The answer from this article, in terms of calories burned, seems to be low carb followed by low glycemic index/Mediterranean with low fat coming in last--meaning you lose more weight eating the same amount on calories on the lower carb diets than the lower fat diets.
The increase in CRP has not been shown in other "real world" studies in which the diet content was not so well controlled. Here is a slide from the NEJM article I site below that shows better CRP on Atkins and Mediterranean than low fat
My suspicion is that the 10% carbs is likely too low, and can only be achieved in a metabolic unit of a hospital, as done in this study. In the real world, actual percentages of carbohydrates/protein/fat obtained on an Atkins diet were 18/34/56 % and likewise, the amount of fat in the Ornish diet obtained, was not less then 20% of calories, despite a goal of 10%. I am basing this on the A to Z study of Atkins, Learn, Ornish, and Zone diets. (The Zone diet is a lower glycemic index, 40/30/30 diet, more Mediterranean-like).
Here is a slide of real world, longer term intakes from the A-Z trial
Again, one more study showing the same thing:
So, most people will not be able to be achieve the fat goals on a low fat diet (i.e. real world Ornish). Also, most people, when told to eat a lot more fat and protein and much less carbs cannot actually do that as well as they are instructed (i.e. real world Atkins). It is evident though that trying to lower carbohydrates and achieving a 18% calorie intake of carbs, and even up to 35% in the long run is still metabolically distinguishable from a 20% fat diet, and I would argue an improvement regarding several outcomes, chiefly weight, but more importantly blood sugar control.
'via Blog this'
