So in this "study" over the course of a year these 311 women lost:
10.4 pounds - Atkins
5.7 pounds - LEARN
4.9 pounds - Ornish
3.5 pounds - The Zone
At a glance this seems to be a vindication for Atkins and it may well be but the on further reading the article it seems like the guidelines around the study weren't well defined. Anyone find a link to this study? I can find a previous one that compared Atkins, Ornish, WW and Zone but not this one.
"All the participants reported eating about 2,000 calories a day when the study began. All also reported having cut their intake -- some by as much as 500 calories per day at two to six months -- but then gradually adding back many of those calories. But as researchers noted, if participants ate as little as they said, all the groups would have lost much more weight."
In another article I found about this:
Barry Sears, who developed the Zone diet, criticized the study as "bad science," saying details show the participants did not really follow the diet rules.
"The execution basically was fairly pathetic at best so the conclusions are jaded," he said in an interview. The way people followed the Atkins diet in the study, he said, is actually closer to the Zone's principles.
Study author Gardner, however, said one of the strengths of the $2 million project was that it mimicked real-world conditions, with participants preparing or buying all their own meals and not everyone following the diets exactly."
While I can see how that might be a strength I still think that's a somewhat shady way of conducting a study that compares 4 different diets/products. If I wanted to do a study on comparing weight loss through, diet alone, diet + Crossfit, diet+steadystate cardio....etc but then the people that were suppose to be in one group didn't follow the guidelines....how valid is that study????