Consumer Reports Rates Diets
Meetings and shakes beat counting carbs when it comes to long-term weight loss, according to a
recent analysis of diets by Consumer Reports magazine.
The publication, best known for rating cars and electronics, put Weight Watchers, with its support
group meetings, and Slim-Fast, whose shakes let you opt out of cooking, at the top of the heap.
The ratings were based on pounds lost, nutrition, how easy the diet was to follow and dropout rates
after six months and a year.
RATING THE DIETS
Consumer Reports' review of popular diets examined nutrition, weight loss and dropout levels. CR
used icons to illustrate its findings. The AP converted that to a 1-5 rating system with 5 being best
and 1 the worst. The time shown here is over one year; findings for six months varied slightly:
Weight Watchers: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 4.
Slim-Fast: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 4; dropout rate, 1.
Zone: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 2.
Ornish: Nutrition, 3; weight loss, 4; dropout rate, 1.
Atkins: Nutrition, 1; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 2.
Though low-carb diets have dominated headlines, the highest marks went to Weight Watchers,
which uses weekly meetings to reinforce its decidedly simple philosophy -- eat less and exercise
more. After a year, its followers were far more likely to stick with the plan.
Weight Watchers did not, however, earn the strongest scores on weight loss, a distinction that went
to second-ranked Slim-Fast, which replaces parts of two meals a day with shakes and bars.
Atkins, which has led the low-carb charge, got good scores for short-term weight loss, but landed at
the bottom of the ratings because of poor marks on retention and nutrition.
The report, released in the magazine's June issue, said the Atkins diet calls for too much fat and
saturated fat, too few fruits, too little fiber and "might have a negative effect on some dieters' health."
Colette Heimowitz, vice president of education and research at Atkins Nutritionals, criticized the
study, saying it focused only on Atkins' weight-loss components, ignoring its more flexible weight
maintenance stages.
The magazine's conclusions are based on a review of published clinical research on each diet, and
a nutrient and calorie analysis of a week's worth of menus, including how closely they follow federal
dietary guidelines.
Heimowitz took issue with the use of the federal guidelines as a way to evaluate the diets, saying
those standards are intended for maintaining a healthy weight, not losing fat.
All of the diets reviewed are low enough in calories to produce results, but success relies on sticking
to the plan, said Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports.
That accounts for the strong showing by Weight Watchers, which backs up a flexible, low-calorie,
low-fat approach with weekly motivational meetings, Metcalf said.
"We are not necessarily the fastest kids in town, but we're livable and sustainable, and we feel that's
very important," said Karen Miller-Kovach, chief scientist at Weight Watchers.
Slim-Fast, which sells its bars and beverages in grocery and drug stores, was praised for its ease
and balanced nutrition. Its retention matched Weight Watchers' during the first six months, but then
dropped considerably.
The high-protein "Zone" diet, from a book by Dr. Barry Sears, was the magazine's No. 3 program.
Though its followers tended to drop out over time, the diet earned points for having considerably
less fat than the Atkins approach.
The fourth-ranked ultra-low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian Ornish diet, from Dr. Dean Ornish, had the
worst retention rate, though it had good long-term weight loss and was praised as a treatment for
heart disease.
Thomas Wadden, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert, said the ratings seem sound, but
noted the challenge of making comparisons when some diets involve structured meetings and
others are do-it-yourself.
He added that the Atkins diet might have ranked better if weight loss was the only criterion. But
Wadden said the magazine rightly considered the overall healthfulness of the diets' approaches.
Four other programs, Internet-based eDiets, Jenny Craig, South Beach and Volumetrics, were
included in the review, but not ranked because not enough independent clinical studies had been
done on them to allow comparison, the magazine said.
US Dietary Association
Food and Nutrition Information Center, USDA/National Agricultural Library, Room 304, 10301
Baltimore Boulevard, Beltsville, MD 20705-2351.
Date Published: 2005-06-01
Meetings and shakes beat counting carbs when it comes to long-term weight loss, according to a
recent analysis of diets by Consumer Reports magazine.
The publication, best known for rating cars and electronics, put Weight Watchers, with its support
group meetings, and Slim-Fast, whose shakes let you opt out of cooking, at the top of the heap.
The ratings were based on pounds lost, nutrition, how easy the diet was to follow and dropout rates
after six months and a year.
RATING THE DIETS
Consumer Reports' review of popular diets examined nutrition, weight loss and dropout levels. CR
used icons to illustrate its findings. The AP converted that to a 1-5 rating system with 5 being best
and 1 the worst. The time shown here is over one year; findings for six months varied slightly:
Weight Watchers: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 4.
Slim-Fast: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 4; dropout rate, 1.
Zone: Nutrition, 5; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 2.
Ornish: Nutrition, 3; weight loss, 4; dropout rate, 1.
Atkins: Nutrition, 1; weight loss, 3; dropout rate, 2.
Though low-carb diets have dominated headlines, the highest marks went to Weight Watchers,
which uses weekly meetings to reinforce its decidedly simple philosophy -- eat less and exercise
more. After a year, its followers were far more likely to stick with the plan.
Weight Watchers did not, however, earn the strongest scores on weight loss, a distinction that went
to second-ranked Slim-Fast, which replaces parts of two meals a day with shakes and bars.
Atkins, which has led the low-carb charge, got good scores for short-term weight loss, but landed at
the bottom of the ratings because of poor marks on retention and nutrition.
The report, released in the magazine's June issue, said the Atkins diet calls for too much fat and
saturated fat, too few fruits, too little fiber and "might have a negative effect on some dieters' health."
Colette Heimowitz, vice president of education and research at Atkins Nutritionals, criticized the
study, saying it focused only on Atkins' weight-loss components, ignoring its more flexible weight
maintenance stages.
The magazine's conclusions are based on a review of published clinical research on each diet, and
a nutrient and calorie analysis of a week's worth of menus, including how closely they follow federal
dietary guidelines.
Heimowitz took issue with the use of the federal guidelines as a way to evaluate the diets, saying
those standards are intended for maintaining a healthy weight, not losing fat.
All of the diets reviewed are low enough in calories to produce results, but success relies on sticking
to the plan, said Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports.
That accounts for the strong showing by Weight Watchers, which backs up a flexible, low-calorie,
low-fat approach with weekly motivational meetings, Metcalf said.
"We are not necessarily the fastest kids in town, but we're livable and sustainable, and we feel that's
very important," said Karen Miller-Kovach, chief scientist at Weight Watchers.
Slim-Fast, which sells its bars and beverages in grocery and drug stores, was praised for its ease
and balanced nutrition. Its retention matched Weight Watchers' during the first six months, but then
dropped considerably.
The high-protein "Zone" diet, from a book by Dr. Barry Sears, was the magazine's No. 3 program.
Though its followers tended to drop out over time, the diet earned points for having considerably
less fat than the Atkins approach.
The fourth-ranked ultra-low-fat, high-fiber vegetarian Ornish diet, from Dr. Dean Ornish, had the
worst retention rate, though it had good long-term weight loss and was praised as a treatment for
heart disease.
Thomas Wadden, a University of Pennsylvania weight loss expert, said the ratings seem sound, but
noted the challenge of making comparisons when some diets involve structured meetings and
others are do-it-yourself.
He added that the Atkins diet might have ranked better if weight loss was the only criterion. But
Wadden said the magazine rightly considered the overall healthfulness of the diets' approaches.
Four other programs, Internet-based eDiets, Jenny Craig, South Beach and Volumetrics, were
included in the review, but not ranked because not enough independent clinical studies had been
done on them to allow comparison, the magazine said.
US Dietary Association
Food and Nutrition Information Center, USDA/National Agricultural Library, Room 304, 10301
Baltimore Boulevard, Beltsville, MD 20705-2351.
Date Published: 2005-06-01
| Savannah Chiropractic Center |
| (912) 356-0031 |
| (912) 356-5471 |
