Consumer Reports Rates the Diets

Every time Consumer Reports writes about something I don't know anything about — like cars or mattresses — I figure they’re giving really good advice. They sure sound like they know what they're talking about. Yet my brother, who is a true expert on cars, thinks they're idiots. My friend — who is in the mattress business — thinks the same thing.

Now that they've written about something I actually know something about, I can understand why.

Consumer Reports rated the diets based on how well they conformed to the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines, which, according to them "represent the current best advice on long-term healthful nutrition." That would be a decent idea if in fact the US Dietary Guidelines were any good. They're not.

Dr. Walt Willett, arguably the most respected nutrition researcher in the country, and Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health called the new USDA Dietary Pyramid "a lost opportunity to help Americans make informed choices about diet and long-term health." I call it a triumph of politics and food industry lobbying. I'm sure the American Dietetic Association thinks it's just peachy. (They’re the same folks who think supplements just make expensive urine.)

So Consumer Reports doesn't like Atkins because it doesn't have enough bread and grains. It likes Weight Watchers because it's low fat. It calls the Zone a "high protein" diet, even though the majority of its calories come from carbs. And it actually likes and recommends Slim Fast because... well, you'd have to ask them. Slim Fast was rated the "number 2" diet in the land. I suppose a diet of chemical goo in a can that contains 17 grams of sugar meets the requirements of the USDA Nutritional Guidelines for being low in fat. Who knows?

I'm going to be a little more skeptical the next time I read the Consumer Reports ratings on digital cameras.