problem with 2 is that the maintenance of phase of Atkins, IIUC, is a limited sat fat plan - so they would not be testing the impact of sat fat, which I gather, was the idea.
You're not getting it.
Despite whatever justification they might have used, their protocol invalidated their entire study. You CANNOT stick people on a diet they don't need, and then stick them on the wrong phase of that diet (one DIFFERENT from the other test subjects) and then pass it off and a legitimate scientific study.
Despite whatever justification they might have used, their protocol invalidated their entire study. You CANNOT stick people on a diet they don't need, and then stick them on the wrong phase of that diet (one DIFFERENT from the other test subjects) and then pass it off and a legitimate scientific study.
There is simply no excuse for this failure.
They tested the impact of a particular way of eating on lipid levels. It is CORRECT that it had that effect. They did not test Atkins' recommendations, the desirability of Atkins as a plan, or whatever. Drop the name Atkins - they tested whether severe limitations on carbs, with no limitations on fat and protein, had a different impact on lipids than certain other ways of eating, weight loss apart. They came up with a result. That result may not be of relevance to anyone actually following Atkins - but that does not mean the result is incorrect or "invalidated".
I've done every diet known to man. The only one that worked long term for me was low carb....that's it. I avoid sugar and all the white foods. The only carbs that are OK for me are green type veggies. Not corn and peas either. I don't watch fat at all.
Odd thing, when I ate low fat, my cholesterol was bad. When I switched to low carb, my cholesterol went way down even though I was eating a lot more fat.
They tested the impact of a particular way of eating on lipid levels. It is CORRECT that it had that effect. They did not test Atkins' recommendations, the desirability of Atkins as a plan, or whatever. Drop the name Atkins - they tested whether severe limitations on carbs, with no limitations on fat and protein, had a different impact on lipids than certain other ways of eating, weight loss apart. They came up with a result. That result may not be of relevance to anyone actually following Atkins - but that does not mean the result is incorrect or "invalidated".
I'm sorry but you really need to focus and read what I'm saying. I'm going to break this down for you again, nice and slow.
- EVERY diet they tested has a weight loss and maintenance phase.
- The ONLY diet they didn't use the maintenance phase on was Atkins, where they went to the weight loss phase.
- The test subjects were not overweight and therefor would NOT be able to properly burn off the extra fat intake the way the diet is designed.
Part of the scientific process is making sure that everything is working on a level playing field. In this case that would mean using the SAME phase each diet OR doing a longer study and following every diet's individual directions.
Neither one of these were done, so no valid conclusions can be drawn from this study.
Part of the scientific process is making sure that everything is working on a level playing field. In this case that would mean using the SAME phase each diet OR doing a longer study and following every diet's individual directions.
level playing field between WHAT? if they are asking "which overall PLAN has what effect" they need to establish a level playing field between plans. But they may be asking a different question.
I dont know why thats so hard. If someone says, for example, that deficit spending in the 1980s did not stimulate the economy, someone like Paul Krugman can respond that that is not relevant to current policy prescriptions - modern day neoKeynsians like himself do NOT recommend deficit spending all the time, or even in any recession, but only ones like the current one where the zero lower bound holds. That does not INVALIDATE the studies he is referring to - it merely makes them irrelevant to the current policy discussion. The empirical data they gather may still be useful to other questions.
What you have said only limits the usefulness of the results -it does NOT invalidate the study qua study.
I'm sorry but you really need to focus and read what I'm saying. I'm going to break this down for you again, nice and slow.
- EVERY diet they tested has a weight loss and maintenance phase.
.
see youre hung up on that. In terms of describing an actual pattern of food intake, there is no such thing as "different phases" the food intake is what it is. The idea of phases is a PRESCRIPTIVE issue - what the STRATEGY of the diet is. But its not necessary, afaict, to study the strategy of the diet to obtain (potentially useful) information.
I'm starting to think you're borderline illiterate.
Quote:
Researchers set out to compare the impact of the Atkins, South Beach, and Ornish diets on measurable risk factors for heart disease in people who were not overweight and were not trying to lose weight.
The idea was to examine the effects of the diets when they are used for weight maintenance and not weight loss.
I have also strictly avoided corn for over a decade. Have gotten stricter about fat that I have been in last few years; low carb high protein dieters really ought to listen up--- fat isn't something you can freely eat. After 10+ years of doing this way if eating I'm convinced protein & vegetables are the only safe foods. Everything else has to be eaten in specific, carefully allotted portions, or greatly reduced/eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow
I've done every diet known to man. The only one that worked long term for me was low carb....that's it. I avoid sugar and all the white foods. The only carbs that are OK for me are green type veggies. Not corn and peas either. I don't watch fat at all.
Odd thing, when I ate low fat, my cholesterol was bad. When I switched to low carb, my cholesterol went way down even though I was eating a lot more fat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
