This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

I believe the editors did the ARCHIVES and the public trust a disservice by publishing the article by Aude et al.¹ While it is possible that this research has something useful to add to the important debate on how to promote weight loss in the United States, the glaring flaws in the study protocol (as published) make its findings entirely speculative.

Specifically, the authors make no mention of controlling for physical activity differences between groups other than to note their inclusion criteria included "willingness and stated ability to adhere to a prescribed diet for 3 months at home without alteration in levels of physical activity."^1(p2142) Nowhere in the article is any mention made as to whether participants were tracked to ensure that their "willingness" translated into action. What proof is there that the modified low-carbohydrate group did not engage in more physical activity compared with the National Cholesterol Education . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Jeff Schlicht, PhD

RELATED ARTICLE

The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat: A Randomized Trial
Y. Wady Aude, Arthur S. Agatston, Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, Eric H. Lieberman, Marie Almon, Melinda Hansen, Gerardo Rojas, Gervasio A. Lamas, and Charles H. Hennekens
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(19):2141-2146.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT