This is probably the worst article I have ever read. As others have mentioned there is no scientific evidence backing up the title. Semi-starvation diets (low calorie) have continually been proven ineffective. Watch this video for some great information on the history of obesity and why Dr. Atkins book was shunned for 30 years. A little long and dry but awesome research.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#

"In fact, the incidence of overweight and obesity in the lowest-carb-intake group was 65 percent, while it was just 51 percent in the highest-carb group"

... think that might, I don't know, have something to do with the fact that people following a low carb diet are trying to lose weight? I could just as easily do a study and prove that people who are on a diet weight more than those who are not. Should my conclusion be that you shouldn't diet to lose weight?

My son and I have had weight loss success on the Fat Flush plan by Ann Louise Gittleman. It's heavy on fruits and vegetable plus the animal protein your article critiques. My son lost 30 pounds and I lost 25 lbs. He was the obese one, I just went on the diet with him because it was easier to cook the same for both of us. I went from a size 16 to a size 10. The Fat Flush is a low carb diet and it works.

You wrote "They found that people with higher intakes of carbohydrates ate fewer calories but more protein, fat, and fiber than low-carb eaters consumed."

It's impossible to eat more carbs, protein, and fat but at the same time eat fewer calories. Was that a misquote?

That said, a low-carb diet is fine to jump-start weight loss if that's what helps you do it. It's just not a great long-term strategy for health.

What is wrong with balance?

What a load of horse pucky! I am amazed Rodale would print something like that. The only thing that would make a low carber fat is binging on carbs!!

Americans just eat too much. Diabetics should eat proportions of proteins just like any other foods...but carbs are another choice...135 carb count a day for women and 145 for men...after midnight a new day starts...the better choice carbs with more nutrition and whole grains vs. lighter breads , brown rice vs. white rice, whole orange or apple vs. juices so that you have something to slow down the digestive process will help but the carb count is the same. Most Americans need only 1200 ca. diet to live on and most diabetics should space their meals out into 6 meals a day and then they would be able to keep their blood sugar levels steady, not feel hungry all day. If they get hungry, they can always eat a salad--no carbs there! I say, get educated, not get fat!

Never mind the FACT that low carb diets are very helpful to diabetics trying to keep their blood sugar levels in a reasonable range. Low carb diets do not always lead to high calorie diets. This kind of sensationalism is very annoying to those of us who live well and healthy on a low carb diet.

Right! Let's all dig into a raw hunk of meat marbled with fat like the man in the picture - after all, that's what low-carbbers do!

And on the basis of one (small) study we correlate low carbbing with obesity - when maybe some of these people aren't low carbbing with the idea of losing weight - they just dont' like/won't eat veggies, and fruit - of which many are low carb and healthy. And all reprutable low carb diet systems employ.

Or - maybe some of these people have lost weight. Yes, they're still obese, but not as obese as they were before they started low-carbbing.

But if we check for these factors, we lose the sensationalism of our story! And lose another opportunity (God forbid!) to flog Low Carb.

We must be mainstream at all cost!

It's the old trick of using an extreme position to make the entire concept look ludicrous. Happens to the low carb community all the time. I'm sorry Rodale has stooped to such low levels.