Top Story
Jon Meacham: The Palin Problem
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Authorities say man skipped jury duty to drink
 
 
expand

The Never-Ending Diet Wars

A new study reports that the Atkins diet can be just as healthy as a low-fat diet. But don't start buying bacon yet. This research has some serious flaws.

By Dean Ornish M.D. | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 16, 2008 | Updated: 6:29  p.m. ET Jul 16, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: KWalt @ 07/22/2008 4:13:40 PM

    Comment: Ornish's comments are interesting, but a bit arrogant.

    According to him, virtually every human society in the past 50,000 years has been eating WRONG. They have been killing themselves, and didn't realize it. Or they were too stupid to realize they were eating deadly. It's wonderful the Ornish has come to earth to save us all.

    The Laplanders eat caribou and caribou milk. Ornish says they're killing themselves.

    The Swiss Lake Dwellers ate fish. Ornish calls animal protein a no-no. They were just stupid.

    The Yanomamo of the Amazon eat game, river fish. Ornish says this is unhealthy.

    The American Plains Indians relied on buffalo meat. Ornish would claim they were foolish.

    Okinawans eat port and cook in lard. Forbidden by Ornish.

    The Japanese eat prodigious quantities of seafood and shellfish, rich in cholesterol. Ornish says this is stupid and the Japanese are wrong.

    The Andorrans include milk and cheese in their diets. Ornish would claim they are harming themselves.

    Native Americans of the American Northwest thrived on salmon and game. According to Ornish, they were eating wrong.

    The Clovis societies in North America fashioned spearpoints to hunt game. But they were ill-advised, according to Ornish. Better to hunt broccoli, or wait for it to be invented.

    The Chinese cook in oil. Tsk, Tsk, according to Ornish.

    Bedouin drink camel's milk. They are foolish according to Ornish.

    Pacific Islanders lived on coconut and fish for eons. Which is a bad thing, because of the animal protein and the saturated fat, says Ornish. Perhaps they should wise up.

    Australian aborigine ate kangaroo, and the fattiest parts thereof. A mistake, says Ornish. They should have eaten plants.

    The Pygmy of Africa hunted game. They were compromising their health, but didn't know it.

    I'd like to know of ANY society anywhere that was traditionally vegan/eggwhite/fat-free as Ornish contends is the correct human diet.

  • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 07/21/2008 8:52:09 PM

    Comment: Homosexuals should not be aloud to spend time with children and corrupt there minds. Homosexuality is just as wrong as Murder they are both depraved sick crimes against what is natural.
    Both these crimes fly in the face of what is normal decient human behavior.
    Anyone that supports homosexual activity is a contributor to it.
    Homosexuality is wrong.
    Its is not diversity it is perverisity
    They should be given the mental help they need.
    It is not about left or right wing politics its about right and wrong.
    Homosexuality is wrong and always will be just because you say its not does not mean its true.

  • Posted By: DodgerFan @ 07/21/2008 4:57:20 PM

    Comment: It seems that the author of the article is at least partially responsible for the "never-ending diet wars" by his apparent refusal to acknowledge the growing body of scientific evidence that the low-carb approach does provide significant weight loss and other benefits. However, the low-carb fanatics also fuel the controversy by their "my way or the highway" approach to diet recommendations. They seem regard any suggestion that there might be acceptable alternatives almost as a personal insult. The excellent results obtained by the Okinawans, Cretans, and vegetarians seem to suggest that low-carb is not the only way to achieve a positive outcome. Perhaps we should leave the "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude to the soldiers and politicians. Those of you who are bewildered and confused by this trivial bickering should probably speak to your doctor and work out a plan with his/her professional advice and assistance.

  • Posted By: ahatwork @ 07/21/2008 12:20:44 PM

    Comment: Notice that Ornish did not mention that the low-carb arm of the study was not calorie-restricted. In other words, the low-carb eaters could eat as much as they felt they needed to feel well-fed and energized, allowing their bodies to regulate intake, rather than having to artificially regulate intake through calorie-counting and portion control. The study does not discuss this, but you have to wonder: Were the people eating a low-fat diet hungrier than the people eating as much as they felt they needed on a low-carb diet?

    Your body doesn???t know anything about ???diet wars??? or controversies regarding nutritional information. Your body is just going to continue to do what it was already designed to do: it will use protein for building and maintaining itself; it will use fat both for energy and for essential contributions to the body???s structure; it will use carbohydrate for fuel when it is given carbohydrate, but that carbohydrate will cause you to store any excess calories that are not immediately used as body fat and it will send the body once again in search of the nutrition it really needs.

    Newsweek editors, the public deserves better than this. Please find someone to comment on health issues who is current with the research as it is now being generated, who is not tied to a particular dogma, who is interested in scientific truth rather than propping up a crumbling hypothesis upon which his career depends.

  • Posted By: ahatwork @ 07/21/2008 12:20:20 PM

    Comment: The idea that fat and cholesterol are ???garbage??? in your system is another fallacy that Ornish persists in trotting out every time his low-fat paradigm is challenged. Your body makes cholesterol. Cholesterol is the precursor to a number of important hormones. You would very soon cease to exist if your body did not have sufficient amounts of cholesterol. It is not ???garbage.??? As for fat, a typical cell in the human body is composed primarily of proteins and lipids (i.e. fat). Fat and protein are integral parts of the body???s infrastructure; your body needs fat. What your body doesn???t need is excess carbohydrate. If you are looking for ???garbage??? in the American diet, it comes in the form of excess carbohydrate, which your body truly does not need, and not in the form of fat and cholesterol.

    The idea that an optimal diet is one that is low in fat is certainly not one which the medical and scientific community has reached consensus, as Ornish implies. The following is a quote from the USDA Dietary Reference Intakes, written by a panel of physicians, researchers, and nutritionists who may very well be considered to propose the ???consensus??? opinion regarding nutritional science in America: ???Compared to higher fat intakes, low fat, high carbohydrate diets may modify the metabolic profile in ways that are considered to be unfavorable with respect to chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease and diabetes.???

    As for the fact that a diet must be low in fat in order to be healthy because fat has 9 calories per gram vs. carbohydrate???s 4 calories per gram, this is another one of Ornish???s leaps of logic. It tells us absolutely nothing about what happens to those calories once they enter your system. He neglects to mention that ALL carbohydrates (even whole-grains) convert to sugar in the body. He neglects to mention that all of this ingested sugar raises your insulin levels. He neglects to mention that one of the primary functions of insulin is to promote fat storage and prevent fat burning. Elevated insulin levels are going to prime your body to store ANY excess calories as fat, even the ones from low-calorie carbohydrates. In the meantime, these elevated insulin levels contribute to a cascade of metabolic problems, from type 2 diabetes to heart disease. Conversely, a diet low in carbohydrate and higher in fat keeps insulin levels low, primes your body to create fat-burning enzymes, and creates a metabolic profile that sets your body up to burn fat (both dietary fat and the stuff stored on your body), rather than store it.

  • Posted By: ahatwork @ 07/21/2008 12:19:29 PM

    Comment: . Unfortunately, if consumers are confused regarding nutritional information from the media, Ornish needs to step up and accept a great deal of the blame. He continues to promote dogma as fact and wishful thinking as logic, neither of which will bring us closer to the physiologically truth of how the body works.

    It is not ???physiologically impossible??? to lose weight while eating more calories, ask any type 1 diabetic whose body is unable to make insulin. No matter how many calories a type 1 diabetic consumes, he will not be able to gain weight and will be very likely to lose weight.

    Here???s what Ornish fails to mention: carbohydrates raise insulin levels; insulin promotes fat-storage and prevents fat-burning. If person with a normal metabolism is on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, the calories consumed are ones that keep insulin levels at a low level, promote the utilization of already-stored fat and inhibit the storage of additional fat. If you are eating more calories, but your insulin levels are lower???as they would be on a low-carbohydrate diet???you will be less likely to store calories as fat and more likely to burn calories that have already been stored as fat. Conversely, if you eat a high-carbohydrate diet, you are creating a metabolic environment that is primed to store fat and adverse to burning fat.

    The low-carbohydrate diet used in the study was not ???vegetarian.??? The author of the study explains that although there may be some cultural differences in what the study participants would eat as compared to their American counterparts: ???Our low-carb diet was based on Atkins, the participants read the book, and the recipes were more or less comparable to what you know in the states. Beef is the main red meat.???

    Ornish???s reasoning regarding the notion that the low-fat arm of the study was not low enough in fat is a remarkable feat of logic. If a moderately low-fat diet (such as the one in the study) does not compare favorably with a moderately low-carbohydrate diet (such as was used in the study), why would it follow that lowering the fat content even more would produce better results? If we can???t put out the fire with gasoline, maybe we???re just not using enough gasoline?

  • Posted By: Matamoros @ 07/21/2008 5:47:51 AM

    Comment: Vegetarians Are Evil! Everyone knows that!
    http://www.VegetariansAreEvil.com

    Lack of animal protein puts a person into "hunter/killer" mode physically and psychologically. Meat deficiency makes people testy, irritable and very aggressive. Vegetarians are hungry all the time and mostly rude and nasty people. They preach about their dietary religion from some imaginary moral high ground where they get to call all those who eat a healthy diet "meat addicted" and describe their sickly diet as somehow more 'ethical'.

    The simple fact is that humans were designed to be omnivorous, and in fact our stomachs produce pepsin, which is an enzyme for breaking down animal protein. We do not have good fermentation stomachs like a cow does - an animal designed to be vegetarian.

    Look at the effect on the mindset of some very famous vegetarians... Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Charles Manson... madmen and very evil.

    The vegetarians always try to say that people like Albert Einstein were vegetarians, and in fact he was - for the last year of his life. He died after a year of it. He also was not a vegetarian when he made all of his most famous discoveries - when he was a young man eating a healthy omnivorous diet. It is not proven that his vegetarianism killed him, but it probably did not help.

  • Posted By: fahummer @ 07/20/2008 6:41:29 PM

    Comment: The atkins diet Does focus on cardiovascular health, and to losing weight in "a healthy way", not merely on losing weight for the short term or even the long term. Dr. Pillai, below, is not giving Atkins or the people who have studied his diet -- and the research behind it -- enough credit.
    Frank Hummer, mathematician

  • Posted By: bioman @ 07/20/2008 2:49:24 PM

    Comment: Obesity per se is not the problem. The real issue is the health and mortality consequences which follow from obesity. In November Harvard Medical School studied obese mice. The team of researchers gave one group biotivia transmax resveratrol extract, a commercial version of a compound found in red wine, and the other a placebo. The group receiving transmax resveratrol lived 31% longer and did not contract the normal diseases of aging such as diabetes, tumors, and cardiac diseases. Their endurance and energy levels also improved dramatically. Resveratrol is clearly no substitute for a good diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle but it may augment all of these and extend the potential for ultimate life span. We need to first concentrate of the prevention of the disease of obesity and treat the excess weight as a separate issue. This approach will result in a reduction of suffering and huge health care cost savings.

  • Posted By: nair @ 07/20/2008 10:42:03 AM

    Comment: Dr .Ornish is one of the rare few in the medical community who has devoted his research to the effects of diets on cardiovascular health. As a practising physician I can attest to his views and findings without any hesitation. The reason we have so many negative comments about his atricle regarding Adkins diet is simply because people are focusing on just the body weight not theit bodys health or biochemistry.
    Physicians are in a better position to assess the validity of his comments. You can lose weight simply by cutting caloric intake but HOW you reduce calries is crucial to the body chemistry. So if all one wants to do is lose weights there are may diets to do that with.. However if you are one who is deciated to improving your health (not just your body weight and size) then you would be better off follwing his advice . People who prefer Adkins diet will shortchange themselves in the long run. Those who choose his advice will eventually be in better health and enjoying their old age withou forking ot their retirement income on diabetes pills/ colestrol lowering pills and gout medicines.
    ADKINS diet will in short term show all those wonderful numbers in the long term here is what awaits you :Vascular disease , Heart dosease, GOUT , fatty liver, diuverticuloses, colon carcinoma to name a few.
    Its impossible to be objective if you are Predetermined NOT to be. Its high time someone had the courage to educate people about the power of helathy eating not just medicine consumption.I applaud Dr Ornish.
    Sreeja Pillai MD

  • Posted By: nair @ 07/20/2008 10:29:21 AM

    Comment: I whole heartedly agree with Dr Ornish. As a parcticising physician I incorporate his recommendations to my patients. Nutrition is such an important component to homeostasis that it can not be emphasized enough.
    Its indeed rather disturbing that NEJM can be part of such a study. The main reason Adkins diet is so readily accepted by people is simply because is offers them the path of least resistance without changing their current eating habits. Apart from Coranary heart disease the other effects we are seeing include fatty liver , chronic fatigue,cancers etc to new a few. Without emphasizing the importance of diet we physicians simply keep increases doses of statins based on current guidelines for LDL lowering. While necessary statins are not all inclusive one pill ammunition that replaces healthy diet. While is hard to change certained ingrained dietary habits, its crucial that we physicians begin advocacy for dietary chnages with more detailed discussion of its impact on health.
    I applaud Dr Ornish for addressing this issue far before it even came on the table ,so to speak.
    Truly wish we had more cardiologists out there like you. Bottom loine its not JUSt about the body weight folks, its ALL about the body chemistry that changes with your diet.
    Sincerely,
    Sreeja Pillai MD

  • Posted By: akatz @ 07/19/2008 10:55:10 PM

    Comment: Of course this study has some serious flaws, one in particlar: it's not the "Ornish" diet.

    Newsweek has given you a bully pulpit. You shouldn't use it to promote your own self-interest. This is an article you shouldn't have written.

  • Posted By: JennK @ 07/18/2008 9:52:35 PM

    Comment: Mr. Ornish may believe it is impossible to eat more calories and still lose weight, but I consume close to 2000 calories per day at pre-maintenance on Atkins. Other members of my family eat 1500 calories on low-fat diet, are not losing weight, and are getting ready to be put on cholesterol-lowering meds. I have lost 80 pounds over the last 3 years and my doc says my bloodwork is stellar.

  • Posted By: CJasked @ 07/18/2008 9:00:19 PM

    Comment: I'm sure someone has pointed out that 200x365=73000, not 10000....and well, if you have more muscle then you burn more calories. Low fat diets tend to consume muscle mass reducing your overall metabolic rate. Just my 2 cents.

  • Posted By: kpmuad @ 07/18/2008 1:36:59 PM

    Comment: As someone who is ON the atkins diet, and has been for 6 months, I can assure you all that "red meat/butter/fat" is not all that I eat like this guy says. I eat a lot of salad and vegetables like Frankie3233 says. I've lost about 50 pounds and have been eating lots of vegetables, eggs, bacon, cheese, salads; all that stuff. I do not eat steak and eggs for breakfast, steak for lunch, and steak for dinner. Between myself and my dad we've found that vegetables make up a large portion of the diet, not red meat.

  • Posted By: mdimey @ 07/18/2008 1:36:15 PM

    Comment: I am an Atkins believer, I lost 6 dress sizes and 60 pounds on Atkins, and still follow the Atkins diet (5 years!), my cholesterol is great, my blood pressure is great. And best of all I have a wonderful doctor that encourages me to follow Atkins. I was never able to achieve this on a low fat diet. And I am a woman.

  • Posted By: kpmuad @ 07/18/2008 1:34:02 PM

    Comment: I agree Frankie, the author shows how little people know about Atkins having done no research at all. I have been on the diet for the past 5-6 months, and can report that I do not eat bacon for every meal. Most of the time I have salad with chicken or steak on it. For breakfast I generally eat an omellete with vegetables in it, and sometimes have bacon on the side. When I go to McDonalds, I get the chicken salad and NOT 100 hamburgers without the buns. Lately I've even felt like I was a vegetarian with all the salad i eat...

  • Posted By: coach13 @ 07/18/2008 9:04:26 AM

    Comment: Pathetic - Ornish still trying to prop up the low fat starvation diet. Of course it "works" when you do a total intervention including exercise. And he clings to a calorie is a calorie myth when it is evident that protein takes more energy to metabolize.

  • Posted By: frankie3233 @ 07/17/2008 11:35:31 PM

    Comment: Once again, an author shows his ignorance by stating " A vegetarian Atkins diet? Most people associate an Atkins diet with bacon, butter and brie, not a plant-based diet like the one I recommend." Atkins is all about dark leafy green vegtables, and others that are low on the glycemic index. Meats, fish, cheese, whole grains and legumes are also plentiful. The only thing that the atkins approach drastically limits is sugar and refined flour. If one would look back at the way humans ate before such refined and processed, high sugar empty calorie foods were introduced, people were healthier. Is it any coincidence that since the low-fat craze hit about 25 years ago that this country has seen a rise in the number of obese and severly obese people? Study after study has shown that the Atkins approach to eating works. I have lost forty pounds and kept the weight off for ten years. My chololesterol is well within norms and all the other blood work is excellent. So doctors and nutrishinests have finally recognized the science and are helping people...too bad the auther of this article is not one of them.

  • Posted By: toadhall1 @ 07/17/2008 11:18:53 PM

    Comment: i was so glad to hear about the outcome of the recent studys because it proved to me that my blood tests after being on the atkins diet(I ate lots of red meat,fat and all,butter etc. No trans fats ,no suger and my cholestral is perfect! I'm 55 years old and my cholestral was never even close to perfect. Why doe's dean Ornish not admit that he's just wrong? Even if his diet did work, it's the worst tasting crap you could eat. I'd rather die from heart disease than eat the recipes that are in his books. Doctors will never admit when there wrong Jim Bostelle

  • Posted By: toadhall1 @ 07/17/2008 11:17:19 PM

    Comment: i was so glad to hear about the outcome of the recent studys because it proved to me that my blood tests after being on the atkins diet(I ate lots of red meat,fat and all,butter etc. No trans fats ,no suger and my cholestral is perfect! I'm 55 years old and my cholestral was never even close to perfect. Why doe's dean Ornish not admit that he's just wrong? Even if his diet did work, it's the worst tasting crap you could eat. I'd rather die from heart disease than eat the recipes that are in his books. Doctors will never admit when there wrong Jim Bostelle

  • Posted By: panamajack @ 07/17/2008 5:07:05 PM

    Comment: You low-fat guys just can't stant the truth!! Atkins is the best diet going. How many studies will it take to convince you?

  • Posted By: DodgerFan @ 07/17/2008 4:25:54 PM

    Comment: It seems that a relaxed, dispassionate examination of the available data would suggest that energy balance, i.e. portion control, is the single common demononator to achieving good health. If calorie intake is kept in balance with energy expenditure, the low-carb, low-fat, and Mediterranean diets all have proven track records of real-world success. Those who are inclined to advocate only the low carb approach probably should take a look at the health of the Okinawans, Cretans, etc. before dismissing the other diets.

    Those who disagree that "a calorie is a calorie" are technically correct, but from a practical standpoint, so what? Does it mean that I can eat as much as I want, as long as I eat "good" calories? And that I cannot even touch the "bad" calories? In terms of practical real-world eating, isn't it easier and more effective to figure out your optimal calorie intake, and stick to that by whichever diet you feel most comfortable with? Sure, there may be some statistical "outliers" who respond significantly better or worse to certain diets, but the real-world evidence seems to suggest that most people would have positive results with any of the three diets under discussion, as long as their calorie intake is in line with their energy expenditure.

    • Posted By: akatz @ 07/19/2008 11:02:40 PM

      Comment: >> isn't it easier and more effective to figure out your optimal calorie intake, and stick to that by whichever diet you feel most comfortable with?

      No, it isn't. Of all the diets in all the studies ever done, the controlled-calorie diets are the worst, with the worst results. Are you having a problem with the "real world" that you proclaim as your guide.

      Calorie-limited diets cause their practitioners to become fatigued and cause the body to adjust to the lowered calories, limiting weight loss. The times I tried regulating calories, I became a zombie.

      On the other hand, I've lost 42 pounds in the last eight weeks on a modified low-carb diet eating all I want with tons of energy and enthusiasm.

      That's my "real world" experience, and that of thousands of others.

  • Posted By: chwarden @ 07/17/2008 3:22:48 PM

    Comment: Dean Ornish needs to take a genetics class and a physiology class. Studies of identical twins have proven that calorie deficit or excess is NOT correlated with weight gain or weight loss for most people. The underlying reason is really quite simple -- metabolic rate is not a constant. Metabolic rate varies between people and also varies within people due to diet and other environmental variables. Thus, calculated calorie deficits or excesses provide no predictive information about individual weight gain or loss.
    Dean Ornish also exaggerates the importance of his small 10-year old study in JAMA. He followed 20 patients and 15 controls for five years. The subjects were given intensive intervention. There is simply no peer reviewed evidence that the intervention used can be generalized to a free-living population as a whole.
    My real question is -- why do news organizations continue to quote from Dean Ornish? I guess is it like global warming -- they feel a need to quote from two sides, even if the evidence is strongly in favor or one conclusion -- global warming is real and low carb diets are safe and effective.

    • Posted By: nair @ 07/20/2008 11:04:02 AM

      Comment: Most of us realists know that studies are not perfect. If they were we would not be seeing any drug recalls.
      Howevere certain things (like Diets) that have stood the test of TIMe (ie centuries) and epidemiological surveys that have compared People who consume different diests and theit patterns of illnesses may be helpful to those who seek more knowledge. Diet rich in fruits and vegeatbles are protective. Years of practising medicine and seeing patients add to experiences & knowledge that readers cannot find in books or studies. Its often the most altruistic scientists that take the most heat. Those who take the road less travelled these days. Denial continues to be the most pathological coping mechansim

  • Posted By: JCG0001 @ 07/17/2008 2:19:47 PM

    Comment: I believe one seriously overlooked consideration in the "calories = calories" position that most "learned" researchers embrace is the fact that not all theoretical calories present in food are "burned" or in other words, utilized by the body. Caloric measurements in a lab are based on combustion of the food samples completely, or, are extrapolated from pre-existing data that was originally based upon complete combustion. Also, from an engineering perspective, all fuels burn at different rates. If you place paper into a fire, it flashes, and is consumed completely. A piece of wood may take much longer. Also, if you put the wood in there only for a short period of time, you may only get a very small percent of the theoretical energy. I strongly believe our bodies are like that. Food doesn't remain in the furnace forever, and is moved through pretty quickly to a waste state. The fact that certain foods are more completely converted than others (carbs will logically burn quicker than proteins or fats) in the period of time the food remains in the stomach / intestine should indicate that the "calorie = calorie" statement is factually inaccurate.

    What is needed is a complete re-analysis of how the body processes foods; how fast different macronutrients and other food categories are converted; and what those impacts are on human health. I believe the conventional wisdom (only low fat is healthy) will be show to be incomplete, and therefore, can only lead to further bad choices.

  • Posted By: sorry4U @ 07/17/2008 1:40:14 PM

    Comment: I am constantly astonished at the rabidity of Dr. Ornish's defensive posture for HIS diet plan. It's as if anyone who finds anything that doesn't validate exactly what he has said is "seriously flawed". It's fine for him for him to disagree but when he has to utilize deceptive rhetoric to make his points, he's over the line. He KNOWS that it is NOT "physiologically impossible" for someone to consume more calories and lose more weight - all people differ in their ability to absorb and metabolize foods of all kinds (different levels of L-Carnitine, etc.) For all of his discussion about the level of HDL, he KNOWS it's all about the ratio of garbage to garbage trucks that is important and that is what the study talks about. C'mon Dr. Ornish, truth is where you find it, not where it is wished to be.

  • Posted By: zinjboss @ 07/17/2008 1:35:30 PM

    Comment: Your comment:
    "that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day???or 10,000 fewer calories per year???than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible." is goes to core of your opinions - a calorie is a calorie "is not how it works" - it never has. You cite "physiologically impossible" but you clearly do not understand fat metabolism as its effected by different "calories." Your comment is disturbing.

  • Posted By: zinjboss @ 07/17/2008 1:32:33 PM

    Comment: Dear Dr Ornish:

    Your comment:
    "that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day???or 10,000 fewer calories per year???than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible." is nothing short of amazing. While you cite "physiological impossible" you clearly do not understand fat metabolism. A calorie is a calorie continues to dominate your approach - and its wrong.

  • Posted By: DesertPete9 @ 07/17/2008 1:26:43 PM

    Comment: 200 calories a day fewer is 73,000 (200x365), not 10,000. This throws your credibility into considerable question.

  • Posted By: lindamann @ 07/17/2008 1:02:32 PM

    Comment: I'm always a little surprised at how little diet "experts" and physicians really know about Dr. Atkins??? health plan. First of all; there are different stages of the Atkins diet, but the final "maintenance" stage is essentially a healthy, lifelong diet of nutrient-dense, fiber-rich, complex carbs and lean protein. Daily exercise and plenty of water are also recommended. Dr. Atkins simply showed us how to stop living on simple sugar! I lost 43 pounds and have kept most of it off over the last few years. Added benefits are never feeling hungry between meals, a cure for my chronic heartburn, loss of the typical "crash" after meals that most of my friends suffer from, and nearly perfect blood work. The friend who told me about this lifestyle lowered his cholesterol significantly. Sometimes I slip and eat something sugary, such as bread or pasta, but I always return to the food that simply makes me feel better. I realize that my testimony and thousands of others' are merely anecdotal, but we now have scientific studies that, for some reason, still don't impress those that practice the art of medicine. I urge anyone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath to do their homework by actually READING Dr. Atkins' revolutionary book. The press should follow suit.

    • Posted By: bigcha @ 07/17/2008 4:18:48 PM

      Comment: Finally! Someone who actually read the book! It seems Ornish and the rest of the nay sayers don't get past chapter 1. You saved me a lot of breath...

  • Posted By: kmeister @ 07/17/2008 11:20:10 AM

    Comment: Re: Robert Atkins

    According to various sources, he weighed 196 lbs. (not 187) at the time of his final hospital admission, and 255 at death (due to fluid accumulation from organ failure, not fluid he "received intravenously"). Sources say that he was 6 feet tall or a little less.

    Some people here claim to have seen the autopsy report, but according to various sources, an autopsy wasn't performed, apparently due to family objections.

    It's interesting to read comments such as "people who saw him could tell you he was in prime shape," as if that means he didn't have coronary artery disease.

  • Posted By: dietuniversal @ 07/17/2008 10:42:46 AM

    Comment:
    Are you fed up with modern diet miracles? Do you want do try something permanent? Send me an email and I???ll send you my free diet book.

    robert@dietuniversal.com

  • Posted By: dietuniversal @ 07/17/2008 10:42:28 AM

    Comment:
    Are you fed up with modern diet miracles? Do you want do try something permanent? Send me an email and I???ll send you my free diet book.

    robert@dietuniversal.com

  • Posted By: HughL @ 07/17/2008 7:33:29 AM

    Comment: I thought two of Dr. Ornish's observations were very important: (a) subjects supposedly on the Atkins diet weren't really on that diet (they didn't eat loads of bacon, streaks, etc.), and (b) subjects supposedly on the low-fat diet weren't really on a low-fat diet! Nonetheless, my experience indicates that carbs -- even "good carbs" ??? are important. I have been a vegan 22 years. Even so, my cholesterol, although good, was never great, and by triglycerides tended to be high. In the past year I have limited (NOT eliminated) the intake of carbs and expanded my consumption of nuts (esp. almonds). So my fat intake (and, I think, calories) has likely increased. Yet I lost 14 pounds (and now am close to my ideal weight). More importantly, my TRI are now in the 70s, FAR lower than they have ever been. My HDL has gone up while my total C and LDL have gone down.

    • Posted By: JennK @ 07/18/2008 10:02:36 PM

      Comment: I noticed those 2 comments as well. The low-fat diet was recommended by AHA and the low-carb was based on the most current research and recommendations of Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. These 2 diets were compared because they are diets that people can actually stick to long-term. Can you follow the Ornish plan for the long-term? Also, there are plenty of options for Vegetarians and even Vegans on the Atkins diet.

  • Posted By: HughL @ 07/17/2008 7:33:11 AM

    Comment: I thought two of Dr. Ornish's observations were very important: (a) subjects supposedly on the Atkins diet weren't really on that diet (they didn't eat loads of bacon, streaks, etc.), and (b) subjects supposedly on the low-fat diet weren't really on a low-fat diet! Nonetheless, my experience indicates that carbs -- even "good carbs" ??? are important. I have been a vegan 22 years. Even so, my cholesterol, although good, was never great, and by triglycerides tended to be high. In the past year I have limited (NOT eliminated) the intake of carbs and expanded my consumption of nuts (esp. almonds). So my fat intake (and, I think, calories) has likely increased. Yet I lost 14 pounds (and now am close to my ideal weight). More importantly, my TRI are now in the 70s, FAR lower than they have ever been. My HDL has gone up while my total C and LDL have gone down.

  • Posted By: Jeremy Nelms @ 07/17/2008 5:49:49 AM

    Comment: I find it interesting that Ornish continues to embarrass himself, after years and years of research studies have proven that his diet program is not only not the healthiest, but also less effective at dropping body fat.

    To be fair, he has to make a living, but he would earn tremendously more respect (and subsequently, money) by being objective

    • Posted By: gaushihtzu @ 07/17/2008 7:56:34 AM

      Comment: One of his ways of making money is treating patients who follow his diet and end up with heart issues, cholesterol problems, strokes, etc. This has been documented in a book by several nutritionists.

  • Posted By: freeThinker999 @ 07/17/2008 5:31:53 AM

    Comment: The human species evolved over millions of years. Civilizations arose only in the last 12000 years, largely as a result of the development of both grains (and grain-based products) and domesticated animals. It seems to me the best diet is therefore most likely the diet that most closely matches the diet our bodies evolved around. The disconnect between what humans ate in 10000 BC and now IS the problem. Today we eat much more food, get far less exercise, and the food we eat today differs substantially from that consumed over the millenia. The debate between one diet and another appears foolhardy when a baseline hasn't been established. Until we know what "healthy" is, we will never truly know what is unhealthy. Swapping one unhealthy diet for another marginally "better" than the last does not seem to get us very far. And, given what I have just said, can we even legitimately promote a single diet that is "universally" beneficial?

  • Posted By: S Cantrill @ 07/17/2008 3:04:02 AM

    Comment: Ornish has staked out his area and fights against any data that runs counter to his long held beliefs. He is not objective.

    • Posted By: akatz @ 07/19/2008 11:09:39 PM

      Comment: While I agree that a baseline of "healthy" is a cricial issue, I see no logic in your claim that the way we "evolved" is the way we should eat.

      10,000 years ago, when humans were still eating "the way we evolved", they had a life expectancy of around 30 years.

      Personally, I'd prefer Atkins!

  • Posted By: pazl @ 07/17/2008 2:29:51 AM

    Comment: "When you eat less fat, you consume fewer calories without having to eat less food, because the food is less dense in calories, as well as low in refined carbohydrates."

    The last segment of that sentence does not follow. Just by eating less fat does not mean you eat less refined carbohydrates. Fat by definition has no carbohydrates. By contrast, eating less fat means you must eat more carbohydrates, which means a higher likelihood of including refined carbs in your diet. the author of this article fails to mention that eating more fat causes a person to feel more satiated and the effect of that is to automatically consume less calories over time. I know this to be true in my own experience. I think the one thing the diet warriors ALL agree on, as evidenced by this article, is that refined carbohydrates are the reason Americans are so fat and are experiencing so many problems with so many diseases. Before the 20th century, human beings were not eating refined carbs at anywhere near the level we are today. It is the single cheapest most easily accessible food source available to us today. There is no healthy diet that includes refined carbs as a main component. Unfortunately, it remains the chief component of the American diet and the American mentality about food. This is what needs to change. We do that and all these extreme forms of diet -- low-fat, low carb etc. -- will no longer be necessary or relevant.

  • Posted By: pazl @ 07/17/2008 2:28:51 AM

    Comment: "When you eat less fat, you consume fewer calories without having to eat less food, because the food is less dense in calories, as well as low in refined carbohydrates."

    The last segment of that sentence does not follow. Just by eating less fat does not mean you eat less refined carbohydrates. Fat by definition has no carbohydrates. By contrast, eating less fat means you must eat more carbohydrates, which means a higher likelihood of including refined carbs in your diet. the author of this article fails to mention that eating more fat causes a person to feel more satiated and the effect of that is to automatically consume less calories over time. I know this to be true in my own experience. I think the one thing the diet warriors ALL agree on, as evidenced by this article, is that refined carbohydrates are the reason Americans are so fat and are experiencing so many problems with so many diseases. Before the 20th century, human beings were not eating refined carbs at anywhere near the level we are today. It is the single cheapest most easily accessible food source available to us today. There is no healthy diet that includes refined carbs as a main component. Unfortunately, it remains the chief component of the American diet and the American mentality about food. This is what needs to change. We do that and all these extreme forms of diet -- low-fat, low carb etc. -- will no longer be necessary or relevant.

  • Posted By: Hannibal_DK @ 07/17/2008 1:42:23 AM

    Comment: Heart doctors talked my mother into heart valve surgery and then put her on a severely resitricted fat diet. She was taking a pharmacy full of meds every day and in spite of her exercising and following that damn fat restricted diet, she had a seres of mini-strokes that caused stroke induced dementia. She died two years later - her mind gone. Her sisters are still alive and are in their mid-eighties.
    I have a lot of skeptism over any cardiologist's suggestions regarding fat reduction. Atkins did not say it was all right to eat a lot of fatty meats and butter and other dairy food. In fact he suggested eating eating lean meats and two green vegetables with every meal. Dairy was forbidden on his diet. Most people think they know what the Atkins was about and this author is no exception. Before you commit to anything, to lower your saturated fat intake, reduce carbohydrates to no more than 60 grams if you;re sedentary and 80 grams if you are active Ten less of each if you are female. Limit dairy and white breads and flour tortillas and by all means drink at least six ounces of pomegranate juice and take one aspirin and high dose capsule of niacin a day. These three supplements will actually strip new plague from your arteries. They will do nothing for older plaques that have been anchored by growths in your arteries called atheromas. That;s where the term atherosclerosis comes from. Hopefully in time medical science will discover some compound that will shrink or cause athereromas to disappear so that pomegranate and aspirin and niacin can strip the old plaque also. .In the meantime you have to eliminate caramel intake that is the basis for arterial goo and take lots of anti-oxidants and simply eat better. .

  • Posted By: fahummer @ 07/17/2008 1:01:56 AM

    Comment: to ksfc, why do you claim he had a stroke? At the time of death he was bloated from the condition he had brought on by the blow to the head. There were televised videos of him a very few weeks before he died, I think it was two weeks, that show he was not significantly overweight. Also I think you mean like WJC, HRC, the UN, and NATO were right about WMD n Iraq.

  • Posted By: ksfc @ 07/17/2008 12:52:00 AM

    Comment: Oh, yeah, that fall resulting from the stroke he had (again). And he was, what, 80 pounds overweight? And they sealed his medical records and refused an autopsy? Atkins was right like GWB was right about WMD in Iraq.

    • Posted By: gaushihtzu @ 07/17/2008 8:02:39 AM

      Comment: I know you would like your theory to be true. The media was "all over" his fall and subsequent death. Video was shown of him walking to work just days before his fall. One of the doctors who was treating him, said on tv, that his 30 # was due to fluid. I know you want what you want, but it just isn't so. I have seen the autopsy report. I know you don't want it to be true.
      And to another post, originally the Atkins diet did include unlimited fats, but due to pressure it was amended to lean proteins, more vegetables and more fruits.

    • Posted By: gaushihtzu @ 07/17/2008 7:54:36 AM

      Comment: His weight was only 30# over his high normal weight of 187# due to the fluid he received intraveinously at the hospital after his fall. His death was due to the head injury. I have seen a pda of his autopsy repor. He was seen daily by many people up until his fall. Everyone who reported seeing him up to that point could tell you he was in prime shape, especially for his age.

  • Posted By: summer1216 @ 07/17/2008 12:19:43 AM

    Comment: Dean Ornish, your own research has had serious flaws. Atkins was a genius and he was right, and eventually it will be proven beyond all doubt.

  • Posted By: dan64p @ 07/17/2008 12:01:05 AM

    Comment: The Atkins Diet would kill me as it did Dr. Atkins. I have severe heart disease. I have gone on the Ornish plan for reversing heart disease. I lost 35 lbs in two months and my total cholesterol went from 160 to 80. I can now mow the lawn without getting chest pain. I do not eat any saturated fat at all, zero cholesterol intake and no High Fructose Corn Syrup. I eat about 3,500 calories a day, did zero exercise and got those results. Now that I have chest pain under control I am excited to see what adding exercise will do! Thank you Dr. Ornish! NOTE: The Ornish plan is the only plan with scientific evidence to reverse heart disease.

    • Posted By: summer1216 @ 07/17/2008 12:25:18 AM

      Comment: Well, you are seriously uninformed. Dr. Atkins died of head trauma when he slipped on ice near his office. He was a very healthy avid tennis player who remained active and productive until this accident.

  • Posted By: glmory @ 07/16/2008 11:52:43 PM

    Comment: If you cut out processed grains like white flour, and white rice, and cut out all sweeteners like sugar, and aspartame from your diet you will be more healthy. It will be true if you follow a high fat mostly meat diet like the Masai, or Inuit, or a vegetarian diet like the Indians.

    • Posted By: ksfc @ 07/17/2008 12:55:25 AM

      Comment: If the Inuit and Masai are so healthy, why is their life expectancy around 50 (after adjusting for infant mortality)? Why do the Inuit have the highest rate of osteoporosis in the world? Why do both groups have serious heart disease and atherosclerosis, despite being very physically active, if they're so healthy?

      • Posted By: gaushihtzu @ 07/17/2008 8:15:26 AM

        Comment: If I lived off of whale blubber in the arctic I wouldn't want to live past 50.
        According to wikipedia their diet includes: Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, and seaweed. If they eliminate tubers and some roots, they would certainly not have any cholesterol problems. The death rate was due to "During the 19th century, the Western Arctic suffered a population decline of close to 90% of their population resulting from foreign diseases including tuberculosis, measles, influenza, and smallpox. Autopsies near Greenland reveal that, more commonly pneumonia, kidney diseases, trichinosis, malnutrition, and degenerative disorders may have contributed to mass deaths among different Inuit tribes." European American's moving into the area's brought about their common diseases which were mostly unknown the the Inuit. Also, the old people of the Inuit, many into their 80's, are considered the keepers of the knowledge. Their overall life expectancy did decline in the later 1900's due to alcohol and drugs brought by non natives. But still life expectancy is still increasining overall.

  • Posted By: notdon @ 07/16/2008 11:48:39 PM

    Comment: How's losing 150 pounds in two years on the Atkins Diet sound Doc? And yes I ate tons of Eggs AND Red Meat. Averaging 18 Eggs per week. Being from the South (Louisiana) my diet also included 3-5 servings per week of Hog Cracklins-that's fried out pork fat with the attached skin. My total cholestorol droped from 230 to 186. One other thing - I took in many more calories than I burned off. Approx. 2500 per day caloric intake.

  • Posted By: slider1 @ 07/16/2008 11:20:29 PM

    Comment: Television broadcasters are responding to Tim Russerts??? death by claiming we should eat more meat! Clearly they are protecting their advertising dollars. Bring Tim back and see if he would choose meat over a plant based diet.

    Where in nature did our ancestors seek or need "protein powder"? Most of the nutritional misinformation broadcast continuously is for the profit of big business, including broadcasters and advertisers, never is it about the well being of consumers. Without all the commercial hype we will all still eat...except the meat and dairy industries won't adversely affect the health of Americans. Anecdotally speaking "working out" will grow muscles and strength bigger and faster without all the artificial protein powders, which incidentally are peddled by muscle magazines for additional profits.

  • Posted By: slider1 @ 07/16/2008 11:19:47 PM

    Comment: Television broadcasters are responding to Tim Russerts??? death by claiming we should eat more meat! Clearly they are protecting their advertising dollars. Bring Tim back and see if he would choose meat over a plant based diet.

    Where in nature did our ancestors seek or need "protein powder"? Most of the nutritional misinformation broadcast continuously is for the profit of big business, including broadcasters and advertisers, never is it about the well being of consumers. Without all the commercial hype we will all still eat...except the meat and dairy industries won't adversely affect the health of Americans. Anecdotally speaking "working out" will grow muscles and strength bigger and faster without all the artificial protein powders, which incidentally are peddled by muscle magazines for additional profits.

  • Posted By: kmeister @ 07/16/2008 10:58:55 PM

    Comment: Re: Robert Atkins' cardiovascular status: despite a statement in 2002 (the year before Atkins' death) by his personal physician that ???clearly, his own nutritional protocols have left him, at the age of 71, with an extraordinarily healthy cardiovascular system,??? his widow released a statement in 2004 saying that Atkins ???did have some progression of his coronary artery disease in the last three years of his life including some new blockage of a secondary artery that was remedied during this admission???.???. Also in 2004, New York magazine quoted Patrick Fratellone, Atkins' cardiologist and employee, as saying that his coronary arteries had been perhaps 30 to 40% blocked in 2001.

    I'm struck by how seldom discussions such as this mention the China Study, referred to by the New York Times as "the Rolls-Royce of epidemiology." There is a book about it (and related matters) by the co-lead investigator, T. Colin Campbell. He's an emeritus professor of nutrition at Cornell, and has conducted something like 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed research. He basically agrees with Ornish.

  • Posted By: Antho3010 @ 07/16/2008 10:40:05 PM

    Comment: Hello all....if you all want the diet wars to end it's simple. Just read the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes (2007). You all will be absolutely schocked by the wrong information we have been given for the last 50 years by incompetent , biased , so-called "nutrition/obesity experts". This Ornish guy is wrong!, read the book!. The insight you will gain into obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, exercise, fibre, and the "calorie is a calorie" myth, will astound you. You will never have to "diet" again!!, just eat the RIGHT KINDS OF FOODS!!! You will learn that low fat is wrong!!!, and ATKINS (and a precious few others) WERE THE ONLY ONES WHO HAD IT RIGHT!!!! EVERYONE, get off your diets!, and read the book, I DARE YOU!!

  • Posted By: fahummer @ 07/16/2008 10:04:14 PM

    Comment: fifi8989, below, does not remember correctly. Atkins did not in fact die of a heart attack. In fact, an examining doctor commented on the good state of Atkins heart, from a cardiovascular standpoint. Actually Atkins died of a blow to the head. It was in all the papers. This is not a matter of controversy. I don't think fifi8989 is exactly right about the body needing carbs for energy. The body can burn other things, like fat and protein. fifi8989 is right that some carbs will help seratonin. Dr Schwarzbein emphasizes this, and recommend a low-carb level that is higher than the induction phase of Atkins, but which is roughtly the same as the "maintenance" phase of Atkins, and they are both much lower carb levels than is usual for low-fat diets.

  • Posted By: cdpamelajean @ 07/16/2008 10:00:18 PM

    Comment: Truth is, Dr Atkins did NOT die of heart disease, he died as the result of a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk. Ornish prattles on and on obviously touting "his" diet and in doing so, flies in the face of MANY studies done over the years and most NOT funded by the Atkins group. The Atkins diet is NOT a zero carb diet except or the inception stages to switch you body's preference from Carbs to burning accumulated body fat which is the reason for monitoring the ketones excreted. Once your body is burning body fat ( and YES that is an energy source why do you think your body stores it as fat ?) you can gradually add back carbs unil you achieve a balance where no carbs are stored as fat. GO read Atkins Diet Revolution book and learn.

  • Posted By: fahummer @ 07/16/2008 9:48:55 PM

    Comment: Ornish says: ???...those on the ???low-fat??? diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day...than thos on the Mediteranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That???s physiologically impossible.??? He???s got to be kidding! No one who could say this should have any credibility in the diet debates. Yes, it is a law of physics, not merely a law of nutrition, that if you burn more calories than you take in then you will lose weight. But it absolutely does not follow that if you increase your calorie intake, or take in more calories than you butn that you will gain weight, EVEN if you guarantee constant rates of metabolism. One reason for this is simply a matter of logic: the truth of ???A implies B??? does not imply the truth of ???not A implies not B???. That observation is sufficient to discredit Ornish???s claim. But further, the ???type??? of calorie matters: Yes, conceptually ???a calorie is a calorie??? (as ???low-fat??? proponents like to chant) as a physical unit of energy, but protein that ???has 100 calories??? is handled entirely differently by the body, has different effects on the hormonal system, insulin, etc., than 100-calories-worth of white bread. (I???m not saying that Ornish promotes white bread.) The 100-calories of protein may not (and probably won???t, on a healthy, non-calorie-restricted diet) even be used much at all as fuel, but will likely be used as building material for the body instead, while the bread will tend to be used as fuel, or will be stored as fat in the context of a high-refined-carb meal or diet. Also, it is a pretty well established nutiritional principle that the body can respond to calorie restriction in a defensive way by reducing metabolism. What Ornish claims is ???physiologically impossible??? is certainly not impossible, nor is it even unlikely, and he should be embarassed to have made the claim. Regarding some of his other comments, there is nothing uncharacteristic about an Atkins diet that is high in good, low-starch vegetables and fruits. A typical breakfast for this Atkins dieter is two eggs, half an avocado, a small peach, and a few blueberries. Yes, Atkins recognizes that meat and eggs and butter are good foods, but Atkins dieters don???t gorge themselves on these things. Frank Hummer, Ph.D., mathematics.

  • Posted By: fahummer @ 07/16/2008 9:48:20 PM

    Comment: Ornish says: ???...those on the ???low-fat??? diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day...than thos on the Mediteranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That???s physiologically impossible.??? He???s got to be kidding! No one who could say this should have any credibility in the diet debates. Yes, it is a law of physics, not merely a law of nutrition, that if you burn more calories than you take in then you will lose weight. But it absolutely does not follow that if you increase your calorie intake, or take in more calories than you butn that you will gain weight, EVEN if you guarantee constant rates of metabolism. One reason for this is simply a matter of logic: the truth of ???A implies B??? does not imply the truth of ???not A implies not B???. That observation is sufficient to discredit Ornish???s claim. But further, the ???type??? of calorie matters: Yes, conceptually ???a calorie is a calorie??? (as ???low-fat??? proponents like to chant) as a physical unit of energy, but protein that ???has 100 calories??? is handled entirely differently by the body, has different effects on the hormonal system, insulin, etc., than 100-calories-worth of white bread. (I???m not saying that Ornish promotes white bread.) The 100-calories of protein may not (and probably won???t, on a healthy, non-calorie-restricted diet) even be used much at all as fuel, but will likely be used as building material for the body instead, while the bread will tend to be used as fuel, or will be stored as fat in the context of a high-refined-carb meal or diet. Also, it is a pretty well established nutiritional principle that the body can respond to calorie restriction in a defensive way by reducing metabolism. What Ornish claims is ???physiologically impossible??? is certainly not impossible, nor is it even unlikely, and he should be embarassed to have made the claim. Regarding some of his other comments, there is nothing uncharacteristic about an Atkins diet that is high in good, low-starch vegetables and fruits. A typical breakfast for this Atkins dieter is two eggs, half an avocado, a small peach, and a few blueberries. Yes, Atkins recognizes that meat and eggs and butter are good foods, but Atkins dieters don???t gorge themselves on these things. Frank Hummer, Ph.D., mathematics.

  • Posted By: Bass Player Keith Hall @ 07/16/2008 9:37:50 PM

    Comment: From Bass Player Keith Hall, Elkin, NC, http://bestfreediet.blogspot.com/
    I have been on the Fletcherism diet for a little over 3 months and have lost 37 pounds. I chew eat bite 32 times and eat Lunch and supper only and have a mid afternoon snack about 3 pm and another one at 8:30 at night. Be sure to chew eat bite at least 32 times. You will eat about 20-30 minutes and feel totally full and are eating a lot less calories by eating less food and you feel totally satisfied. Read Horace Fletcher???s book in Google books called How I Became Young at Sixty.

  • Posted By: Bass Player Keith Hall @ 07/16/2008 9:36:30 PM

    Comment: Keith Hall, Elkin, NC, http://bestfreediet.blogspot.com
    I have been on the Fletcherism diet for a little over 3 months and have lost 37 pounds. I chew eat bite 32 times and eat Lunch and supper only and have a mid afternoon snack about 3 pm and another one at 8:30 at night. Be sure to chew eat bite at least 32 times. You will eat about 20-30 minutes and feel totally full and are eating a lot less calories by eating less food and you feel totally satisfied. Read Horace Fletcher???s book in Google books called How I Became Young at Sixty.

  • Posted By: DodgerFan @ 07/16/2008 9:30:42 PM

    Comment: I think the article raises some interesting points about the study. I agree that the diet wars need to end. Despite the points raised in the article, it seems that each of the three diets can provide positive results. The key, regardless of the diet, is energy balance. In order to lose weight, calorie intake must be less than calorie expenditure. If this can be achieved, then that's at least half the battle. If this cannot be achieved, it doesn't matter which diet is used, the person will gain weight. It's basic thermodynamics. A great way to improve energy balance is to get lots of exercise. I think exercise should be stressed as much as, if not more than, diet. This would possibly be more productive then the endless quibbling over which diet is better.

    • Posted By: akatz @ 07/17/2008 6:57:46 AM

      Comment: I just can't agree with you.
      I've been on thyroid replacement therapy for almost 40 years and, as a result, I have become very sensitive to my body's use of intake and the resulting energy availability and chemical balances.

      That's why I have stuck with a low-carbohydrate diet: because not all calories are the same. Carbs are metabolized much faster than proteins and fats, with the result that anything else you eat that's slower-metabolizing tends to get stored as fat. Carbs do not "last" for me. After a brief rush, I often fall asleep or become vague and detached. When I eat mostly protein (with some fat), I find that my metabolism stabilizes for long periods of time (5-or-so hours), leaving me productive, enthusiastic and happier. Oh yes, I lose weight too.

      Due to a long-lasting illness (chronic bronchitis), I went off my diet for about eight months, eating substantial starches and gained a huge amount of weight.

      I went back on low-carb just seven weeks ago and have already lost 42 pounds. I am eating a lot, whenever I'm hungry and as much as I want (proteins and fats) and losing weight quite quickly, while maintaining my energy and enthusiasm - something I've never been able to do on any other diet.

      Ornish is wrong - not all calories are the same. I mean, the molecules of carbs, fats and proteins are significantly different and the way they metabolize and the efficiency with which they're used can vary dramatically.

      The claim about "heat units in" (calories) vs. "heat units out" as the only measure of changes in bodyweight is terribly over-simplfied.

      Cars all take the same fuel, though some require higher octane to get the best efficiency out of their engines. To claim that a calorie is a calorie is the same as claiming that all cars get the same gas mileage. Not true in either case.

  • Posted By: AspenFreePress @ 07/16/2008 9:02:47 PM

    Comment: One reason I am so impressed with Mayor Bloomberg is his action against trans fats. Food abuse kills!
    Sterling Greenwood
    Aspen Free Press

  • Posted By: AspenFreePress @ 07/16/2008 9:02:04 PM

    Comment: One reason I'm so impressed with Mayor Bloomberg is his action against trans fats. Food abuse kills.
    Sterling Greenwood
    Aspen Free Press

  • Posted By: lcassano @ 07/16/2008 8:50:27 PM

    Comment: As a physical therapist, anatomy and physiology instructor, and parent, I find it alarming that studies such as this one are accepted by the NEJM as the new gospel of nutrition and "proof" that horribly unhealthy eating plans like the Atkins diet receive high praise. Thank you, Dr. Ornish, for taking the time to pick through the questionable research and provide more factual information. Hopefully, the average consumer will take the time to read your article. I adopted a near-vegetarian eating plan 2 years ago (I still eat salmon and occassionally shellfish), and my energy and health have never been better. At 44 I am leaner and stronger than when I was a junkfood eating teenager.

    • Posted By: Budster64 @ 07/17/2008 5:17:11 AM

      Comment: As a physical therapist, anatomy and physiology instructor, and parent,
      And Parent??? what does that have to do with anything?? Is your opinion stronger because you have children?? And the rest of that statement just goes to prove that you have a predisposition and even vested interest towards the exact opposite of anything even slightly related to a low carb diet. Exactly like our doctor here.
      Am I supposed to believe that a doctor who's written book after book on a low fat lifestyle would take serious any type of research negating what he has been preaching book after book??
      And I noticed that he mentions several times how he is part of a non-profit organization which studies this. How about your books Doc?? Are they free off the shelves for anyone??
      Nope I thought not...and it really doesn't matter what I believe even a blind man can see both of you, especially the Doc has a personal interest in trying to prove this study or any like study wrong. But let me get this straight...all other studies are farces but yours are the god's honest truth and the pinnacle of pure and unadulterated scientific research.
      So does the bridge come with the sale of the book if we act now or does it cost extra??

    • Posted By: CaliJim @ 07/16/2008 10:59:03 PM

      Comment: Horribly unhealthy eating plans? Come on, lcassano, stop the ideology and do some research....more and more of which (like this study, whether you agree with it or not) indicate that low carb diets are good for you. I don't follow the Atkins diet, because I think it's too extreme, but have had great success with the Protein Power Life Plan by Drs. Eades.

      I started using the Protein Power plan when I was trying to gain muscle mass while working out with weights (at 50) and someone recommended it. Worked great and I followed up with the Protein Power Life Plan when that book came out later, as I had gotten out of shape after an injury that took a couple of years to get over. I'm now 61 years old, 6' 2" and weigh right around 183-185 all the time...and my cholesterol and blood pressure are better than most men much younger. I really liked the way Drs. Eades (husband and wife doctor team) explained the reasoning behind the diet and offered historical examples, especially in the first book, Protein Power. They don't talk down to you...and have a great synopsis at the end of the chapters. You can read the synopsis and get all the info - then, if you are interested, go back and read the whole chapter. They basically have 3 plans, one for "Purists", one for the middle of the roaders and one for the "Hedonists", as they put it.



      It also verifies my own experience from years ago. In the 60's and 70's I worked at McDonald's and ate there all the time...but never ate the french fries, sodas, shakes, pies, etc., - just double cheeseburgers, no catsup, mostly. My weight, cholesterol and blood pressure were incredibly good. In fact, my blood pressure was so low, doctors always commented on it. In the late 70's, my friends convinced me that I had to change my diet and start eating "complex" carbohydrates to avoid health problems. Long story short, my blood pressure, weight and cholesterol levels shot up dramatically...along with my weight...even though my exercise levels didn't change and I wasn't eating substantially more.

      Low Carb is definitely the way to go. Today, I eat basically anything I want, but just try to limit the carbs. Check out the Protein Power Life Plan book...or even the older Protein Power book, if you can find it. Of course, this isn't a "Diet"...it's a plan for how to live your life more successfully in controlling your weight, cholesterol and blood pressure...and it has a valid scientific basis.

  • Posted By: cath803 @ 07/16/2008 8:46:09 PM

    Comment: Perhaps next time Newsweek will hire a writer who doesn't have a vested interest in selling his own diet books!

  • Posted By: LauriCags @ 07/16/2008 8:23:42 PM

    Comment: Maybe Dean you could help. We would love to see some of the low carb research done by the scientists who have been working on it for years funded by the NIH. Can you help make that happen, Dean?

  • Posted By: fifi8989 @ 07/16/2008 8:19:47 PM

    Comment: I believe he's trying to say that low fat is healthier for you than low carb. Not that it will make you lose more weight. And, while Dr. Atkins has his points about how a low carb diet will work better for you to lose weight, you still need carbs for energy, and carbs are essential in releasing seratonin, which makes people happy. And, if i recall correctly, Dr. Atkins died of heart disease. So, he may have been skinny, but he was far from healthy. So, if you want to be skinny and miserable, than by all means go for the low carb diet.
    And, yes if you starve yourself, your body will in fact hold onto all the calories and fat as it possibly can, but I doubt the subjects in the low fat diet were starving themselves.
    Another point jacqmark1, at the end, he's saying that an optimal diet would be both low carb and low fat, but maybe you didn't read that part.

  • Posted By: jacqmark1 @ 07/16/2008 7:45:56 PM

    Comment: Waaa,waaa,waaa. Quit your crying Ornish and buck up to the fact that for most people a low carb diet will work better than low fat. The arguments Dr. Atkins made in his books in favor of a low carb lifestyle always seemed to make sense. Now the ongoing research is proving him correct and it's a shame he is not here to relish it.

  • Posted By: aztech @ 07/16/2008 7:36:55 PM

    Comment: Other studies have shown some foods cause the body to use more calories to digest than others, like onions. So to state that something is "physiologically impossible" is ignorant or biased.

  • Posted By: rjgrady @ 07/16/2008 7:35:37 PM

    Comment: "For example, the investigators reported that those on the "low-fat" diet consumed 200 fewer calories per day???or 10,000 fewer calories per year???than those on the Mediterranean diet, yet people lost more weight on the Mediterranean diet. That's physiologically impossible." No, it's not. Changes in metabolism can bring them about, such as the starvation effect. It's possible that a style of diet could have this effect. This is simply wrong.

  • Posted By: datahog @ 07/16/2008 7:30:15 PM

    Comment: C'mon, Newsweek, let us hear from someone who has no skin in the game. This is the low-fat guru of America trying to save his personal reputation, for crying out loud, and it is a biased display...

  • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 07/16/2008 7:25:57 PM

    Comment: Mr. Ornish, at least Newsweek had the wisdom to call your piece an opinion. There may be flaws in the NEJM study that careful review and analysis will reveal, but your defensive accusations sound more like someone with a vested interest in an academic paradigm. Those of us who are out trying to eat healthy food and monitor our blood work are increasingly finding that low-carb and Atkins-like diets work. The most health problems I ever experienced were during the years I tried to maintain a low-fat vegetarian diet that was full of whole grains, pasta, rice, breads, and of course fresh and cooked vegetables... and lots of beans and soy protein supplements. Results? I gained 20 pounds of fat, had no energy, had body aches and pains, lost muscle mass, triglycerides went off the scale, libido diminished, and more... When I started eating meat and then went low-carb life suddenly got a lot better. Strangely enough, the lab results improved too. Looks like the NEJM study shows that I'm not so exceptional. Save your evangelizing for those who need a religion. I'll just take the facts (and my direct experience), thank you!

    • Posted By: fifi8989 @ 07/16/2008 8:31:16 PM

      Comment: Did you ever consider that maybe you became unhealthy because you were a vegetarian? Never known too many healthy vegetarians, in fact they were always getting sick. So you do need meat to live, but he's not saying stop eating meat, he's saying eat healthy. He's also not telling you to stuff your face full of pasta, and bread. I do believe he said at the end that you should eat low fat AND low carb. So, is eating a lot of carbs good for you? No, but neither is stuffing you're face full of fat.

      • Posted By: stephenprestwood @ 07/17/2008 3:34:38 PM

        Comment: Yes, I absolutely think my health problems were related to my vegetarian diet, that was one of the points I was making! And, I wasn't "stuffing my face full of pasta and bread" though your hyperbole is a nice attempt to discredit my scientifically validated experiences. At the time, I was also following what a lot of credentialed "experts" were telling us in the 1990s, namely that fat was bad and any food with fat in it was bad, and if you ate meat, make sure you cut all the fat off and be sure to skin that chicken breast, and hey, if you supplement a vegetarian diet with lots of soy protein you'll be just as healthy as if you actually ate.... well, meat (see the circular logic!). But, it was all baloney!!! (Pardon the pun.) Meat is good for you. Fat is good for you. Vegetables are good for you. Nuts and fruits are good for you. But processed sugars including cane/beet sugar, bread and pasta need to be managed carefully. Not to mention high-fructose corn syrup, which is basically a synthetic toxin that happens to taste sweet. Remember all the so-called "fat-free" foods sold in the supermarket that contained tons of processed sugar, but not a gram of fat. Hah! No wonder everyone eating that crap got as big as a house. All those so-called "experts" should be held partly accountable for the rise in diabetes and our expanding waistlines. People were just following the doctor's orders. But now we know better. And scientific research is finally catching up to what many of us experientially discovered long ago.

  • Posted By: rnqueen @ 07/16/2008 7:24:01 PM

    Comment: I guess there will never be enough evidence for those who have backed the low fat diet to believe that Dr. Adkins could possibly have been right. But guess what - he was.