> “To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
It doesn't actually control for calories so basically the study shows us that a diet that's low in carbs can help people eat fewer calories while still feeling full. That's important, but nothing we don't already know.
The health benefits are completely confounded by the lack of caloric control and control for weight loss: losing weight simply makes people less disease prone no matter the contents of the diet.
The lack of caloric control is key to this study - any diet which restricts caloric intake, long term, will be self-defeating. Allowing people to eat as much as they want, but simply choosing from a particular food group, is one key to long term success.
Another big part of this - an apparently non-biased researcher (presumably they don't run a food supplement business) - has suggested that eating fats of all things does not necessarily lead towards heart disease.
I think that's going to be a wake up call.
It also, in my mind, emphasizes that the bulk of "Nutritionists" for the last 50 years have been a bunch of cargo-cult practicing members of the mob - and it makes you wonder what other so-called-scientific disciplines are behaving in a like manner.
> The lack of caloric control is key to this study - any diet which restricts caloric intake, long term, will be self-defeating. Allowing people to eat as much as they want, but simply choosing from a particular food group, is one key to long term success.
Sure, I guess to me whether or not high fat diets have higher satiety is just not interesting - it's a settled issue and it's obvious to me.
> Another big part of this - an apparently non-biased researcher (presumably they don't run a food supplement business) - has suggested that eating fats of all things does not necessarily lead towards heart disease.
Right, but with similar weight it suggested eating less calories helps prevent heart disease. This study doesn't answer the question of whether or not diet composition affected heart disease.
> It also, in my mind, emphasizes that the bulk of "Nutritionists" for the last 50 years have been a bunch of cargo-cult practicing members of the mob - and it makes you wonder what other so-called-scientific disciplines are behaving in a like manner.
Let's not get dramatic. Don't forget that people are significantly less active than they were 50 years ago, and that just because low carb diets happen to be in fashion right now doesn't mean they are right for everyone. That being said, I agree, the diet/nutrition industry is a joke, and most people could do a lot worse than cut carbs out of their diet.
What annoys me, is how certain the vast majority of nutritionists were, despite the lack of clear scientific trials, that dietary fat would lead to heart disease.
Seriously - how difficult would it have been to do a couple-hundred person trial for a year or so to get some confirmation? And yet, billions of dollars (10s of billions?) of policy and dietary guidance were based on this poorly supported theory.
Yeah but think about the data they had. They didn't have massive fast food and snack food industries that were primarily carb based, and so people who overate overate fats much more frequently than they do now.
The certainty you dislike is the same certainty I react against with the low carb movement.
We are only certain of two things:
1) Having less fat on your body is healthier (to an extent) and will help prevent things like heart disease, diabetes etc.
2) If you have too much fat lowering caloric consumption will make you burn it.
Anything else is speculation.
> Seriously - how difficult would it have been to do a couple-hundred person trial for a year or so to get some confirmation? And yet, billions of dollars (10s of billions?) of policy and dietary guidance were based on this poorly supported theory.
Really difficult, actually. And doing it without pissing off a major industry is impossible.
It also, in my mind, emphasizes that the bulk of "Nutritionists" for the last 50 years have been a bunch of cargo-cult practicing members of the mob - and it makes you wonder what other so-called-scientific disciplines are behaving in a like manner.
Global warming, climate change, or whatever name is being used this week to try and match reality.
I'm not assuming that. I'm pointing out that the major weakness in the study is that we can't know the impact calories had here either way, leaving dietary composition to be potentially a major confounder. It's a massive, gaping flaw in the study.
How would you structure a study on human test subjects that would reproducably limit calories without it being illegal? ( locking them in a cell, etc.)
How would you structure a study on human test subjects that would keep their weight constant over long periods without it being illegal?
Sorry if I came off as a jerk, it wasn't my intent. This topic is well discussed on HN so I figured it was appropriate to expect something more cutting edge. When it comes to nutrition there are a few "key questions" people are debating right now. Whether or not a high fat diet provides high satiety is a well studied, uncontroversial subject.
> “To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
It doesn't actually control for calories so basically the study shows us that a diet that's low in carbs can help people eat fewer calories while still feeling full. That's important, but nothing we don't already know.
The health benefits are completely confounded by the lack of caloric control and control for weight loss: losing weight simply makes people less disease prone no matter the contents of the diet.