The obesity model is flawed
-
@george-k said in The obesity model is flawed:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
Show me the studies which prove that low-carb high-fat diets work better than other diets with the same total calorie consumption.
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
-
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
Couple of points:
-
That
studyreview (and I can only access the abstract) is now 4 years old, and the data are presumably even older. -
They report on two (TWO) inpatient studies that negate the hypothesis. How many people were studied? Were they double blind?
-
The argument that the carb-insulin model is too simplistic is laughable, simply because the "calories-in/calories-out" model is even more simplistic.
-
The references cited are even older. Though, I get the impression the are not references cited in the review.
-
The BMJ article I cited studied 164 adults for almost 6 months. That's a pretty good, long study. I doubt that the studies cited in this review were as far-ranging. You know a lot more about statistics than I ever will...I'd love to see their data.
-
Because their review of two studies that support their hypothesis, the authors claim that everyone else is lying? That's what falsified means, right?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
@george-k said in The obesity model is flawed:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
Couple of points:
-
That
studyreview (and I can only access the abstract) is now 4 years old, and the data are presumably even older. -
They report on two (TWO) inpatient studies that negate the hypothesis. How many people were studied? Were they double blind?
-
The argument that the carb-insulin model is too simplistic is laughable, simply because the "calories-in/calories-out" model is even more simplistic.
-
The references cited are even older. Though, I get the impression the are not references cited in the review.
-
The BMJ article I cited studied 164 adults for almost 6 months. That's a pretty good, long study. I doubt that the studies cited in this review were as far-ranging. You know a lot more about statistics than I ever will...I'd love to see their data.
-
Because their review of two studies that support their hypothesis, the authors claim that everyone else is lying? That's what falsified means, right?
The guy who wrote that review was part of the team of a $40 million project to prove that low-carb diets work, which ultimately failed.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-dollar40-million-nutrition-science-crusade-fell-apart/
I don't think a single new study changes much. It's a start or maybe a reason to do follow-up studies. But thousands of studies on these things are published every year. IMO, one would need a somewhat consistent body of studies by various researchers, with various funding sources and various potential hidden agendas, to really make a point here.
-
-
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
I don't think a single new study changes much. It's a start or maybe a reason to do follow-up studies. But thousands of studies on these things are published every year. IMO, one would need a somewhat consistent body of studies by various researchers, with various funding sources and various potential hidden agendas, to really make a point here.
Agreed. It's a start.
And thanks for linking the "Wired" article. Interesting stuff.
