The A-TO-Z experiment contradicts pretty much the whole thing. Rather, this small experiment does not emulate (in its results) one of the best all-time free-range dietary experiments, therefore is suspect on the face of it. I will presume that there were many more subjects enrolled, but only a handful was selected for inclusion in results, with a few dropouts to make it look credible but only as little as possible to enable the use of adherence as a strong factor for choosing the intervention diet. It's been done before to demonize saturated fat, I see no reason why it shouldn't be done again to demonize it yet again.

I realize that it sounds like I'm dismissing the whole thing, but I'm not. The A-TO-Z experiment includes some extraordinary results from several subjects in the Ornish group for example, but unfortunately as a group it still did not surpass the Atkins group which also includes extraordinary results only moreso than the Ornish group.

As a side note, the A-TO-Z experiment is not one of the best because Atkins won, but instead it's because it has the highest quality for the main factors that determine result veracity, i.e. number of total participants, adherence %, length of experiment and follow-up, number of intervention groups, and so forth. It's also one of the best because in spite of Atkins winning overall, lead researcher is an acknowledged vegetarian, thus making the Atkins win that much more credible, but most importantly it makes Gardner look as honest and reliable as can be in light of an opposing diet winning the race, which in turn strengthens the results further. I mean, if I was some major D-bag with an agenda, I would certainly try my best to make Atkins look bad in some way, right? Just like it was almost certainly done in this small experiment.

Call me cynical, but you can also call me lazy and judgemental cuz I am that too.