But first, why should you listen to me and not a magazine reporter or the NYT Health editor or even you doctor who has been through so many years of school? Well, for starters, I care about you and they don't. Media outlets need to get readers and headlines get readers. Your doctor needs to cycle through as many double and triple booked patients as he can to make money. I spend hours a week reading blogs and following links and reading the actual studies themselves and make my own judgment as to the validity of it's findings. I can promise you your doctor doesn't have time for that and health editors only want you to buy their publication. I have a lot more to say about this topic and there will more posts to come.
So back to the "study" itself. The "study" has not been published in any peer reviewed journal so all the data is completely unverified. This "study" was actually a 15 minute presentation of a poster at a side meeting of the annual American Heart Association convention held in Florida. Dr. Michael Eades posts about it here. Here's the bottom line:
"The important thing to understand about these presentations is that they are not peer reviewed as they are if and when they show up in a scientific journal. They are sort of peer reviewed on the spot in the sense that other researchers familiar with the specific field ask questions of the presenters or of the people with the posters. But that’s it. There is no scientific review of the data as there is when it is published in a journal. So people can present all kinds of data with no one looking it over other than the folks who ask questions."But let's look at what little we actually have about this "study." All that is available is an abstract for the study or the poster if you attended the AHA convention. Dr. Eades was kind enough to make the abstract available on his blog here. I can not manage that on my blog yet. One of the things I noticed when I read the abstract is that my blog posting about the study is longer then the abstract itself. It is only 1 page long, but that is the least of it's problems. Here's the reseacher's methods:
We tested 3 popular diets, including Atkins (50% fat), South Beach (30% fat) andThe Atkins Diet is billed as a low carb diet yet the "researchers" don't tell us what portion of the diet was carbs. On the Atkins diet the subjects ate 50% fat, leaving the other 50% to be a combination of protein and carbs. Now, no caloric intake is given so we are left to assume they ate a USDA recommended 2400 calories. So 1200 calories from fat. Lets look at the other macronutrients and try to guess at what else these folks ate. We need to fill in the other 50%. Let's say they ate 20% protein and 30% carbs, some quick math tells us that comes to 120 grams of protein (4 calories/gram of protein) and 180 grams of carb (also 4 calories/gram of carb). There are about 12.5 grams of protein in 1 egg so that's the equivalent of 10 eggs/day. That is a LOT of protein.
Ornish (10% fat) in a randomized and counterbalanced, crossover study.
But I have moved away from the core issue here. Look at the carb count, 180 grams of carb! That's 2 potatoes or a plate of pasta! That ain't Atkins, not even in maintenance. It would be difficult for me to pack in that much carbohydrate in a week. Dr. Eades sums it up well, "In summary: no complete study, no peer review and no Atkins diet. Yet it made the news big time."
Now 1 more little thing while I have you. This flawed study looked a LDL, the "bad cholesterol." These "researchers" need to do their homework. LDL is at best a marginal indicator of heart disease. The important thing to look for is LDL particle size and triglycerides. That is something you CAN go to your doctor about. IF he doesn't know that then find another doctor.
