I listened to an NPR story this morning covering the recent diet study that showed Atkins to be superior for weight loss over the traditional nostrums of the American Heart Association.

They interviewed the head of the AHA, who was clearly chagrined, and trying to spin his way out of it. Unfortunately, the interviewer let him.

The most egregious thing that he said was that clearly high protein and fat must be a problem, because our kids are getting fat, and they're eating a lot of fast food, which is full of protein and fat.

The obvious rejoinder to this (of which the reporter didn't avail himself), is that Atkins would be appalled at a fast food meal. Not for its fat and protein content (which isn't all that high, at least as far as protein goes), but for its high-glycemic carbohydrate content.

I always find it fascinating to see how the fast-food bashers miss the point, because they continue to worship the food pyramid.

A supersize McDonalds meal contains french fries (lotta carbs), a bun (lot of white bread), and usually a sugary soft drink. The meat and fat are almost an afterthought. Yet when you hear the complaints, the focus is always on the fat, rather than the carbs.

It was disappointing to see the reporter let the AHA head get away with this.

He also trotted out the hoary old tale about how all that mattered was caloric intake and exercise. He still refuses to concede that diet might influence metabolism.

Every study like this erodes the foundation of the food pyramid. Eventually, when the evidence grows too overwhelming, I suspect that we're going to see it invert.

[Update at 8:30 AM PST]

Here's another article on the subject from AP.

It also contains blaring ignorance of biochemistry from a supposed nutrition "expert."

Dr. Alice Lichtenstein, a nutrition expert at Tufts University, said she thinks too much is made of the amounts of carbohydrates and fats in people's diets as they try to shed weight.

"There is no magic combination of fat versus carbs versus protein," she said. "It doesn't matter in the long run. The bottom line is calories, calories, calories."

Quelle simplisme.

I'm starting to think that movie actors have as much credibility as these people. At least they should.

We have a whole collection of government agencies and business groups whose entire existence is built on the mantra "fat is bad" (and conversely, "wheat and other grains are good" which is good for US farmers)... its gotten so silly that I went to pick up a jar of marshmallow creme the other day, and saw "FAT FREE!" emblazoned on its label... as if consuming a jar of marshmallow creme, because of its virtuous non-fatness, would somehow be healthier than eating an evil pork chop.

And what about the dyslexics who read that label and think it says "FREE FAT"?

Rand --

Not being a scientist or dietician, the only thing of substance that I can offer on this subject is my own experience.

I've always gotten a good amount of exercise, but nevertheless I've become overweight over the last 20 years (desk jobs are hell).

So three years ago, I went on a run-of-the mill diet. Not hi-carb, not hi-fat, not hi-protein...just a balanced diet (you know, like mom would have recommended), BUT DEFINITELY CALARIE RESTRICTED. Portion control, ya' know. Well, I lost 35 pounds on that diet in the space of 3-4 months.

But, being a typical human being, over the last two years I've slowly but surely gained almost all of it back.

So, four months ago I picked up Atkins' book, and came away very impressed. Being an objectivist-leaning person who values logic and reason, it made complete sense to me. So, I eagerly went on the Atkins program, looking for some permanent weight loss....

and lost only 2 pounds in eight weeks (all of it in the first six days, probably the early water loss Atkins predicts).

I didn't cheat, either. I stuck to his "induction" program religiously the entire time, and even erred toward his hyper-strict regimen for insulin resistent people. I was also surprised at how hungry I was all the time, contrary to Atkins' predictions.

I was SO disappointed, and I dropped out.

So, for the last couple of months I've been back to the old, regular, calorie restricted diet...and I've lost 14 pounds so far.

Somewhere...SOMEWHERE....calorie intake has to come into play. If you read Atkins' books carefully, I think the good Dr. beleives this too. He's always hedging his bets..."don't stuff yourself" he says about 200 times in his book. Why? I think I know.

Atkins is definitely onto something, but at least with respect to my physiology, he hasn't got it all figured out yet. Certainly, my calorie-restricted diet isn't perfect...I can't seem to keep the weight off permanently. But I least I get temporary results with it.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Calorie restriction, tending toward lo-carb, hi-protein.

My guess is that the key is insulin sensitivity. If you are very insulin sensitive, you will lose weight on the Atkins diet because it keeps insulin levels so low. But if you are not, then you won't see much of a difference.

Bob

Yes, insulin sensitivity is key. I probably wouldn't lose much weight on it, either, but then I don't need to.

I didn't say that calories are irrelevant. Obviously, all else being equal (including protein/carb ratio), fewer calories are better than more for weight loss.

I'm objecting to the notion that they are everything, and all created equal, and that the kind of calories you get don't have any relationship to metabolic rate.

The notion that we should avoid fat simply because it has more caloric density is almost primeval. It's an important component to diet, and there's much more to nutrition than fat avoidance and whole grains. And I believe that people who preach that, at least as applied to everyone, are engaged in nutritional malpractice.

I'm on a version of the Atkins plan (Protein Power), and once I started this diet, I noticed how incredibly high our food is in carbohydrates, especially the ones promoting themselves as "low fat".

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the reasons for our country's growing obesity rate is that since people are obsessed about consuming fat, they don't even notice that they might be consuming more calories by eating these low fat foods.

[Personal note: I've been on this low-carb plan since July. For the first 3 months, I had less than 20g of carbs per day. I currently consume 40-50g per day. I'd say my diet is around 50% fat. I've also lost 28 pounds in that time period.]

The best low carb / high protein system for anyone who did not achieve on Atkins is The Neanderthin Diet. I also did poorly on Atkins. But on the Neanderthin system I lost weight and felt 200 % better.

I used to work on the poultry industry and I grew up around the beef industry. What I have never been able to figure out about the almighty Food Pyramid is how I am supposed to lose weight on the same diet we give to animals to gain weight. There is not THAT much difference in our physio-biology.

Well, they have a lot more stomachs...

I am absolutely certain that the simple, orthodox Atkins diet -- high fat, high protein, low carbs, unlimited calories -- works for SOME people whose metabolic chemistry fits a certain profile. There's simply too many thousands of carefully monitored case histories, too much credible anecdotal evidence, to imagine that it's all phony or delusional.

Nevertheless, the Atkins plan does not work for ME. I've tried it, on-and-off, for months at a time -- for awhile, I was even a patient at the Atkins clinic -- but the orthodox lowcarb plan has repeatedly shown itself to be useless for my metabolism. Absent caloric limitation and regular exercise, I can easily GAIN weight on as little as 10 carbs a day.

While I'm glad to see that the Good Doctor is finally being taken seriously by the mainstream, Atkins's plan is not the be-all and end-all of weight management. The problem with the media's fixation on telling the easy, reassuring narrative -- that there is a single Holy Grail among various One-Size-Fits-All diet plans -- is that the human species is so biochemically diverse that one size will NEVER fit all.

To achieve successful weight loss, it's essential that you come to understand your own unique metabolic type, so you can determine what is most like to work for you, and anticipate what will most likely be counterproductive.

Another useful reference is:
http://www.metabolictyping.com