“Eco-Atkins” Vegetarian Protein Diet Study = Meaningless

From the “modify a study to get results the supporters want” department.

I don’t know if anyone came across these news stories on Reuters and elsewhere (and elsewhere still) today, but I couldn’t help but be slightly offended. They report on a ridiculous study that was done in Canada trying to prove that the “Eco-Atkins” diet – a “low-carb” plant-based protein diet (composed solely of gluten, *soy*, nuts, fruits, vegetables, cereals and vegetable oils) is a good tool for lowering blood cholesterol and losing weight… and guess what… the study was also “supported” by distributors and manufacturers of SOY based foods AND the creator of the “Eco-Atkins” diet himself! Isn’t that a crazy coincidence! What luck! (ok, ok, sarcasm off)

So (like any good researcher in the health arena would do) to ensure that they got the “amazing” results that they wanted (actually, I believe that one article called it a “triumph”), here are the nutritional comparisons they made:

Group 1) “Eco-Atkins” a plant-based protein so-called-low-carb (130 g a DAY!) diet

Group 2) high-carb low-fat standard vegetarian diet (IMHO a ‘pre-crippled’ control group)

Each group had 22 overweight men and women – so we talking about 44 people over a period of one month – and here’s the kicker:

People in both groups ate about 60 percent of their estimated calorie requirements.

So now we’re basically talking about 2 semi-starvation diets with slightly different make-ups. One with a lame attempt at low-carbs (I’m sorry, but 130 grams per day is NOT low-carb in my book, esp with already overweight and probably moderately insulin-resistant people) plus a gaggle of vegetarian friendly protein alternatives AND a general vegetarian diet that as well all know is typically very high on carbohydrates and very low on protein.

Did the participants lose weight? With 60% less food consumed? Certainly!  Both groups lost an average of 8.8 pounds, but the ‘Eco-Atkins’ (which is a moronic name, by the way) group had lower LDL cholesterol and better blood pressure than the high-carbers.

What have we really proven here? 2 things.

1. Starving people will usually lose a few pounds (I’d be willing to be its mostly muscle)
2. Diets with lower carbs, even half-ass ones – will show metabolic improvement quickly.

I believe the term here is “setting up a straw man to prove your own self-serving argument”. But hey, don’t take my word for it – check it out.

The results are pretty obvious, I just can’t stand the fact that they are implying that that a diet like this is “safer” than the “radical” (aka normal) low-carb diets that have adequate protein made out of actual meat (God forbid). They’re supporting the side that they have a vested interest in, and throwing a little misinformation bomb over the fence of the competition just for good measure. Nice.

Why Professor David Jenkins (creator of the Glycemic Index, “Eco-Atkins”, and this study) is trying to vilify meat these days is beyond me.

If he’s trying to prove that its so much healthier than the Atkins Diet, why doesn’t he do THAT study instead of beating around the bush and picking fights that he knows he’s going to win?

I mean, if you want to pay me to prove that I can do marginally better than something that is already proven to be broken and not working, go right ahead – I’ve got some spare time.

Oddly enough this is from the study itself:

Exchange of the butter, eggs, cheese and meat in the Atkins diet for soy protein foods, other vegetable proteins including gluten and vegetable fats, nuts, avocado, olive and canola oil will result in dramatic rather than modest reductions in blood lipids with weight loss. In effect this will represent an exchange of saturated fat and animal protein for healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats and vegetable proteins with significant effects on blood lipids while still encouraging weight loss.

Well, that isn’t what was proved at all. Hmmm… Maybe I’m confused, if so please set me straight, but I have a feeling that I’ve read it all properly.

What do you think about all this?

Sorry for the negative spin, but anti-meat campaigns really annoy me. If weren’t meant to eat it, we’d have evolved have vastly different digestive systems (not to mention the fact that our brains would be much smaller – Awesome).

Related posts:

1. The “Eco-Atkins” rundown (once again – for fairness sake)
2. Another Worthless Study and Pointless Anti-Fat Article from the New York Times
3. Pushing the Vegetarian Agenda by Rewriting (Pre)History