#LCHF Yes, THAT pseudo-LC vs LF Study – why the contrived design?

I haven’t bothered much with the recent controversial study, because a short run-through showed that it was contrived and grossly misleading for real-life inference. So maybe there are some metabolic mechanistic gems to be mined from the coalface, but life’s too short for this – need focus on the big issues… http://metabolismandmedicine.blogspot.ie/2015/08/did-low-fat-oust-low-carb-for-fat-loss.html

That said Ted Naiman, George Henderson and others raised a perfect point – even within their ridiculously constrained rules that enabled them to deliver a rather odd selection of macros for a LC vs LF study – was there not a useful combo that could have made the experiment more worthwhile?

A quick fiddle with excel this evening seems to say so, unless the vino has led me astray:

Unless I’m missing something obvious, it looks like they could have met their cunning constraint whilst still producing a compelling compare. They wanted to keep the opposing macros constant, whilst meeting consistent calorie reduction. Why didn’t they pursue the second option above then? If they simply allowed a reasonable time period as well, they may even have delivered something more useful for their few million dollars. Unless of course, they weren’t particularly aiming for ‘something more useful’. 

๐Ÿ™‚ 

Share This

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on print
Share on email
Subscribe to the NewsletterGuaranteed no spam stuff, just great unbiased health science โ€“ thanks for joining up !