Consumer reports rates diets

Bob M said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html

Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?) Yet
one more reason I can't buy or trust consumer reports.

I read the original CU article.

It didn't appear to me that the original article had this highly
negative Atkins slant to it. DEAD LAST

I suspect that the news writer (CNN?) "improved" the CU article for
publication.

don't you feel insulted when they tell you your not eating enough fruits and
veggies! I bet my salad is bigger than their salad-and a whole lot more
interesting.

diane

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html

Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?) Yet one
more reason I can't buy or trust consumer reports.

--
Bob M
remove ".x" to reply

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html

Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?) Yet one
more reason I can't buy or trust consumer reports.

--
Bob M
remove ".x" to reply

The relationship between CNN and reality is tenuous at best. Don't blame
Consumer Reports.

Alice Faber said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

jbuch said:

Bob M said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html

Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?) Yet

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* .

Sounds like of biased opinion to me. If your ranking diets based on low
fat, atkins will lose all the time.

Bunky42 wrote:
:: Alice Faber wrote:
::: In article <[email hidden]>,
::: jbuch <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::
:::
:::: Bob M wrote:
::::
:::::
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html
:::::
:::::
:::::
::::: Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?)
::::: Yet
::
::
:: 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* .
::
::
:: Sounds like of biased opinion to me. If your ranking diets based on
:: low fat, atkins will lose all the time.

Of course....but their ranking are based more on some equally vague notion
of a "balanced diet." IMO.

Bunky42 wrote:
|| Alice Faber wrote:
||| In article <[email hidden]>,
||| jbuch <[email hidden]> wrote:
|||
|||
|||| Bob M wrote:
||||
|||||
http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html
|||||
|||||
|||||
||||| Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?)
||||| Yet
||
||
|| 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* .
||
||
|| Sounds like of biased opinion to me. If your ranking diets based on
|| low fat, atkins will lose all the time.

Not biased, just *yawn* outdated and ignorant.

--
Peter
Website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:23:05 -0400, "Marengo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

|| Sounds like of biased opinion to me. If your ranking diets based on
|| low fat, atkins will lose all the time.

Quoted message said:

Not biased, just *yawn* outdated and ignorant.

Actually, "biased" sounds like a perfectly accurate description. The
Atkins diet was downrated by Consumers Reports because of how far away
it was from the Federal Guidelines on consumption of fat. They have
no data to show that there =are= any additional health problems, yet
they claim that it =might= involve health problems because of the
extra fat and therefore downrate it. No proof, just this vague "fat
is bad" holdover from 40 years ago.

This sounds like discrimination to me, pure and simple. Seems to me
we're supposed to be against that in this country. You aren't allowed
to discriminate against hiring someone for a job because they are
"Different". You can't discriminate because they are Black, or Asian,
or Female, or Gay, or for any other reason involving them being
"Different". You can, of course, decide not to hire them if they
can't perform the job. But that's not the case here. Consumers
Reports admits that Atkins =does= perform the job and does it well,
yet they still refuse to rate it highly because it is "Different" from
the Federal Guidelines.

For a company that is supposed to rely on =actual test results= to
rate things, discrimination because it is "Different" is shameful.

Harold Groot said:

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:23:05 -0400, "Marengo" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

|| Sounds like of biased opinion to me. If your ranking diets based on
|| low fat, atkins will lose all the time.

Quoted message said:

Not biased, just *yawn* outdated and ignorant.

Actually, "biased" sounds like a perfectly accurate description. The
Atkins diet was downrated by Consumers Reports because of how far away
it was from the Federal Guidelines on consumption of fat. They have
no data to show that there =are= any additional health problems, yet
they claim that it =might= involve health problems because of the
extra fat and therefore downrate it. No proof, just this vague "fat
is bad" holdover from 40 years ago.

This sounds like discrimination to me, pure and simple. Seems to me
we're supposed to be against that in this country. You aren't allowed
to discriminate against hiring someone for a job because they are
"Different". You can't discriminate because they are Black, or Asian,
or Female, or Gay, or for any other reason involving them being
"Different". You can, of course, decide not to hire them if they
can't perform the job. But that's not the case here. Consumers
Reports admits that Atkins =does= perform the job and does it well,
yet they still refuse to rate it highly because it is "Different" from
the Federal Guidelines.

For a company that is supposed to rely on =actual test results= to
rate things, discrimination because it is "Different" is shameful.

In America (USA) discrimination for being "Different" is quite widespread.

If you lived on the West or East coast of the USA and moved to the
Midwest, you would find a lot of rejection of your "Different Oddball"
ideas.

In many parts of the Midwest, the only proper way to live is in a house,
not a "Condominiumm fer Christs sake".

Racism ...... Place-ism.....

So long as you can be put down for being different, somebody will go and
do it.

Bob M said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/diet.fitness/05/11/rating.diets.ap/index.html

Atkins? Dead last! (A "nutrition" of "1", which is the lowest?) Yet
one more reason I can't buy or trust consumer reports.

If you read the REAL Consumers Reports article, you can actually learn
stuff.

At one point they define a GOOD DIET = One You Can Stay With.

They stated four major principles of dieting.

1) Bulky, low calorie foods (Volumetrics, Ornish low fat)
2) Control Blood Sugar (Atkins, South Beach, Zone)
3) Measured Portions (Slimfast, Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers)
4) Encouragement (Personal support, Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig)
...... Support was rated as about the most important thing.

Several years ago, they did a weight loss survey of their customers who
had successfully lost weight and kept it off. Since it was a Reader
Option for participation, it is not a random statistical sample.

They claimed 8,000 replies of successful weight loss results.

"My Own Diet and Exercise Regimen" - one the dieter made up themselves -
was the most common by far for this sample of successful weight reducers.

- Few had ever attended a commercial program

- Less than 1/3 had bothered to consult "Popular" diet books.

A number of successful weight reducers here seem to fall into the "My
Own DIet/Exercise Invention" grouping.

There could be a good reason for such success.

Harold Groot said:

For a company that is supposed to rely on =actual test results= to
rate things, discrimination because it is "Different" is shameful.

I think there is a very strong CYA aspect. When you are talking about
health stuff there is a very strong attraction to citing and agreeing
with authorities so you don't leave yourself open to lawsuits.

Sherry said:

"jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you read the REAL Consumers Reports article, you can actually learn
stuff.

At one point they define a GOOD DIET = One You Can Stay With.

They stated four major principles of dieting.

1) Bulky, low calorie foods (Volumetrics, Ornish low fat)
2) Control Blood Sugar (Atkins, South Beach, Zone)
3) Measured Portions (Slimfast, Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers)
4) Encouragement (Personal support, Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig)
..... Support was rated as about the most important thing.

Several years ago, they did a weight loss survey of their customers who
had successfully lost weight and kept it off. Since it was a Reader
Option for participation, it is not a random statistical sample.

They claimed 8,000 replies of successful weight loss results.

"My Own Diet and Exercise Regimen" - one the dieter made up themselves -
was the most common by far for this sample of successful weight reducers.

- Few had ever attended a commercial program

- Less than 1/3 had bothered to consult "Popular" diet books.

A number of successful weight reducers here seem to fall into the "My
Own DIet/Exercise Invention" grouping.

There could be a good reason for such success.

This makes more sense than most things I've read about the whys and
wherefores of weight loss. In the past (30ish years ago) I lost 60 lbs in 6
months by a "diet" of my own invention...a few years later when I had to
lose 40 more, I created another "diet" for myself, and lost it within 2
months. They worked because they were tailored to the foods I liked and my
lifestyle, eating habits, schedule, etc. In the first case, I was at
college living in the dorms, and made myself a list of a few dozen
"mini-meals" made up of foods I could keep in my dorm room. By avoiding the
cafeteria totally and just eating about 5 mini-meals each day between
classes the weight fell off - it fit my lifestyle. In the 2nd case, I had a
job with really erratic hours and sleep schedule, there were times that I
didn't even get a chance to eat for 24 hours (except quick nibbles) so I
took advantage of that and did a liquid fast those 3 days each week; again,
it fit my lifestyle at the time, and the weight fell off. Because both
plans were good for weight loss but not good for the long haul, I regained
of course...very slowly, but still regained.

Given that nobody knows every facet of a person's life better than that
person, I can certainly see why this would be so...ie, Atkins would be
pretty tough to follow for someone who hates dairy and salads but loves
fruit and grains. And that is why, although I've taken information from
several different LC plans, I know I will be successful this time again - I
tailored it to suit my likes, dislikes, eating habits (and those of my
family), schedule, and lifestyle so that it can be my "from now on" eating
habit. It seems to me that many of those who weren't successful had chosen
a plan that didn't suit them well enough.

You did very well.

ADVICE From Consumer Reports on dieting went on as follows:

A) Cut out the EASIEST calories first (Sugared soft drinks, outsized
baked goods,.... candy bars...)

B) Choose a safe dietary plan... check with your doctor.... don't strive
for weight loss greater than one (1) or two (2) pounds per week.... have
adequate fiber, water and multivitamins

C) Follow Plan Rules

D) Be ready to switch if it isn't working for you

FIND A DIET YOU CAN FOLLOW (My emphasis).

"jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you read the REAL Consumers Reports article, you can actually learn
stuff.

At one point they define a GOOD DIET = One You Can Stay With.

They stated four major principles of dieting.

1) Bulky, low calorie foods (Volumetrics, Ornish low fat)
2) Control Blood Sugar (Atkins, South Beach, Zone)
3) Measured Portions (Slimfast, Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers)
4) Encouragement (Personal support, Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig)
..... Support was rated as about the most important thing.

Several years ago, they did a weight loss survey of their customers who
had successfully lost weight and kept it off. Since it was a Reader
Option for participation, it is not a random statistical sample.

They claimed 8,000 replies of successful weight loss results.

"My Own Diet and Exercise Regimen" - one the dieter made up themselves -
was the most common by far for this sample of successful weight reducers.

- Few had ever attended a commercial program

- Less than 1/3 had bothered to consult "Popular" diet books.

A number of successful weight reducers here seem to fall into the "My
Own DIet/Exercise Invention" grouping.

There could be a good reason for such success.

This makes more sense than most things I've read about the whys and
wherefores of weight loss. In the past (30ish years ago) I lost 60 lbs in 6
months by a "diet" of my own invention...a few years later when I had to
lose 40 more, I created another "diet" for myself, and lost it within 2
months. They worked because they were tailored to the foods I liked and my
lifestyle, eating habits, schedule, etc. In the first case, I was at
college living in the dorms, and made myself a list of a few dozen
"mini-meals" made up of foods I could keep in my dorm room. By avoiding the
cafeteria totally and just eating about 5 mini-meals each day between
classes the weight fell off - it fit my lifestyle. In the 2nd case, I had a
job with really erratic hours and sleep schedule, there were times that I
didn't even get a chance to eat for 24 hours (except quick nibbles) so I
took advantage of that and did a liquid fast those 3 days each week; again,
it fit my lifestyle at the time, and the weight fell off. Because both
plans were good for weight loss but not good for the long haul, I regained
of course...very slowly, but still regained.

Given that nobody knows every facet of a person's life better than that
person, I can certainly see why this would be so...ie, Atkins would be
pretty tough to follow for someone who hates dairy and salads but loves
fruit and grains. And that is why, although I've taken information from
several different LC plans, I know I will be successful this time again - I
tailored it to suit my likes, dislikes, eating habits (and those of my
family), schedule, and lifestyle so that it can be my "from now on" eating
habit. It seems to me that many of those who weren't successful had chosen
a plan that didn't suit them well enough.

--
Sherry
360/?/195
LC since 4/4/05

Stacey Bender <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> Harold Groot wrote:
:> > For a company that is supposed to rely on =actual test results= to
:> > rate things, discrimination because it is "Different" is shameful.
:>
:> I think there is a very strong CYA aspect. When you are talking about
:> health stuff there is a very strong attraction to citing and agreeing
:> with authorities so you don't leave yourself open to lawsuits.

Absolutly. CYA is very strong in this country...few want to be "out-of-line"
with the authorities....thus, when the "authorities" are wrong it really has
devastating impact...

jbuch <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> Sherry wrote:
:>
:> > "jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:> > news:[email hidden]...
:> >
:> >>If you read the REAL Consumers Reports article, you can actually
:> >>learn stuff.
:> >>
:> >>At one point they define a GOOD DIET = One You Can Stay With.
:> >>
:> >>They stated four major principles of dieting.
:> >>
:> >>1) Bulky, low calorie foods (Volumetrics, Ornish low fat)
:> >>2) Control Blood Sugar (Atkins, South Beach, Zone)
:> >>3) Measured Portions (Slimfast, Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers)
:> >>4) Encouragement (Personal support, Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig)
:> >>..... Support was rated as about the most important thing.
:> >>
:> >>Several years ago, they did a weight loss survey of their
:> >>customers who
:> >>had successfully lost weight and kept it off. Since it was a Reader
:> >>Option for participation, it is not a random statistical sample.
:> >>
:> >>They claimed 8,000 replies of successful weight loss results.
:> >>
:> >>"My Own Diet and Exercise Regimen" - one the dieter made up
:> >>themselves - was the most common by far for this sample of
:> >>successful weight reducers.
:> >>
:> >>- Few had ever attended a commercial program
:> >>
:> >>- Less than 1/3 had bothered to consult "Popular" diet books.
:> >>
:> >>A number of successful weight reducers here seem to fall into the
:> >>"My
:> >>Own DIet/Exercise Invention" grouping.
:> >>
:> >>There could be a good reason for such success.
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> > This makes more sense than most things I've read about the whys and
:> > wherefores of weight loss. In the past (30ish years ago) I lost
:> > 60 lbs in 6 months by a "diet" of my own invention...a few years
:> > later when I had to lose 40 more, I created another "diet" for
:> > myself, and lost it within 2 months. They worked because they
:> > were tailored to the foods I liked and my lifestyle, eating
:> > habits, schedule, etc. In the first case, I was at college living
:> > in the dorms, and made myself a list of a few dozen "mini-meals"
:> > made up of foods I could keep in my dorm room. By avoiding the
:> > cafeteria totally and just eating about 5 mini-meals each day
:> > between classes the weight fell off - it fit my lifestyle. In the
:> > 2nd case, I had a job with really erratic hours and sleep
:> > schedule, there were times that I didn't even get a chance to eat
:> > for 24 hours (except quick nibbles) so I took advantage of that
:> > and did a liquid fast those 3 days each week; again, it fit my
:> > lifestyle at the time, and the weight fell off. Because both
:> > plans were good for weight loss but not good for the long haul, I
:> > regained of course...very slowly, but still regained.
:> >
:> > Given that nobody knows every facet of a person's life better than
:> > that person, I can certainly see why this would be so...ie, Atkins
:> > would be pretty tough to follow for someone who hates dairy and
:> > salads but loves fruit and grains. And that is why, although I've
:> > taken information from several different LC plans, I know I will
:> > be successful this time again - I tailored it to suit my likes,
:> > dislikes, eating habits (and those of my family), schedule, and
:> > lifestyle so that it can be my "from now on" eating habit. It
:> > seems to me that many of those who weren't successful had chosen a
:> > plan that didn't suit them well enough.
:> >
:>
:>
:> You did very well.
:>
:> ADVICE From Consumer Reports on dieting went on as follows:
:>
:> A) Cut out the EASIEST calories first (Sugared soft drinks, outsized
:> baked goods,.... candy bars...)
:>
:> B) Choose a safe dietary plan...

Would this not rule out Atkins?

:> check with your doctor

ugh....

:>.... don't
:> strive
:> for weight loss greater than one (1) or two (2) pounds per week....
:> have adequate fiber, water and multivitamins
:>
:> C) Follow Plan Rules
:>
:> D) Be ready to switch if it isn't working for you
:>
:> FIND A DIET YOU CAN FOLLOW (My emphasis).

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sherry said:

"jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you read the REAL Consumers Reports article, you can actually learn
stuff.

At one point they define a GOOD DIET = One You Can Stay With.

They stated four major principles of dieting.

1) Bulky, low calorie foods (Volumetrics, Ornish low fat)
2) Control Blood Sugar (Atkins, South Beach, Zone)
3) Measured Portions (Slimfast, Jenny Craig, Weightwatchers)
4) Encouragement (Personal support, Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig)
..... Support was rated as about the most important thing.

Several years ago, they did a weight loss survey of their customers who
had successfully lost weight and kept it off. Since it was a Reader
Option for participation, it is not a random statistical sample.

They claimed 8,000 replies of successful weight loss results.

"My Own Diet and Exercise Regimen" - one the dieter made up themselves -
was the most common by far for this sample of successful weight reducers.

- Few had ever attended a commercial program

- Less than 1/3 had bothered to consult "Popular" diet books.

A number of successful weight reducers here seem to fall into the "My
Own DIet/Exercise Invention" grouping.

There could be a good reason for such success.

This makes more sense than most things I've read about the whys and
wherefores of weight loss. In the past (30ish years ago) I lost 60 lbs in 6
months by a "diet" of my own invention...a few years later when I had to
lose 40 more, I created another "diet" for myself, and lost it within 2
months. They worked because they were tailored to the foods I liked and my
lifestyle, eating habits, schedule, etc. In the first case, I was at
college living in the dorms, and made myself a list of a few dozen
"mini-meals" made up of foods I could keep in my dorm room. By avoiding the
cafeteria totally and just eating about 5 mini-meals each day between
classes the weight fell off - it fit my lifestyle. In the 2nd case, I had a
job with really erratic hours and sleep schedule, there were times that I
didn't even get a chance to eat for 24 hours (except quick nibbles) so I
took advantage of that and did a liquid fast those 3 days each week; again,
it fit my lifestyle at the time, and the weight fell off. Because both
plans were good for weight loss but not good for the long haul, I regained
of course...very slowly, but still regained.

Given that nobody knows every facet of a person's life better than that
person, I can certainly see why this would be so...ie, Atkins would be
pretty tough to follow for someone who hates dairy and salads but loves
fruit and grains. And that is why, although I've taken information from
several different LC plans, I know I will be successful this time again - I
tailored it to suit my likes, dislikes, eating habits (and those of my
family), schedule, and lifestyle so that it can be my "from now on" eating
habit. It seems to me that many of those who weren't successful had chosen
a plan that didn't suit them well enough.

That's exactly what they were talking about on Oprah yesterday. She
said something about how no one knows your body better than you do, so
read all the advice and diet books out there, then customize that
information for your own life. She also emphasized staying away from
refined carbohydrates, potatoes, rice, white bread, etc, but recommended
fruits and whole grains.

Perdu <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:41:11 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:> <[email hidden]> said :
:>
:> > :> B) Choose a safe dietary plan...
:> >
:> > Would this not rule out Atkins?
:> >
:> > :> check with your doctor
:> >
:> > ugh....
:>
:> Reverend Zoul! You're preaching!

🙂

Harold Groot said:

This sounds like discrimination to me, pure and simple. Seems to me
we're supposed to be against that in this country. You aren't allowed
to discriminate against hiring someone for a job because they are
"Different". You can't discriminate because they are Black, or Asian,
or Female, or Gay, or for any other reason involving them being
"Different".

You couldn't be more wrong. Anti-discrimination law identifies specific
criteria which can't be used in specific scenarios. "Any other reason"
and "any other situation" is perfectly fine. And I couldn't care less
about "what we're supposed to be against in this country".

Discrimination, as applied to making value judgements between different
products, is an essential part of life, and what CR DOES. If you
don't like their criteria weighting, don't follow their conclusion.

KeS