Why, for the life of Brian, are people still doing lame studies like this? I think it's fairly well-established that fat is a hugely important macronutrient. In layman's terms, if we don't get enough, we die. Not only is it an energy source, but it acts as a transport for fat-soluble nutrients such as vitamins A, D, and K, as well as several phytonutrients. It also adds structure to cell membranes and acts as a regulator for several hormones.
So we get it. People need to eat fat. Stop trying to prove this by conducting dated low-carb diet versus low-fat diet studies. It's like asking who would win in a fist fight, Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler? It doesn't matter! They're both dead and they both sucked.
And, for the record, it's bad science when you conduct a study--even a meta study-- without a control group. Where's the healthy, balanced diet represented here?
Furthermore, there have been zillions of studies like this and they all contradict each other. For example, a study looking at four different diets with a range of macronutrient percentages (as opposed to Hussein vs. Hitler) came out of Harvard last year with a very different result: "Participants lost more fat than lean mass after consumption of all diets, with no differences in changes in body composition, abdominal fat, or hepatic fat between assigned macronutrient amounts."
Oh dear. That's completely different! What are the Atkins folks going to put in their press release now?
One of the biggest problem is a lot of these studies do not keep protein intake constant.
ReplyDeleteIt's a mess to be honest.
They're all just silly. I think the reason they're all over the map is that there's no such thing as a perfect diet for everyone, so this research is a combo of searching for the Holy Grail and a greased pig chasing contest.
ReplyDeleteAmen!
ReplyDelete