From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 09:55:50 MDT
gts wrote,
> 3) Of the ten parameters measured, only the differences in ONE of them was
> statistically significant in all tests: HDL.
>
> HDL was better after the low-carb vs the low-fat diet at 3 months, at 6
> months and at 12 months. No other parameter was so clearly different from
> one diet to the other.
It's not quite as obviously one-sided as you make it sound. Remember that
over 40% of the participants were confirmed to quit their diets and many
more were believed to be poor at following their diets. As such, I believe
the end-of-year measurements are not as reliable as the earlier measurements
which showed:
Atkins: Conventional Diet:
6 month triglycerides: +15.0% -7.6%
3 month LDL(bad) cholesterol: +5.4% -7.4%
3 month total cholesterol: +1.7% -5.4%
The raw data is not as obviously one-sided as you imply. If the numbers
were all good and stayed good for Atkins, I would agree. But there are some
troubling data early on when adherence to the diets was better. Given these
earlier numbers, I am not sure I would choose the Atkins diet.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 24 2003 - 10:08:14 MDT