Talk:Atkins diet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Article bias[edit]

From the introduction, this article seems to have some bias in it. Specifically, the sentence "the diet is marketed with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is critical to weight loss" does not allow the reader to believe that the article is fairly balanced. It should not lead with saying the claims are questionable. Additionally, are there truly no good claims, at all, in achieving effective weight loss?

Last Paragraph of Intro Reads Like Promotional Material[edit]

I just ended up on this page, and the last paragraph of the introduction reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia entry, and it has no sources cited. I'm unsure what to do about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.219.61 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Atkins Die with Clogged Arteries?[edit]

Isn't it true that Atkins himself died with (albeit not of) clogged arteries? If so, that should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, he did not. That is a popular rumor that has absolutely no basis in fact. He slipped and fell on ice, hit his head, and died due to bleeding around the brain after spending over a week in a coma. --132 17:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, his heart problem was not a circulatory problem ('clogged arteries'), but a viral infection of the heart itself. This is a serious medical disease that cannot be caused or cured by diet. 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Category[edit]

I do not believe this article belongs in the Diabetes category in addition to the diabetes subcategory of Low-carb diets. The small two-week study on 10 hospitalized obeses Type 2 diabetic patients was falsely claimed to have been a study of the Atkins diet when it was simply a study of restricting carbohydrates. This is probably why a reference link to the article was not provided. I deleted the false claim and included a reference link to the abstract of the study. It's debatable whether this study should even be included as evidence on the Atkins diet, but I left it in.

The Diabetes category is for articles that are primarily or substantially about this serious disease (a check of whats listed there will reveal that). This article does not qualify. OccamzRazor 20:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation for Atkin's book Atkins Diabetes Revolution as well as a link to a The West Suffolk Diabetes Service, both of which strongly link to Atkins as a Diabetic diet. I can also supply references from Atkins books and websites, as well as other references linking the diet to treatment of diabetes. The Diabetes cat should stay. Dreadstar 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised more is not made of the beneficial effect of the Atkins low-carb diet in type-2 diabetes. As someone who has been monitoring his blood glucose for over 10 years, I found switching to Atkins immediately dropped my fasting gluciuse by 20%. Here is a graph showing the results: (Oops is doesn't show.) My previous months daily average was 134. The monthly daily average after a month on Atkins dropped to 112. Although I can't always stay on Atkins, when I do, my average reading is 107.69.123.131.248 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Net Carbs to Net Atkins Count[edit]

The material about how net carbs are calculated is outdated and partially incorrect, so I have removed it. Atkins Nutritionals never claimed that sugar alcohols are not absorbed; they said that they have a "minimal impact on blood-sugar levels." More importantly, Atkins is now well into transitioning to a different, and more scientific, method of counting net carbs. From their website:

Until recently, Atkins used the subtraction method on its package labeling. New science has shown that this old method provided accurate results in most, but not all, cases. Many other manufacturers started using similar net carb terminology while using different calculations and formulations with different types of carbohydrates and failed to validate their numbers, which led to speculation about the validity of net carbs in general. In order to evaluate the real-life effects of foods on blood-sugar levels, Atkins has pioneered a new clinical method to determine the Net Atkins Count. The new Atkins testing method has confirmed that the vast majority of Atkins products will carry the same carb count information as before.
Here’s how it works: A group of people who have fasted have their baseline blood-sugar levels measured. They all eat a certain food product and each subject’s response is tracked. The data reports actual measured increases in individuals’ blood sugar. An average blood-sugar response across the group of people is then obtained. This is the Net Atkins Count, which expresses this clinically validated number and distinguishes it from terms previously used, such as net carbs.
Atkins products are presently in the process of shifting to this new system; during the rollover, some labels may still show the old net carb icon.

Also, contrary to what the deleted text said, the nutritional information label on all Atkins snack bars consider the bar to be one serving, not multiple servings. — Walloon 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What we should do..[edit]

Is to clearly list the foods that are allowed on the Atkins diet.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.254.65 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


The Atkins diet allows all foods. The amounts of certain types of foods are restricted, but no food is forbidden with Atkins.Webgrunt (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Expert opinions[edit]

Here's a list of expert opinions critical of Atkins: [1] Given the controversy over this lucrative diet marketing, the criticism section really should have more links.--Shtove 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shtove. The link you provided is to atkinsexposed.org. This is a site created by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) the PCRM are a group of vegetarian doctors, funded by PETA to dismiss the Atkins diet due to the false idea that Atkins is all red meat. These are the kind of biased anti-Atkins edits that have made this article incorrect in the past. If people who know about the Atkins diet and are Pro-Atkins can't really edit this article so that it remains neutral, then groups like this should be treated the same. I don't care how many links you find that are anti-Atkins, I can find the same, if not more, that are Pro-Atkins. Should we include them all? No, it would make this article ridiculous. I'm not yelling at you, just setting you straight. Not many people are aware of the PETA fronted organization called PCRM and the fact that the justice department has a file on them due to their tactics of posting their agenda in a medical fashion so as to make people believe they are legit. BrianZ(talk) 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link of my own [2] Do yourself a favor and look at about us on atkinsexposed and you'll the head of PCRM runs the site. These bastards are tricky. Here's a link to Wikipedia's entry for PCRM Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "PCRM features on the Quackwatch list of questionable organisations." hmmm :) Do we really want their opinion included? BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've sourced Eckel's comment and given it proper prominence. Since I'm a believer in balanced diet and exercise, I won't get into this article. My view is that this diet is simply a marketing trick of telling people what they want to hear: assure them the food they love is healthy, the food they hate is harmful. Music to the ears of everyone who grew up hating vegetables. Not so funky though when that person suffers from diabetes, weak heart and damaged kidney and liver.--Shtove 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I can tell by your statements that you've not done your research on the diet, That's okay really, as I used to be a guy against the diet completely too until I did my research and realized that 3/4 of the myths are completely untrue. Like most people, you are unaware of many ideas of the diet including the fact that most of your carbs each day should be from vegetables, and when done properly, the Atkins diet includes exercise at the minimum of 4 days a week, etc. But I digress. I've been following the lifestyle for 4 years and my health numbers and blood tests do not lie. I'm a staunch supporter of the diet and quite possibly a danger to sway the article away from neutral, which is why I refuse to add my slant to it. But I do try to ensure that the opposite view does not damage it's encyclopedic nature. Forgive me for being so abrasive. I don't mean to sound attacking, really. I just can't stand when misconceptions created by PCRM and PETA among others turn an unknowing public into people against this diet. I apologize ahead of time for any offense you have taken. I just figure that if I can motivate one more person to read the book to actually read for themselves and not really on items taken out of context by PCRM and baking indutries, then I'm doing a good thing.BrianZ(talk)

04:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, and you're not abrasive at all. WP is good for getting opponents together. In fact, I understand your enthusiasm, since I've had a diet revelation myself and have become a fan of Sandra Cabot.--Shtove 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - August 2007[edit]

The article, and the tagged sections in particular, have NPOV problems in both directions (which is a good thing by comparison to the alternative!). The statement, "An analysis conducted by Forbes magazine found that the Atkins Nutritional Approach (the boxed retail food product created by Atkins to facilitate the Atkins diet) is one of the five most expensive diet plans of the ten plans Forbes analyzed," is only saying that Atkins is in the top 50%, in terms of expense, of diets looked at, yet it does so in a very-harsh tone. Similarly, "In fact it should be seen as evidence that a diet high in vegetables, and not meats or dairy, will actually improve heart health," is some bizarre combination of OR, NPOV, and weasel, all wrapped up in one sentence.

My main beef with the "Misconceptions" section is probably the sentence, "Many people who try Atkins have reported eating more vegetables while on the plan than they ever did before." Jouster  (whisper) 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs some work from a POV persepctive. I've made a start, and will try to do more. Dreadstar 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I've taken care of the pov concerns, and removed the tag. Feel free to replace it if not. Dreadstar 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AtkinsLogo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AtkinsLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

removed link to Dukan Diet[edit]

I removed the link:

  • [http:// The Dukan Diet]

Based on a lack of clear relevance to this article. If the anonymous editor who placed this link wants to establish that it is proper here -- or anyone else -- , please respond here. The Dukan Diet, from a superficial examination of the web site, does not seem related to the Atkins diet, which is a high-fat, low carb diet, and the fat is very important to it, as is the low carb. Atkins is a moderately elevated protein diet as well, and that is about the only connection I could see.

This is an article on the Atkins Nutritional Approach, not every diet system that exists is relevant to it, nor, even all low-carb high-fat diets. If the Dukan Diet is "notable," it's possible it could have an article of its own.

--Abd 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The dukan diet is not only incredibly dangerous, but also completely inefficient, with absolutely no proof that it actually works, zero effect, zero notability, its that simple.2001:464B:90BD:0:A13D:7219:D1BC:9DE3 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Side Effects of diet section?[edit]

maybe this article needs a side effects section? i've often heard reports of bad breath, decreased energy and increased flatulence, but this is not really mentioned in the article... i'd do it myself but wikipedia is the only site i can access from work.

If you found five people who had these symptoms, that still would not be statistically significant. Diets involve many factors of daily life, and must be evaluated and criticized using real science, not opinions reported as facts. It is okay to have an opinion, but WP articles must at least have references to facts reported in reliable sources. Adding your unsourced opinions to an article, no matter how strongly you believe in them, will most likely result in their being deleted within a few minutes. This is an encyclopedia, meant to be as reliable as possible, not a source for opinions. It is okay to start with opinions, but then validate them by referencing books and the Web. David Spector (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

let Dr Atkins rest in peace- he helped me once....going on twice[edit]

I first went on Atkins when I was a very obese 225 lbs in 2000 - months later, I weighed in at 175! My triglycerides were normal, and my cholesterol was down {BAD NEWS for a certain cardiologist who put me on Lipitor with a 204 count at the age of 35 that did not reduce the count and a better DR. that I had warned me off it before I tore my liver up (Kingston, NY).

I faded from the diet and started enjoying the usual fast food slop, and wound up celebrating the new year of 2008 at 212 pounds.

Enough was enough, and I commited to Atkins again- on 1/23 I was at 208 Lbs. Now, I am still overweight, but down to 196 - an 11 pound drop!

I will continue until I get back to my "fighting weight" of 175........ and I am a 47 year old man.... feeling better every day!

GBU DR.A!!!!!

Vito —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.25.138 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I think the atkins diet definetely needs a side effects page, It also needs to speak to younger people about the dangers of dieting and the best way for them to loose weight, and also the safest so as not to cause younger people putting their health in danger and risking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.77.159 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

10,000 patients[edit]

I don't have it with me, but the "helped 10000 patients" statement is definitely in "Atkins New Diet Revolution." Subsolar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AtkinsDietBook.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AtkinsDietBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inuit diet?[edit]

Perhaps some reference to the inuit diet should be made here? It was shown to have no adverse effects and to be nutritionally sound. Much seems to be made of scientific research into the atkins diet or low carb diets specifically, yet the inuit diet has also been researched and shown to be healthy. As generations of inuit attest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.66.20 (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


I disagree. There has never been any scientific study which encompassed an entire people, most take an extremely tiny fratcion of the population and extrapolate. In order to find out what type of diet is healthy, why not look at lifespans? The Inuit people have one of the shortest lifespans on earth, and their traditional diet is extremely low in carbs and high in protein and healthy fats. The Japanese have the longest lifespan on earth, and they consume lots of high-glycemic carbs, such as the staples of rice and noodles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webgrunt (talkcontribs) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Do all Inuit lead short lives? Do all Japanese lead long lives? Unsubstantiated nonsense. Furthermore, are there any studies comparing Inuit populations that subsist on traditional foods like seal and whale, and Westernized populations who eat foods made from sugar and flour? The current state of knowledge of diet and metabolism is rudimentary. The current state of nutrition and diet research is not much better. Therefore it is impossible to make definitive, reliable, and objective statements about any dietary approach. The best we can do in an encyclopedia is to report the existing approaches and claims. David Spector (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The date of the first book is wrong.[edit]

Hello,

The intro section lists the publishing date of Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution as 1998. The book was first published in 1972.

Sincerely, OgreJ (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC) OgreJ

Suggestion: Partial merger with Low-carbohydrate diet[edit]

There is a fair degree of redundancy between this article and the Low-carbohydrate diet. Since this article is a sub-topic of that one might I suggest

  • Issues that are related to low-carb diets in general be discussed in the general article.
  • Mainly focus this article on things that are unique to the Atkins diet. This is not to say that the broader issues should not be touched on but the details can be merged into the general article.

Granted the word Atkins gets used as a proxy for low-carb diets in general but to the extent that a given issue relates to most or all of these diet plans it seems the need to hash them out here instead of just moving them to the main article is questionable.

In particular I'm thinking

  • Nature of the Diet: Cut most of this since it can be considered common to Low-carbohydrate diets in general. Focus mostly on the Atkins-specific details.
  • Scientific Studies: Chop most of the details out of this section and list the Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets article as the main article. This section should quickly summarize the breadth of research that's out there without detail on any particular study.
  • Controversies: Merge any missing content into the Low-carbohydrate diet article and remove almost all of this save perhaps a few nuggets about Atkins specifically (e.g. maybe talking about the controversy as to whether he died of his own diet).
  • Misconceptions about the diet: The misconceptions regarding how the phases work are, of course, appropriate but the rest can be linked to the general article.

Comments?

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

* Oppose. The Atkins diet is only one low-carbohydrate diet. There are many others. If you are going to merge this article into its logical parent article, you would have to do the same with the tens of thousands of other WP articles that similarly have a logical parent. WP is structured the way it is because editors and readers generally prefer a hierarchical arrangement of articles. David Spector (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Books?[edit]

Are there more books than what are mentioned? If so, what are their ISBN.143.216.49.250 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Marc.s

I added The New Atkins for a New You, but the ISBN link doesn't keep the final digit ("-2"). Not sure why. When I remove the dash (-) the whole link goes away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.112.226 (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Only add books created by Atkins. Nasnema  Chat  05:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Why do you say that? There are books on the Atkins Diet which were not actually by Atkins himself. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Atkins good - my bad -my MD's ????[edit]

Yo, Y'all. Weighed 227 on 68" frame. Big bones they use to say. Jumped on Atkins bandwagon in 2002, and got down to my Airborne weight of 180 in 4 weeks. Felt like a million bucks. Cholesterol 160, donates blood to up to like 10 gallons then and upwards of 13 by now, and all's good. MD say, Atkins "no good". So, off the Atkins, and in 2007, hadda have a stent stuck into my otherwise good body. Heart doc says Atkins is what caused it. OK, that would be fully 5 years almost to the date of "going normal". Now, with all kinds blood thinners and other kinds of pills, I'm 227 again, even though I walk 6 miles a week, work hard, don' smoke- don' drink. Weekends I ride my bicycle 10 miles or so. Don't watch TV very much, eat small protions 4-5 times a dsy. No junk. I ask MD for help, and the stock answer is, get more excercise. Hell, I'm 64. Whaddaya want ? Now, I'm scared to death to try it again. My former MD told me to quit smoking back in '80 and I gained 30 lbs in 53 weeks. He says that the weight won't hurt. He died at 56 from a coronary. He was like 300 pounds ! There you go.

My question is, what in the world does one do? I work circles around 20-30 year olds in the oilfields of California, and I just keep getting "bigger boned". Geez.

Who, out there, has some simplistic answers, should there be any?

Perfesser@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.226.151 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At one time, I would have said you were simply lying. And that your calorific intake was actually more than you were expending. I would have said this at a time that I weighed about 7-8 stone, as a teenager and into my mid 20s. In about 2005, I went up to 16 stone, at one point. And have been between 13-16 stone since. In 2006, I had to quit my self employed part time window cleaning round, because of my weight. But in early 2009, I got a window cleaning job working for someone else, full time, no bottom windows, running up and down ladders, 8 hours a day, 6 days a week. After 6 months of this, and having not lost a single pound, I was absolutely lost for words. No longer could people say to me that I wasn't getting enough excercise. And my calorific intake was less than it had been in many years. Being so heavy, it got to the point where the heavy work was actually doing me harm. Carrying that much weight around all the time, while doing a job like this, means your whole body is having to work 2 or 3 times as hard than if you were a normal wieght. rather than the physical excercise helping me lose wieght, I had to quit the job, because of fears over the damage it was doing to my body (heart, joints etc). 80.47.136.96 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.[edit]

My name is Andrea Davidoff and I work for RF|Binder Partners, the PR agency of record for Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.


I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will strictly adhere to these standards. All the information I publish will be credibly referenced and readily verifiable. I will restrict the proposed edits to the Atkins Diet talk page and will refrain from editing any main-page content directly as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will only volunteer information through the talk page and subsequently ask Wikipedians for their assistance.


If you wish to contact me, please leave a message for me on my talk page or email me at Andrea.Davidoff@rfbinder.com.


Suggestions for the Atkins Wikipedia entry:


1. We suggest a new section in the main entry “Alternative Scientific Studies” as a foil to the “Controversies” section as several prominent scientists have used the Atkins Diet for a wide variety of illnesses. Some examples include:

a. Low-Carbohydrate Diets and the Brain - Eric H. W. Kossoff, M.D., Assistant Professor, Neurology and Pediatrics Medical Director, Ketogenic Diet Center Director, Pediatric Neurology Residency Program Johns Hopkins Hospital.

i. Kossoff, E. H., Krauss, G. L., and McGrogan, J. R., Freeman, J. M., "Efficacy of the Atkins diet as therapy for intractable epilepsy," From the Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 61, 2003, pages 1789–1791.

b. An Updated Perspective on the Role of Dietary Saturated Fat on Cardiovascular Risk - Jeff S. Volek, Ph.D., R.D., Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut, Neag School of Education.

i. Volek, J.S., Sharman, M.J., and Gomez A.L., et al., "An Isoenergetic Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Improves Serum HDL Cholesterol and Triacylglycerol Concentrations, the Total Cholesterol to HDL Cholesterol Ratio and Postprandial Lipemic Responses Compared with a Low Fat Diet in Normal Weight, Normolipidemic Women," The Journal of Nutrition, 133(9), 2003, pages 2756-2761.

ii. Volek, J.S., Westman, E.C., "Very-Low-Carbohydrate Weight-Loss Diets Revisited," Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 69(11), 2002, pages 849-862.


2. We suggest the addition of new scientific, peer-reviewed studies for the “Scientific Studies” section. These studies have been funded and researched by outside third parties and are backed by scientific facts.

a. Shai, I., Schwarzfuchs, D., Henkin, Y., et al., “Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet,” New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 2008, pages 229-241.

b. Foster, G.D., Wyatt, H.R., Hill, J.O., et al., ”A Randomized Trial of Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2082-2090.

c. Brehm, B.J., Seeley, R.J., Daniels, S.R., D’Alessio, D.A., “A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(4), 2003, pages 1617-1623.

d. Brehm, B.J., Spang, S.E., Lattin, B.L., et al., “The Role of Energy Expenditure in the Differential Weight Loss in Obese Women on Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 90(3), 2005, pages 1475-1482.

e. Samaha, F.F., Iqbal, N., Seshadri, P., et al., “A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2074-2081.

f. Seshadri, P., Iqbal, N., Stern, L., et al., “A Randomized Study Comparing the Effects of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Conventional Diet on Lipoprotein Subfractions and C-reactive Protein Levels in Patients with Severe Obesity,” American Journal of Medicine, 117(6), 2004, pages 398-405.

g. Greene, P., Willett, W., Devecis, J., et al., "Pilot 12-Week Feeding Weight-Loss Comparison: Low-Fat Vs. Low-Carbohydrate (Ketogenic) Diets,” abstract presented at The North American Association for the Study of Obesity Annual Meeting 2003, Obesity Research, 11S, 2003, page 95OR.

h. Westman, E.C., Yancy, W.S., Edman, J.S., et al., “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” American Journal of Medicine, 113(1), 2002, pages 30-36.


3. Please elevate the Atkins Diet article from Start-Class to a higher quality rating. Related to this, we request an assessment of the article’s importance on Wikipedia’s Importance Scale.


I look forward to working with you.

ADavidoff (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for all the information. You've obviously put a great deal of work into this already.
To get started, I think it would be helpful to list some of the most relevant policies and guidelines so they're not accidentally overlooked: WP:COI is applicable given your employer. WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims.
Looking over the article, it needs a great deal of work. The introduction needs a rewrite per WP:LEDE. The Controversies and Misconceptions... sections are problematic per WP:NPOV. There's too much description, especially in the The Four Phases section, in violation of WP:NOTGUIDE.
Great job providing all the references in advance!
As with the Controversies and Misconceptions... sections, a new "Alternative Scientific Studies" section would be problematic as well, for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, some time ago I had created a list article containing various research on the general topic of low-carb diets. Since the topic is still so controversial my perspective was that providing a list of third-party publications linked from Low carb diet and other articles like this one was a useful way to provide readers with factual information since there is no consensus among the experts (and whatever little bit of consensus there is keeps shifting). However, a group of editors with their own agenda fought and had the list removed, something I felt was a disgrace (though I got sick of fighting it at the time).
I still believe that providing information on studies that have been performed would be quite valuable. Providing a long list in this article is, obviously, not appropriate. But having a short summary here and linking to a list article IMHO would be a valuable thing to do.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


My name is Andrea Davidoff and I work for RF|Binder Partners, the PR agency of record for Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.


As I’ve previously mentioned, I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will strictly adhere to these standards. All the information I publish will be credibly referenced and readily verifiable. I will restrict the proposed edits to the Atkins Diet talk page and will refrain from editing any main-page content directly as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will only volunteer information through the talk page and subsequently ask Wikipedians for their assistance.


If you wish to contact me, please leave a message for me on my talk page or email me at andrea.davidoff @ rfbinder-dot-com.


Per suggestions from a Wikipedia editor, Atkins would like to offer additional information on scientific, peer-reviewed studies in support of low-carb eating and the Atkins Nutritional Approach. These studies have been funded and researched by outside third parties and are backed by scientific facts.


We suggest the addition of these studies for the “Scientific Studies” section.


1. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), July 17, 2008

The study compared three diets – Low Carbohydrate, Low Fat and Mediterranean – and followed more than 300 obese patients for two years. All the study participants consumed a similar number of calories.

FINDINGS: Low-carbohydrate diets are more effective in achieving weight loss than other diets, and low-carbohydrate diets support cardiovascular health with favorable cholesterol profiles.

REFERENCE: Shai, I., Schwarzfuchs, D., Henkin, Y., et al., “Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet,” New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 2008, pages 229-241.


2. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 2003

The study, from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and Washington University School of Medicine, randomly assigned participants to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet or to a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet.

FINDINGS: The low-carbohydrate diet produced greater weight loss and was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for heart disease.

REFERENCE: Foster, G.D., Wyatt, H.R., Hill, J.O., et al., “A Randomized Trial of Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2082-2090.


3. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003

This study from the University of Cincinnati instructed obese, healthy women to follow either a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet or a low-carbohydrate diet for six months.

FINDINGS: Women assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight and body fat than women assigned to the low-fat diet at both the three and six month marks. Blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, fasting blood sugar, and insulin improved in both groups.

REFERENCE: Brehm, B.J., Seeley, R.J., Daniels, S.R., D’Alessio, D.A., “A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(4), 2003, pages 1617-1623.


4. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2005

This study, also from the University of Cincinnati, assigned obese, healthy women to follow either a low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet for four months. Both groups were given nutritional counseling and were instructed to record energy expenditure, using a pedometer.

FINDINGS: The women assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight than those assigned to the low-fat diet, even though there was no difference in calorie intake or energy expenditure.

REFERENCE: Brehm, B.J., Spang, S.E., Lattin, B.L., et al., “The Role of Energy Expenditure in the Differential Weight Loss in Obese Women on Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 90(3), 2005, pages 1475-1482.


5. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 2003

This study assigned 79 obese men and women to either a low-carbohydrate diet or a low-fat diet for six months and focused on the effects a carbohydrate-restricted diet has on weight loss and risk factors for atherosclerosis. There was a high prevalence of diabetes among study participants.

FINDINGS: Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels.

REFERENCE: Samaha, F.F., Iqbal, N., Seshadri, P., et al., “A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity,” New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2074-2081.


6. American Journal of Medicine, 2004

The study from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Drexel University College of Medicine, compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet and a low-fat diet on lipoprotein subfractions and inflammation in severely obese subjects.

FINDINGS: Severely obese individuals, especially those with other conditions associated with obesity, who followed a low-carbohydrate diet experienced greater beneficial effects on insulin resistance, blood lipids and markers of inflammation than did those in the low-fat group.

REFERENCE: Seshadri, P., Iqbal, N., Stern, L., et al., “A Randomized Study Comparing the Effects of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Conventional Diet on Lipoprotein Subfractions and C-reactive Protein Levels in Patients with Severe Obesity,” American Journal of Medicine, 117(6), 2004, pages 398-405.


7. Obesity Research, 2003

The study from Harvard University randomly assigned participants to separate diets, including a low-fat diet and two different low-carbohydrate diets, one allowing 300 more calories a day, for a period of 12 weeks.

FINDINGS: Participants consuming more calories on the very low-carbohydrate diet were able to lose more weight than those on either the lower calorie low-carb or the low-fat diet. Additionally, participants on both of the low-carbohydrate diets showed greater improvement in several risk factors for heart disease than did participants in the low-fat diet.

REFERENCE: Greene, P., Willett, W., Devecis, J., et al., “Pilot 12-Week Feeding Weight-Loss Comparison: Low-fat Vs. Low-Carbohydrate (Ketogenic) Diets,” abstract presented at The North American Association for the Study of Obesity Annual Meeting 2003, Obesity Research, 11S, 2003, page 95OR.


8. The American Journal of Medicine, 2002

A Duke University Division of General Internal Medicine study determined the effect of a six-month very low-carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters.

FINDINGS: Participants, including overweight and obese healthy men and women, lost up to 20 percent of their body weight on a very low-carbohydrate diet, which was not calorie restricted. Participants also experienced significant improvements in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. The results suggest that a short-term, low-carbohydrate diet produces weight loss with improvements in the blood lipid profile.

REFERENCE: Westman, E.C., Yancy, W.S., Edman, J.S., et al., “Effect of 6-Month Adherence to a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Program,” American Journal of Medicine, 113(1), 2002, pages 30-36.


I look forward to working with you.


ADavidoff (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't have the time to work on this article, I did look up one of the studies (2b above). A quick read showed that it basically compared a ketogenic (Atkins-like) diet to a typical 'standard' diet (the control group). No blinding was done (blinding is difficult in a study like this).

The conclusion was that subjects dropped out of the standard diet group more quickly, that weight loss was greater with the ketogenic diet, but that at one year both diets produced about the same weight loss. The following did not appear clear to me:

  • Was ketosis achieved by the studied diet?
  • What was the amount of ingested carbohydrate per day for each group?
  • Did the study group receive supplements to assure availability of all necessary nutrients (vitamins, etc.)?
  • Did the researchers understand that exercise must accompany both the studied and control diets?
  • Did both groups receive coaching and supervision for complying with an appropriate program of exercise?

Again, I did not have time to read the whole article, so answers may have been provided. I believe that questions like these are important when understanding research on low-carbohydrate diets.

David Spector (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

problem in the scientific part[edit]

The reference in the scientific studies section to the research discussing hazard ratios of the WHO diet, mediterenan diet, and a low-carb diet seems misleading. As far as I know, the standard used in that research for low-carb - 40% carbs, is not describing a low-carb diet (USDA's recommendations are a daily calorie intake of about 30 to 35 percent of fat, 15 to 20 percent protein, and the rest - 50% carbohydrates). The comparison between a 40% carbohydrates based diet and real low-carb diets (whose variants begin, to the best of my knowledge, at the most carbohydrates generous base of around 20%) is misleading, if not worse, for it sheds a negative light on low-carb diets which should actually be aimed at a different form of a diet ! --Gil.shabtai (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Misconception?[edit]

Many people believe that the Atkins Diet promotes eating unlimited amounts of fatty meats and cheeses.[55][56] This was allowed and promoted in early editions of the book. In the newest revision, not written by the now deceased Dr. Atkins, this is not promoted.

[...]

The director of research and education for Atkins Nutritionals, Collette Heimowitz, has said, "The media and opponents of Atkins often sensationalise and simplify the diet as the all-the-steak-you-can-eat diet. This has never been true"

Sounds like it actually was at one point. It doesn't sound like this is really a misconception. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Atkins organization really believes that "this has never been true." Their position is that those two statements are not contradictory, that the original advice was correct and the later advice clarifies it rather than contradicts it. I have made a change to that paragraph that hopefully better represents the context given in the cited source. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What is it exactly? How old do you have to be to take it?. I need to know for my health project. Please help!!!!! Everything about it.[edit]

Ellie07553 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not an advice or general discussion page. This is a page for discussion of the article and how to improve it. David Spector (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Atkins diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Misleading/Wrong Text about Diabetics[edit]

The text: "Sugar alcohols contain about two calories per gram, although the American Diabetes Association recommends that diabetics not count alcohol as carbohydrates."

This text, from the source, means that alcohol in drinks like beer should not be considered as part of a meal; not that the carbohydrates in alcohol are irrelevant to diabetics, insulin must be taken for the carbohydrates in alcohol.

In the article, it is used incorrectly to explain that Sugar Alcohols are not to be counted as carbohydrates because the body does not process them, or something like that.

Either the text should be removed or another source should be used to explain what Sugar Alcohol actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talkcontribs) 03:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation doesn't support claim[edit]

Dr. Gardner's study (PMID 17341711) found that the Atkins diet was the only one that had significantly better results from the other diets studied (USDA recommendations, Ornish, Zone). The statement that there have been few long-term studies of the effects of low-carb diets is in the paper, but it's being used here in the effectiveness section to ultimately support the assertion that the diet is ineffective, which is not what the study found at all.

I think this article needs another major rewrite. Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The PMID link is to a study the article cites. Are you asserting that that article is an unreliable source? If so, can you tell me why? Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a primary source. See WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for background. We should not use old primary sources especially when we have more recent secondary ones like PMID 25844997. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Right. I suppose this supports my assertion that the article needs a complete rewrite, as all four sources for that statement are old primary sources. Bananabananabanana (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily, because the question of whether or not research is going on is not WP:Biomedical information and so not subject to WP:MEDRS. However, this seems like it might be original research and so could simply be deleted. That doesn't mean we need a major rewrite. Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it makes sense for the article to lead with the effectiveness section, and I think the paragraph is fair and even-handed. Out of thirteen sources, though, only three of them are secondary sources, and two of those go to medicinenet.com and WebMD. Not necessarily suspect, but not really respected either. Bananabananabanana (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Atkins diet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire gist of the article that the diet is a fad is incorrect has no proper source[edit]

The gist of this article, from the first paragraph, is that the diet is a fad. The only source cited for this is cited in a style that looks as if it's referencing a book but is in fact citing an online blog with no link provided. The blog is a short opinion piece by someone unqualified to make this statement and who cites no evidence for the assertions they make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.111.19 (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Been searching for a proper source for this statement and found none. Seem the label originates from a source that claims ALL diets are "fads" since ALL diets "lose their efficiency" after the person goes off the diet. The fact that the erronous quote and non-existant citeable research, is made up by someone emotional regarding the subject and wants to put their emotion twice in the very beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.99.168 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I did a search and - on the contrary - found many sources giving the diet this classification. I've added one of the stronger ones to quell any doubt! Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it would be helpful to see the source listed here that you say show it to be a fad diet. The one listed at the beginning is quite inaccurate, even stating the Dr. Atkins cause of death as a heart attack, which is clearly false. Most that I've come across have many inaccuracies overall, and are usually dated information from back when criticism of Dr. Atkins diet was most popular, around 1999 as I recall. Disciplyne (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Disciplyne: Technical point: If you want to get someone's attention, you need to ping them like I just did to you with the {{reply}} template. You can also use {{ping}}, as in {{ping|Alexbrn}} which will render as @Alexbrn: (who will now see this since it will ping him). ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, hello. The answer here is that we go by the sources (they are "listed" in the article). They say it's a fad diet & it fits the definition of fad diet like a glove. So Wikipedia says it too. Alexbrn (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary of evidence[edit]

Currently the text is "There is only weak evidence that the Atkins diet is effective in helping people achieve short-term weight loss, or that it is better than not dieting at all in the longer term."

The first ref says "Atkins resulted in 0.1% to 2.9% greater weight loss at 12 months than counseling."

The second ref says "Despite the popularity and apparent success of the Atkins diet, documented scientific evidence in support of its use unfortunately lags behind."

One year is short-term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Added a source on the "nutritional nonsense" behind this diet. In the context of the claims made for it via it marketing, we need to be plain it's all a bit of fraud. Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the studies reviewed in the reference, one-year is about as long as it gets for these studies. I'm not sure "it's all a bit of fraud" fits the wikipedia style manual. We need to be plain about the evidence as presented in reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talkcontribs) 10:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The style manual doesn't apply to Talk pages. Since we have a strong source calling it "nutritional nonsense" we need to find to some equivalent wording, to be neutral. Something to think about. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the talk page. You said we need to be plain it's all a bit of fraud. Being plain that it's all a bit of fraud is not a neutral point of view (for the actual page, not the talk page). The neutral point of view would be to report what the secondary source says about effectiveness.

Regarding the period of time, perhaps we should stick to describing the period, instead of characterizing it. In my department, the summary of the evidence is generally understood as Atkins shows a relatively large effect size short term, but is about the same as other diets for effect size long term, and has some risks. That fits with the results of the review here, and in the context of other studies of commercial diets.

Regarding the nutritional nonsense. I agree, a section on the proposed mechanism for weight loss with the Atkins diet should probably more strongly emphasize the original theory not holding water. That's what the nonsense in your new cited source is referring to. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talkcontribs) 11:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


It seems like you're trying very hard to get this article to read like a strong condemnation of the Atkins diet. I think you have to trust the readers to draw the correct conclusions by summarizing things in a more neutral way. Dr. Katz himself (the author of your nutritional nonsense reference), will tell you that the evidence supports weight loss with the Atkins diet, but not improved health outcomes. He's actually a very nice man. If you read more of his editorials, or listen to him speak, you'll see that he's not a big fan of any commercial diet (since none of them have strong long term results). There's nothing special about Atkins in its limits as a commercial diet.

Added a bit emphasizing the "nonsense" in the Description section. User:Alexbrn, does that help? Dbhall2 (talkcontribs) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please learn to indent your posts properly. The addition has editorial spin ("go so far") so isn't great. We also need more neutral wording for the evidence. I like Doc James' wording.[3] Alexbrn (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Like this? Ok, removed "go so far". Re: User:Doc James wording you linked, is that his wording, or his revert? I would say that's definitely not neutral. "only" modifying weak is editorial. And again, the description of the control conditions as "not dieting at all" is clearly an inaccurate summary of Gudzune <ref name=Gud2015>, and why I kept reverting the revert :) The article is free on PubMed Central, so you can look at it yourself. I recommend actually reading the referenced studies, but you can see simply by reading the references in the Gudzune review, the control conditions were definitely diets. The diets were presented with behavioral counseling, but they were diets (low fat diets, Mediterranean diets, other diets). We can't say Atkins was compared to not dieting at all because that's not what happened. Dbhall2(talkcontribs)
The text "other authors, notably" is not supported by the reference. For the controls you are correct: we can say "there is only weak evidence the diet is effective for aiding weight loss in the short term, and no good evidence it is effective in the longer term". Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Changed "notably" to "including". I agree that notably wasn't the best. Including is more neutral. From Doc James revert you linked to, I'm not sure you're clear one what quote used in the full citation means: "Atkins resulted in 0.1% to 2.9% greater weight loss at 12 months than counseling." In the context of the study (and nutrition research) 3 and 6 months are short term, and 12 months is long term, but yes, I think it's probably better to state the time frame vs. qualify it as short or long term. 0.1% to 2.9% greater weight loss, means that the intention to treat analysis done by the authors showed it's more effective than the diets it was compared to, and that effectiveness is significant (because the interval doesn't include zero). So reverting "more", adding "only", changing "long-" to "short-", and adding "or that it is better than not dieting at all in the long term" looks almost like vandalism to me. It's the opposite, not just of the review, but even of the emphasized quote. Again, I can understand without the context of the study, perhaps it's better not to call it long or short term, but when the quote says "Treatment 1 is more effective than Treatment 2", and the summary says, "Treatment 1 only has weak evidence, and not any better than no treatment at all", I hope you can see the problem. Weak evidence, by the way, refers to the quality of the evidence, not the effect size, and the same paragraph the quote comes from describes weak and moderate evidence, so "only" weak evidence is either editorial (emphasizing the weak instead of letting "weak" stand for itself), or false (stating there is nothing but weak evidence). Dbhall2(talkcontribs)
By the way, earlier I took out "more" from my rewording, even though it is exactly what the review says, and added more wording about how the weight loss is less over longer periods of time, to try to bring the wording more in line with what you were looking for. I think currently it's a reasonable compromise. I just can't agree to wording that is false (e.g., that the comparison was not dieting).Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Katz source says nothing about "other authors", this is your editrorial. As to the review, you're picking the "0.1% to 2.9%" from the middle of the article, ignoring its wider caveats and conclusions - and Atkins was not in their short list of diets which had reasonable evidence of long-term efficacy. Alexbrn (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Katz IS the other author. It's an editorial by Katz. Katz is not Astrup, therefore other authors. I'm summarizing the source you chose (the nutritional nonsense source), not a source I chose, in order to help you get more of the point of view you want and to try to move toward a compromise in this talk section. Katz would be seen by some as biased, but I happen to like him. He's a little bombastic, but all in all does a generally good job at synthesizing the data. He does, after all, say Atkins' theory of a metabolic advantage is nonsense, and is generally not happy with the idea that weight loss is seen as stand alone metric for its health benefits. Please feel free to edit or remove the bit on Katz if you don't like it. It seems like when I add things in to try to help you get more support for your point of view you don't like it. I'm perfectly fine with you editing that to fit what you believe would be best, so long as it actually fits the reference, (which I hope you read).Dbhall2(talk)
Re: the summary of the Gudzune review, If you look at the history, I didn't pick the 0.1% to 2.9% quote. That is was [[User::Doc James]] choice (to add it as a portion of the reference), and presumably some other user's choice to include it later in the body. I haven't picked any of the references here. I'm just trying to get the text to match what the references say. Though I didn't pick that quote, it is a good choice for a summary quote. It's exactly the quantitative summary of all the studies of the Atkins diet found in a systematic search of the literature. It is the intention to treat analysis done by the reviewers, not of one study, but of all the studies the reviewers found using a systematic search and categorized as Atkins vs. behavioral counseling for weight loss. I have no dog in this fight. You do. You say it's a fraud. There are scientists who agree with you that there are problems with an Atkins diet, so you can find a large number of editorials, and summarize them accurately in the appropriate section. I would just like to make sure that in the effectiveness section we summarize the evidence. This involves reading the references, understanding the methods, and sticking to what they say. I haven't added any new references, and I haven't removed any references. I just came upon this article the other day when a student said something about twitter being responsible for Atkins and I wanted to double check my recollection that it became popular in the early 2000s. I know the Gudzune review pretty well. I use it as an example in my lectures. I saw the errors in the way it was being summarized so I tried to fix them. If they were errors the other direction, I would have done the same. Please read the whole review and maybe look up things you don't understand about the methods, or ask here if you'd like, before you tell me I'm cherry picking a quote that I didn't even pick. I have spent way more time on this than I intended, but a lot of people use wikipedia, and I think it's important that it has accurate informationDbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, re compared to not dieting at all, there is actually a review that compares low carbohydrate diets (and other diets) to not dieting at all at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25182101 (Sorry, I'm having a hard time with inserting the link using the proper syntax) I don't think it's as relevant here because it analyzes all low carb diets as one. You could make a case for including it here if you want, but it wouldn't support that statement (Atkins was no better than not dieting) either. It showed low carbohydrate (and low fat, for that matter) to be superior to not dieting (for weight loss).Dbhall2(talk)
I missed your earlier suggestion about wording. You said we could say: "there is only weak evidence the diet is effective for aiding weight loss in the short term, and no good evidence it is effective in the longer term". I would change it to "A systematic review of commercial weight loss programs concluded that there is weak evidence that the Atkins diet is more effective for weight loss than behavioral counseling in the short term (3, 6, and 12 months). The effect size, or additional weight lost vs. the comparison, was less with longer terms (12 vs. 6 months). Studies over 24 months had a higher risk of bias and weren't analyzed because they didn't report needed information." That's neutral, sticks to the facts, but pretty jargony. Suggestions?Dbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


Alexbrn please don't make your suggested edits to the effectiveness section without consensus. This is actively being discussed here in talk. In your edit summary of the revert you say that you changed it because it's problematic to make the statement without the caveats mentioned in the review. The caveat mentioned in the review is that the evidence is weak. That is part of text that you changed. It has always said weak evidence. Can you please identify the caveat in the review that you think isn't being appropriately summarized? Dbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


I modified your suggestion about the wording above in the 22:04, 14 Feb comment. It's problem is that it is a little to jargony, so I asked for your input. I think we can come to an agreement here, and then make the edit. It seems to me like we're on the right path here. Let's just stick with the process. Dbhall2(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Right - we generally don't include jargon (so not "a systematic review found ...") but write simply in plain English for the lay reader. You keep inserting your preferred text claiming it can't be altered without consensus (which you somehow have?) I am pinging WT:MED for further input. I am unhappy we are relaying claims without accounting for the caveats in the cited source (e.g. "While Atkins appears promising, we interpret these findings cautiously as the delivery of Atkins in many trials included in the prior meta-analysis and in this study may be different from the typical patient experience.") We are citing research of the diet used in a professional setting when our readers will nearly all be casual dieters, and interpret our text in the light of that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


Alexbrn I agree with your edit to the first sentence, by the way. "questionable" matches the source better. Dbhall2(talk) 18:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


I think weak evidence shows the caveats, but i'd be happy with something about how the conditions in the review were not typical of the what a dieter on their own would experience. Let me come up with something here... Dbhall2(talk) 18:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I'm not always reinsterting the same text. I haven't touched this section since I was alerted to the talk, except when you changed the previous text to your suggested wording while we were in the middle of coming to a consensus here.
To communicate the concern of the reviewer in the conclusion, how about we have it read as follows:
"The Atkins diet is promoted with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is the "key" to weight loss,[2]. There is weak evidence that the Atkins diet is more effective than behavioral counseling for weight loss at 6-12 months.[3] As with other commercial weight loss programs, the effect size is smaller over longer periods.[3][4] The reviewer urged clinicians use caution when prescribing the Atkins diet without the support of a dietician [3]."Dbhall2(talk) 18:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Suggestions? How do you think we should communicate that concern?
I'd add that your wording didn't say anything about the caveats you say you're concerned about as well. With your edit, it sounded like you just wanted it to read as a straight condemnation of the diet, when that's not what the review (which I didn't choose) says. Now we're moving forward again, since you've identified a caveat that you'd like the language to include. Lets come to an agreement, THEN make the edit. Dbhall2(talk) 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I liked my wording which you reverted. As to your proposal I am bamboozled: how do we get "The reviewer urged clinicians use caution when prescribing the Atkins diet without the support of a dietician". I don't know how to parse this (e.g. who is "the reviewer" - and how do we get to considering "prescriptions" for this diet when the Atkins diet isn't recommended by the review?). Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you make a suggestion that describes the actual caveat (rather than just uses more negative language)? I.e., can you make a suggestion that describes what Gudzune says, which is this
"While Atkins appears promising, we interpret these findings cautiously as the delivery of Atkins in many trials included in the prior meta-analysis and in this study may be different from the typical patient experience. For example, trials often relied upon registered dieticians to deliver counseling and dietary guidance on Atkins. " Dbhall2(talk) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd add that I think you're misreading the review. It presents positive evidence for the Atkins effectiveness for weight loss, which it recommends interpreting cautiously, especially if clinicians don't use the conditions similar to those in the studies. This is pretty standard language, and well summarized by the phrase "weak evidence". It's not a negative review of Atkins, but you seem to think it is. Maybe that's why we're having a hard time agreeing. Weight watchers and Jenny Craig are recommended over Atkins, as they have longer term data, require fewer clinician resources (they come with nutritional support), but the studies also have a moderate to high risk of bias. I wouldn't be against a more thorough description of this and other reviews that put Atkins in the context of other commercial weight loss programs, but I think you're drawing a conclusion (Atkins is bad) that isn't in the reference, and trying to use language that describes it as bad. Just describe the evidence and let readers draw the conclusion.Dbhall2(talk) 19:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I never put "Atkins is bad" (though from RS we know its premise is nonsense). I'm having a hard time relating your interpretation of things, to what those things actually say. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're having a hard time understanding my interpretation of things. I teach interpretation of medical literature to clinicians, so maybe I should take that to heart and work on simplifying. Since you're having a hard time understanding me, why don't you make a suggestion of how you would word the language the reviewer actually says (quoted above), and we can go from there. Dbhall2(talk) 19:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd add that you've made your point of view very clear at the top of this talk page. You said "we need to be plain, It's all a bit of fraud".Dbhall2(talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That's on the Talk page (are you trying to confuse things?), and it's just a fact (see Katz). It's why we need to be careful about presenting the evidence, not inventing stuff about prescriptions and so on. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
agree w/ Alexbrn(responding to post at [4]}--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I said it was on the talk page. There is no attempt to confuse things. The point is that you have a non neutral point of view personally. You think it's a fraud. The Katz reference doesn't say it's a fraud, but that the proposed mechanism for the weight loss is nonsense. Katz agrees that the weight loss is real. Again, I'd like us to collaborate here. You don't like the way I suggested summarizing the caveat in the reference. Please suggest a way to summarize it that you like, just make sure it aligns with the reference. I'll quote it again.
"While Atkins appears promising, we interpret these findings cautiously as the delivery of Atkins in many trials included in the prior meta-analysis and in this study may be different from the typical patient experience. For example, trials often relied upon registered dieticians to deliver counseling and dietary guidance on Atkins. " Dbhall2(talk) 22:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How about

"There is weak evidence that the Atkins diet is more effective than behavioral counseling for weight loss at 6-12 months.[3] These benefits often required a registered dietitian providing counselling to achieve.[3]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that'd be an improvement, if we keep the lede as-is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this new edit to the effectiveness section accurately summarizes the review and support its inclusion in the summary of evidence section. I didn't notice the lead until now. I don't believe it is accurate, especially since it contains the false statement that there is no evidence over the longer term. It's easy to run into trouble when you start saying something doesn't exist, especially if the source you cite doesn't say that. Neither source says that, so the absence of evidence is your original research. What source 4 (Astrup) does say in the 2004 editorial, is:
"Even though it appears, as claimed, to promote weight loss and prevention of weight gain without hunger, at least in the short term, the long-term effects *on health and disease prevention* are still unknown.... the crucial point is that there is still *insufficient* information to determine whether the beneficial effects of this diet outweigh potential adverse effects in the long term." (Emphasis mine)
In the 14 years since 2004, we have longer term evidence (reviewed in Gudzune). It's just lower quality (only completers reported) and equivocal re: whether Atkins dieters lose more than the control dieters. There is also weak evidence for longer term weight loss in other more recent reviews. That evidence, of course, has its own problems, but it exists.
Despite the new evidence, though, I think Astrup's 2004 conclusion still holds: Atkins dieters lose weight, but there is still *insufficient* evidence supporting an overall health benefit, and insufficient evidence against an overall health harm. I hope you can see that this editing dispute isn't about trying to put a positive spin on Atkins, but rather about being accurate in how we criticize. If you tell people there is no evidence, when in fact there is evidence, you lose credibility. Similarly, if you tell people Atkins doesn't help people lose weight, when the evidence shows it does, you also lose credibility. The issue isn't the weight loss, it's the overall effect on health. It may seem like a subtle point, but it's really not. From my perspective on the literature, the problems with Atkins are as follows: the proposed mechanism doesn't hold water, and the marketing claims (a lifetime approach to good health) have insufficient evidence to back them up. At this point, I'm tired of arguing with you. I would like the lead to read "insufficient" instead of "no", and again, adding "only" to weak evidence is problematic, and straight out of the wikipedia example for improper editorial synthesis, but I don't feel like making more of a stink about it. Again, I agree with Doc James' suggestion for this section. Lets incorporate it.Dbhall2(talk)22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't use old reviews to undercut newer ones. The Gudzune review does consider long-term (>12 month) efficacy and Atkins is not among those considered to have supporting evidence for this, so "no evidence" in this case seems right. As to "only", WP:PSCI requires us to contextualize pseudoscientific notions with a mainstream view, so linking the nonsensical claims of Atkins to the actual findings is good per this neutrality policy. Alexbrn (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, seriously? How do you see the conclusion reached by the others users in this talk and conclude that you have consensus to edit this to say "There is however no good evidence for the diet's effectiveness in helping achieve weight loss"? That is not what Gudzune says. Astrup (YOUR source, not mine) says there is insufficient evidence for it's long term benefit for health. Gudzune says there is weak evidence that Atkins is better than control diets at helping with weight loss. It's poor editorial synthesis to change that to "there is no good evidence for weight loss." Again, if you say that, you lose credibility. The evidence does not support it's benefit for overall health, but it definitely comes down on the side of losing weight then not, especially in the short term (3-6 months). Gudzune is not pseudoscience. Dr. Atkins' book is, but we're not covering the book, we're covering the diet as it performs in credible studies. I was OK leaving the lead as you wrote it previously, even though I didn't think it was the most accurate thing to say, but you really ran with it. Dbhall2(talk) 05:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI, Astrup and Gudzune are not in conflict. They make different statements that are consistent. If you want the lead to say "there is no good evidence for overall health benefits of the Atkins diet", I don't have a problem with that. You could cite Katz, Astrup, and Gudzune on that statement, as they are all in agreement there. Just don't say there is no good evidence for weight loss without clarifying that the sum of the available evidence is actually in favor of weight loss. Otherwise this article's important and true criticisms of the diet lose credibility. Dbhall2(talk) 06:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
We tend not to use old reviews when newer are available. "No good evidence" is a good paraphrase of the "weak evidence with caveats" (what we effectively have). Why are you invoking pseudoscience wrt Gudzune? It obviously isn't apt. The present lede is okay though. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"NPOV dispute"[edit]

not proving productive. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"NPOV dispute"

The entire article reads as an anti-Atkins forum post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please provide specific evidence and examples. Otherwise, there is no NPOV dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling it a fad diet, from jump street is a starter. There's nothing to back that up other than non-expert opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Further, the whole field of weight-loss and nutrition is NOT settled science. You gonna call Atkins a, "fad" diet, call them ALL fad diets. The entire article is obviously biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And if you want me to DESTROY this article line by line, I will.

"The Atkins diet is classified as a low-carbohydrate fad diet." Wrong.

6 Reasons to Stop Calling Low-Carb a "Fad" Diet

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-to-stop-calling-low-carb-a-fad

"The diet is marketed with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is critical to weight loss." Wrong. Even the Federal Government is changing their advice on carbohydrate intake.

https://oregon.providence.org/forms-and-information/a/ask-an-expert-changes-to-the-food-pyramid-s-carb-recommendations/

I could go on, and will. Do not take the NPOV dispute off this article. I will post more tomorrow.

Please do not bring unreliable sources here. The article follows reliable sources on this diet. If RS call this diet a fad diet, so shall Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article does The Mayo Clinic call Atkins a "fad diet". At the very least, it's disputed and the NPOV tag should remain. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/atkins-diet/art-20048485 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


I've done some research and found that there's not an official list of fad diets, as per The Centers For Disease Control (CDC), The United States Department of Agriculutre (USDA, same people who publish the My Plate guidelines), or any other Federal agency that I can find. It's all opinion, not settled science. This article, and all the articles on diet and nutrition ARE DISPUTED, NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say. They say it's a fad diet (hardly an unusual claim seeing as it fits the definition well), and so Wikipedia does too. Suggest we're done here. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just the thing, that's not a reliable source. And it's disputed by reliable sources. I suggest we're not done here. What you going to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

And so, in the face of conflicting sources, one you say is reliable, which I doubt the veracity of, and others of which there is no doubt they are reliable, what do you do? Here's a bit more, definitely a reliable source...

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_pseudoscience_in_adult_nutrition_research_and_practice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A reference work published by Routledge is what we generally call a "reliable source" for a simple categorization. Your source does not appear to discuss this topic at all. There are other sources referring to this diet matter-of-factly as a fad, like NHS Choices[5], but it's such an unexceptional little fact we needn't bother adding redundant sourcing. (Also you sound learn to indent and sign your posts). Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Crappy moderation like this is why Wikipedia is and will remain a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.26.29.6 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Study Cited[edit]

The study cited in first section ("Effectiveness") compares users of the Atkins Diet to a control group that received behavioral counseling for weight loss. Perhaps there would be a better study to compare it to when assessing the overall 'effectiveness' of the diet. A control group that may have had no behavioral counseling could be a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindimine (talkcontribs) 21:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Mindimine, no. The source is a literature review per WP:MEDRS, which was covered in your student training. We don't use individual clinical trial publications as sources. (btw, I moved your comment down here - new comments go at the bottom) Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)