I agree to some extent. To get the same power from rackets loops you have to do a lot more work using for/fold.

I have an implementation of rackets loops for guile scheme, and I'm currently rewriting it to allow arbitrary transformations in the loop clauses.

Say I want to write a Fibonacci loop, currently I can't do this:

    (for/list ((a :first 0 :then b) (b :first 1 :then (+ a b))) a)

I forgot to mention that loop requires a lot of mutation, which sort of sucks in scheme world where you can use multi-shot continuations and ruin the fun. There are loop implementations for racket (which produce decent code and all that), but they are rarely used.