Another Bad Study, Badly Reported

      80 Comments on Another Bad Study, Badly Reported

Suppose you were reading the health section of a newspaper looking for ideas on how to lose weight, and you came across an article that started like this:

Whether you are just starting a New Year’s diet or struggling to maintain a healthy weight, a provocative new study offers some timely guidance. It isn’t so much what you eat, the study suggests, but how much you eat that counts when it comes to accumulating body fat.

The findings are the latest in a string of studies to challenge claims that the secret to healthy weight loss lies in adjusting the amount of nutritional components of a diet—protein, fat and carbohydrates.

I don’t know about you, but I’d assume that provocative new study involved adjusting the nutritional components of a diet – protein, fat and carbohydrates.  Let’s check:

In the study, to be published in Wednesday’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 25 young, healthy men and women were deliberately fed nearly 1,000 excess calories a day for 56 days, but with diets that varied in the amounts of protein and fat.

Hmmm  … it appears that the provocative new study which supposedly proves the secret to healthy weight loss isn’t a matter of adjusting the ratio of protein, fat or carbohydrates is

1)  a study of people who intentionally gained weight instead of losing weight

which

2) manipulated the balance of fat and protein, but not carbohydrates.

Let’s read on:

While those on a low-protein diet—about 5% of total calories—gained less weight than those on a normal- or high-protein regimen, body fat among participants in all three groups increased by about the same amount. Typical protein consumption is about 15% of calories, while the U.S. government recommends it make up between 17% and 21% of total daily calories.

The findings suggest that it matters little whether a diet is high or low in fat, carbohydrates or protein, it’s calories that build body fat.

It matters little whether or a diet is high or low in fat, carbohydrates or protein?  I must be missing something here … did the researchers change the ratio of carbohydrates in the diet nor not?

The patients in the Pennington study ranged in age from 18 to 35 and had BMIs between 19 and 30. (Between 25 and 30 is considered overweight.)  They lived at the center’s metabolic unit for between 10 and 12 weeks and were fed the 1,000 extra calories a day for the final eight weeks of their stay. Carbohydrates were held steady at about 41% to 42% of calories while fat levels varied with the protein regimen.

Brilliant.  Study subjects were put on three different diets designed to induce weight gain, the carbohydrate ratio was virtually the same across all three groups, and yet media health reporters are telling us the provocative study proves that manipulating the fat, carbohydrate or protein content of a diet won’t help us lose weight.

After eight weeks, all participants in the study gained weight. The 16 men and nine women made similar gains. The low protein-diet group gained about seven pounds, about half the 13.3 pounds added on by the normal protein participants and 14.4 pounds put on by the high protein group.

If you read the full study (which I did), you’ll learn that the low-protein group didn’t gain as much weight because – despite overeating by 1,000 calories per day – they lost muscle mass.  The other two groups gained muscle mass, with the high-protein group gaining the most.  I’d say that’s an important difference.  Losing muscle mass is a great way to slow your metabolism.  Gaining muscle mass raises your metabolism.  The results listed in the study seem to confirm that point:

The low protein diet had 6% of energy from protein, 52% from fat, and 42% from carbohydrates. The normal protein diet had 15% of energy from protein, 44% from fat, and 41% from carbohydrates. The high protein diet had 26% of energy from protein, 33% from fat, and 41% from carbohydrates.

Overeating produced significantly less weight gain in the low protein diet compared with the normal protein diet group or the high protein diet.  Body fat increased similarly in all 3 protein diet groups and represented 50% to more than 90% of the excess stored calories. Resting energy expenditure, total energy expenditure, and body protein did not increase during overfeeding with the low protein diet.  In contrast, resting energy expenditure and body protein (lean body mass) increased significantly with the normal and high protein diets.

Elsewhere in the study, the researchers provide more details:  the low-protein group lost an average of 1.5 pounds of lean body mass, while the high-protein group gained an average of 7 pounds of lean body mass.  When you overeat by 1,000 calories per day and still lose muscle, you know it’s a lousy diet.

The effects on metabolism may not have produced significant differences in fat accumulation in the short duration (less than two months) of this study, but I suspect that since the low-protein group was losing muscle mass, we’d see more of a difference over time.  Interestingly, the researchers didn’t say exactly how much extra body fat each group gained.  They only told us the difference wasn’t significant:

The overall increase in fat mass for all 3 groups was 3.51 kg (95% CI, 3.06 to 3.96 kg) from baseline and was not significantly different between the 3 groups (P = .89), although the low protein group added on average more than 200 g of fat (about 2000 kcal).

I also found these paragraphs interesting:

With the low protein diet, more than 90% of the extra energy was stored as fat. Because there was no change in lean body mass, the 6.6% increase in total energy expenditure reflects the energy cost of storing fat and is close to the estimate of 4% to 8% for fat storage derived by Flatt. With the normal and high protein diets, only about 50% of the excess energy was stored as fat with most of the rest consumed (thermogenesis).

The extra calories in our study were fed as fat, as in several other studies, and were stored as fat with a lower percentage of the excess calories appearing as fat in the high (25%) protein diet group.

I’m confused … if the low-protein group stored 90% of their extra energy as fat, while the other groups only stored 50% of their extra energy as fat, how did they all end up gaining the same amount of body fat?

Maybe I’m just not getting the math involved, but never mind.  Even if all three groups did gain the same amount of body fat, this study doesn’t really tell us anything about how to effectively lose weight, and it certainly doesn’t prove anything one way or another about the effects of manipulating the carbohydrate content, since the carbohydrate ratios were virtually identical.

Another researcher who commented on the study in a Reuters article put it nicely:

Donald Layman, a food science researcher at the University of Illinois in Urbana, said it’s difficult to see how the findings apply to a general population that isn’t being overfed such a protein-deficient diet, in the case of the low-protein group.

“It’s an interesting scientific study, but from an obesity standpoint, I don’t think it tells us anything,” he told Reuters Health.
Bingo.  Even if the protein ratio made little or no difference on fat accumulation in an over-eating study conducted in a metabolic ward, most of us aren’t trying to get fatter.  We’re trying to get leaner.  And we don’t live in metabolic wards where our meals are prepared for us and every calorie is tabulated.  We live in the real world where we don’t (and can’t) count every calorie, and where the amount of food we eat is determined by our appetites.  Protein is satiating.  When we eat higher-protein foods, we tend to eat less.  When we eat high-carb meals, many of us find our appetites going all out of whack, and we eat more.

The lead researcher for the study was George Bray, who seems to have dedicated his career to proving that the federal government’s dietary guidelines are correct – and if he has to cleverly design studies to achieve that goal, or write conclusions that aren’t backed up by the actual data, by gosh he’ll do it.

It was Bray who conducted the study on salt restriction that I mentioned in my Science For Smart People Speech, the one in which a drastic reduction in dietary sodium produced a whopping two-point drop in blood pressure.  Based on that meaningless result, Bray concluded that sodium restriction is an effective means of controlling hypertension.  (Say what?  Two points is a meaningful reduction in blood pressure?  I don’t think so.)

Here’s Bray offering his conclusion from the latest study:

“If you over-eat extra calories, no matter what the composition of the diet is, you’ll put down more fat.”

Really, Dr. Bray?  If you wanted solid scientific evidence that the composition of the diet is meaningless, why was the ratio of carbohydrates the same in all three groups?  Since you blasted Gary Taubes in your review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, we know you’re well aware of the hypothesis that it’s carbohydrates, not protein or fat, that promote fat accumulation … so why didn’t this provocative study include a group that restricted carbohydrates?  After all, none of the low-carb diet gurus recommend anything close to a ratio of 40% carbohydrates.

I think the answer to that question can be found near the end of the study.

This study was supported in part by the US Department of Agriculture.

Share

80 thoughts on “Another Bad Study, Badly Reported

  1. Jared

    I skimmed the full-text of this study too, and thought that the most surprising conclusion was that calories were NOT the best correlate with weight gain.

    Carbohydrate was the greatest correlate with fat gain. They all had the same amount of carbohydrates, and they all gained the same amount of fat.

    Protein was most correlated with lean mass gain (and fat inversely so).

    If anything, it shows how important different macronutrients are! They all ate exactly the same number of calories, but all gained different amounts of weight. How can this possibly fit into the “A Calorie is a Calorie is a Calorie” camp. It takes some serious mental gymnastics….

    Exactly. The takeaway message should be that low-protein diets are awful … you can lose muscle even while getting fatter.

    Reply
  2. Mike

    “If you over-eat extra calories, no matter what the composition of the diet is, you’ll put down more fat.”

    When I here someone say something like this, I tell them about a patient that Dr.Eades,tells us about.She complained that,she had lost only 4 pounds in 2 months.When the doc’s looked at her food log,they found she was eating 5000 calories per day “5000” and she still lost 4 pounds.

    I ate a LOT of food on the last low-carb cruise and lost a pound.

    Reply
  3. Ray Kelley

    This kind of stuff continues to infuriate me, and the worst part is that people still tend to trust scientists as agenda-free seekers of truth who go wherever the facts take them. This kind of stuff is the same as the resistance encountered to the ideas that the Earth was round, or that it revolved around the Sun. But, the truth does seem to be seeping its way out there. I just wish the dam of ignorance holding it back would crumble apart entirely.

    Reply
  4. Marilyn

    “It isn’t so much what you eat, the study suggests, but how much you eat that counts when it comes to accumulating body fat. . . .”

    I must say, that is one of the most incredibly original ideas I’ve ever read. Good grief!

    That article is just bizarre! Maybe they figured if they ignored carbohydrates in their “study,” they could avoid any embarrassment of having low carb perform the best?

    I think that’s exactly what they were doing.

    Reply
  5. curtis

    in other news, don’t eat anything and only drink water for 30 days to shed the pounds off the scale, you will look sick though!

    Reply
  6. josef

    Another carbohydrate apologetic “study” by the establishment.

    The same dog with a different collar.

    These studies are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union’s press articles that always found ways to extol the virtues of communism and condemn the evils of capitalism.

    Reply
  7. Sally Myles

    Your phrase ‘maybe I’m not geting the math’ probably holds truer than you know.. you remember how the math in Supersize Me didn’t hold up either to close scrutiny?

    Somewhere there are researchers being paid millions by carbohydrate growers to attempt to bamboozle the great American (and British in my case) public.

    Seriously, if I won the lottery, before I bought a nice big house, I’d finance something that shows people THE TRUTH.

    And on a sidebar, how the USDA sleep at night? If we know all this stuff, you can bet your heiney they do too…..

    Morgan Spurlock at least doesn’t pass himself off as a scientist.

    Reply
  8. DJ

    “Follow the money” indeed. It’s such a shame scientific research has become more about pursuit of dollars instead of pursuit of truth. I can’t help but wonder what other conclusions have been paid for rather that actually arrived upon scientifically.

    Reply
  9. Ed Terry

    I just discovered the USDA’s Supertracker site, which closely aligns with their “food plate”. Just for grins, I searched on coconut oil. I was shocked, although I had previously thought that coconut oil offered benefits, I now know better.

    1 tbsp coconut oil
    Solid Fats – 110 calories
    Empty calories* – 110 calories
    Added sugars – 0 calories
    Saturated fat – 12 g

    1 tbsp corn oil
    Solid Fats – 0 calories
    Empty calories* – 0 calories
    Added sugars – 0 calories
    Saturated fat – 2 g

    *Calories from food components such as added sugars and solid fats that provide little nutritional value. Empty calories are part of total calories.

    I had not realized that solid fats were not metabolized like other fats. Shame on me 😉

    So corn oil isn’t a source of empty calories.

    Reply
  10. Jared

    I skimmed the full-text of this study too, and thought that the most surprising conclusion was that calories were NOT the best correlate with weight gain.

    Carbohydrate was the greatest correlate with fat gain. They all had the same amount of carbohydrates, and they all gained the same amount of fat.

    Protein was most correlated with lean mass gain (and fat inversely so).

    If anything, it shows how important different macronutrients are! They all ate exactly the same number of calories, but all gained different amounts of weight. How can this possibly fit into the “A Calorie is a Calorie is a Calorie” camp. It takes some serious mental gymnastics….

    Exactly. The takeaway message should be that low-protein diets are awful … you can lose muscle even while getting fatter.

    Reply
  11. Mike

    “If you over-eat extra calories, no matter what the composition of the diet is, you’ll put down more fat.”

    When I here someone say something like this, I tell them about a patient that Dr.Eades,tells us about.She complained that,she had lost only 4 pounds in 2 months.When the doc’s looked at her food log,they found she was eating 5000 calories per day “5000” and she still lost 4 pounds.

    I ate a LOT of food on the last low-carb cruise and lost a pound.

    Reply
  12. Ray Kelley

    This kind of stuff continues to infuriate me, and the worst part is that people still tend to trust scientists as agenda-free seekers of truth who go wherever the facts take them. This kind of stuff is the same as the resistance encountered to the ideas that the Earth was round, or that it revolved around the Sun. But, the truth does seem to be seeping its way out there. I just wish the dam of ignorance holding it back would crumble apart entirely.

    Reply
  13. Marilyn

    “It isn’t so much what you eat, the study suggests, but how much you eat that counts when it comes to accumulating body fat. . . .”

    I must say, that is one of the most incredibly original ideas I’ve ever read. Good grief!

    That article is just bizarre! Maybe they figured if they ignored carbohydrates in their “study,” they could avoid any embarrassment of having low carb perform the best?

    I think that’s exactly what they were doing.

    Reply
  14. curtis

    in other news, don’t eat anything and only drink water for 30 days to shed the pounds off the scale, you will look sick though!

    Reply
  15. Zachary Worthy

    Yeah 40% of calories from carbohydrates isn’t good at all, how funny that that’s the only thing they didn’t change. Also, they didn’t say what kind of calories they were either. I’d be curious to know what the actual food was that they were feeding these people. Could be fat and protein from slim jims and other processed garbage for all we know.

    The extra protein apparently came in the form of tuna fish, among other sources.

    Reply
  16. josef

    Another carbohydrate apologetic “study” by the establishment.

    The same dog with a different collar.

    These studies are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union’s press articles that always found ways to extol the virtues of communism and condemn the evils of capitalism.

    Reply
  17. LeonRover

    I like the fact that this study was published.

    It contains worthwhile information – and can be described in a number of ways.

    George Bray’s is one, which looks at the extra energy content and only glancingly at the extra macronutrient content.

    I have always distrusted ratio analysis. It may be useful in equi-caloric or ad libitum studies. However, in over- or under-eating studies, it is the change in amounts of macro that is important to me. I can relate this to daily eating.

    You are quite correct, Bray does not focus on the fact that the extra calories were a combination of protein calories and fat calories, while amount of CHO remained the same (thus 60% of initial diet (as CHO) is same number of CHO calories as 40% of the overeating diet).

    I would rewrite Bray’s conclusion as

    “If you eat extra fat calories, no matter what the combination with protein is, you’ll put down more fat – when carbohydrate remains constant.”

    This study has NOTHING to say about changes in CHO.

    The study provides data on how under-eating protein reduces LBM (lean body mass) while increasing intake of protein increases LBM.

    The underfeeding of protein, while over-feeding fat shows that is a critical macronutrient and that reduction of LBM can occur in overfeeding as well as in underfeeding (semi-starvation) studies.

    In this context I observe that Liebel and Hirsch underfed their subjects on 800 kcals per day on amounts of protein even lower than in this study and found reductions in LBM, and lower BMR also.

    I now take the conclusions of Liebel concerning existence of an adipostat with very raised eyebrows – in fact,I am not compelled!

    My personal take?

    Either

    Eat an extra 90 gms of protein per day for 6 weeks,

    or

    Substitute 90 gms of protein for 90 gm CHO per for 6 weeks,

    And see what happens.

    Reply
  18. Hilary Kyro

    Tom, I think you are conclusively right again; USDA! It’s the answer to a lot of good questions about public policies and “established facts” that have made us all cloudy-headed contestants on Jeopardy!
    As you well-note; buried in this silly study is again the convincing proof that you can over-consume carbs and yet starve your muscles, heart, gut and brain. Over-eat on “food” and you get pumped-up! A 7 pound muscle gain is worth noting to natural bodybuilders.
    Muscle gain, Oh noes, lo-carb is another threat to big pharma…have you seen the shady ads for low testosterone Rx during the football games, sandwiched between ads for sandwiches and Abilify, the anti-psychotic that you can add to your anti-depressant?

    What a racket … the USDA promotes grains, then finances scientists to conclude (in effect) that the grain-based diet isn’t making us fat.

    Reply
  19. Sally Myles

    Your phrase ‘maybe I’m not geting the math’ probably holds truer than you know.. you remember how the math in Supersize Me didn’t hold up either to close scrutiny?

    Somewhere there are researchers being paid millions by carbohydrate growers to attempt to bamboozle the great American (and British in my case) public.

    Seriously, if I won the lottery, before I bought a nice big house, I’d finance something that shows people THE TRUTH.

    And on a sidebar, how the USDA sleep at night? If we know all this stuff, you can bet your heiney they do too…..

    Morgan Spurlock at least doesn’t pass himself off as a scientist.

    Reply
  20. DJ

    “Follow the money” indeed. It’s such a shame scientific research has become more about pursuit of dollars instead of pursuit of truth. I can’t help but wonder what other conclusions have been paid for rather that actually arrived upon scientifically.

    Reply
  21. Alex Thorn

    Like you, I am also confused by the mathematical contradictions thrown up by the statistical manipulation of the data in this study. The only way that I can make sense of it is this:

    If the low protein group gained 7lbs in weight but lost 1.5lbs of lean mass, then they must have gained 8.5lbs of fat mass (3.86Kg). If the high protein group gained 14.4lbs of weight but gained 7lbs of lean mass, then they must have gained 7.4lbs of fat mass (3.36Kg). So is the 1.1lbs (0.5Kg) difference in fat mass gain significant?

    If all groups were overfed by a total of 56000kcals and we take 3500kcals as the amount required to equal one pound of fat gain (inaccurate, I know, but that is what the ‘calorie balance’ proponents, like Bray, often state) then the low protein group converted 53% of their calorie excess to fat (8.5 x 3500/56000 x 100) while the high protein group converted 46% of their calorie excess to fat (7.4 x 3500/56000 x 100)! So where did they get their 90% versus 50% figures from?

    Glad I’m not the only one who thinks these figures don’t quite make sense.

    Reply
  22. marilynb

    I read about this study on Dr. Briffa’s site and dismissed it as unimportant when I saw they were not manipulating carbs, too. “It isn’t so much what you eat, the study suggests, but how much you eat that counts when it comes to accumulating body fat” – that’s a really irresponsible comment since they’re not looking at ALL of the “what you eat”.

    Reply
  23. Ed Terry

    I just discovered the USDA’s Supertracker site, which closely aligns with their “food plate”. Just for grins, I searched on coconut oil. I was shocked, although I had previously thought that coconut oil offered benefits, I now know better.

    1 tbsp coconut oil
    Solid Fats – 110 calories
    Empty calories* – 110 calories
    Added sugars – 0 calories
    Saturated fat – 12 g

    1 tbsp corn oil
    Solid Fats – 0 calories
    Empty calories* – 0 calories
    Added sugars – 0 calories
    Saturated fat – 2 g

    *Calories from food components such as added sugars and solid fats that provide little nutritional value. Empty calories are part of total calories.

    I had not realized that solid fats were not metabolized like other fats. Shame on me 😉

    So corn oil isn’t a source of empty calories.

    Reply
  24. Justin B

    This is abysmal. How is stuff like this allowed to be published? How can you not test something AT ALL, then claim that the something was tested, and proven one way or the other? The sad part is that people don’t read the studies, only the headlines & articles.

    As do most health reporters.

    Reply
  25. Zachary Worthy

    Yeah 40% of calories from carbohydrates isn’t good at all, how funny that that’s the only thing they didn’t change. Also, they didn’t say what kind of calories they were either. I’d be curious to know what the actual food was that they were feeding these people. Could be fat and protein from slim jims and other processed garbage for all we know.

    The extra protein apparently came in the form of tuna fish, among other sources.

    Reply
  26. LeonRover

    I like the fact that this study was published.

    It contains worthwhile information – and can be described in a number of ways.

    George Bray’s is one, which looks at the extra energy content and only glancingly at the extra macronutrient content.

    I have always distrusted ratio analysis. It may be useful in equi-caloric or ad libitum studies. However, in over- or under-eating studies, it is the change in amounts of macro that is important to me. I can relate this to daily eating.

    You are quite correct, Bray does not focus on the fact that the extra calories were a combination of protein calories and fat calories, while amount of CHO remained the same (thus 60% of initial diet (as CHO) is same number of CHO calories as 40% of the overeating diet).

    I would rewrite Bray’s conclusion as

    “If you eat extra fat calories, no matter what the combination with protein is, you’ll put down more fat – when carbohydrate remains constant.”

    This study has NOTHING to say about changes in CHO.

    The study provides data on how under-eating protein reduces LBM (lean body mass) while increasing intake of protein increases LBM.

    The underfeeding of protein, while over-feeding fat shows that is a critical macronutrient and that reduction of LBM can occur in overfeeding as well as in underfeeding (semi-starvation) studies.

    In this context I observe that Liebel and Hirsch underfed their subjects on 800 kcals per day on amounts of protein even lower than in this study and found reductions in LBM, and lower BMR also.

    I now take the conclusions of Liebel concerning existence of an adipostat with very raised eyebrows – in fact,I am not compelled!

    My personal take?

    Either

    Eat an extra 90 gms of protein per day for 6 weeks,

    or

    Substitute 90 gms of protein for 90 gm CHO per for 6 weeks,

    And see what happens.

    Reply
  27. Hilary Kyro

    Tom, I think you are conclusively right again; USDA! It’s the answer to a lot of good questions about public policies and “established facts” that have made us all cloudy-headed contestants on Jeopardy!
    As you well-note; buried in this silly study is again the convincing proof that you can over-consume carbs and yet starve your muscles, heart, gut and brain. Over-eat on “food” and you get pumped-up! A 7 pound muscle gain is worth noting to natural bodybuilders.
    Muscle gain, Oh noes, lo-carb is another threat to big pharma…have you seen the shady ads for low testosterone Rx during the football games, sandwiched between ads for sandwiches and Abilify, the anti-psychotic that you can add to your anti-depressant?

    What a racket … the USDA promotes grains, then finances scientists to conclude (in effect) that the grain-based diet isn’t making us fat.

    Reply
  28. Alex Thorn

    Like you, I am also confused by the mathematical contradictions thrown up by the statistical manipulation of the data in this study. The only way that I can make sense of it is this:

    If the low protein group gained 7lbs in weight but lost 1.5lbs of lean mass, then they must have gained 8.5lbs of fat mass (3.86Kg). If the high protein group gained 14.4lbs of weight but gained 7lbs of lean mass, then they must have gained 7.4lbs of fat mass (3.36Kg). So is the 1.1lbs (0.5Kg) difference in fat mass gain significant?

    If all groups were overfed by a total of 56000kcals and we take 3500kcals as the amount required to equal one pound of fat gain (inaccurate, I know, but that is what the ‘calorie balance’ proponents, like Bray, often state) then the low protein group converted 53% of their calorie excess to fat (8.5 x 3500/56000 x 100) while the high protein group converted 46% of their calorie excess to fat (7.4 x 3500/56000 x 100)! So where did they get their 90% versus 50% figures from?

    Glad I’m not the only one who thinks these figures don’t quite make sense.

    Reply
  29. marilynb

    I read about this study on Dr. Briffa’s site and dismissed it as unimportant when I saw they were not manipulating carbs, too. “It isn’t so much what you eat, the study suggests, but how much you eat that counts when it comes to accumulating body fat” – that’s a really irresponsible comment since they’re not looking at ALL of the “what you eat”.

    Reply
  30. Dan

    Two personal points to add:

    A couple weeks ago I tracked all my calories for a few days while focusing on limiting to 100g of carbs a day, (I heard someone else had good luck with that.) At dinner I ate about 450 calories, finishing my day at just a little over 1500, and I felt completely full; no hunger pangs that night or starving feeling in the morning. Also lost a couple pounds that week.

    Secondly, my boss holds a PhD and she told me her oversight professor told her, “Never mind what you find, make the data work.” No joke; at an internationally respected research university nonetheless. Cheers.

    If you torture the data long enough, it will say whatever you want to hear.

    Reply
  31. Justin B

    This is abysmal. How is stuff like this allowed to be published? How can you not test something AT ALL, then claim that the something was tested, and proven one way or the other? The sad part is that people don’t read the studies, only the headlines & articles.

    As do most health reporters.

    Reply
  32. Captain ChiliDog

    “This study was supported in part by the US Department of Agriculture. ”
    Years ago, I worked for an engineering firm that specialized in providing expert analysis and testimony for traffic collision law suits. I bet you can guess how often the “science” was favorable to the people that were paying for our services.

    No surprise there.

    Reply
  33. Melinda P

    Incredibly irresponsible study and incredibly irresponsible reporting. Ugh. That’s all I can say.

    Reply
  34. Dan

    Two personal points to add:

    A couple weeks ago I tracked all my calories for a few days while focusing on limiting to 100g of carbs a day, (I heard someone else had good luck with that.) At dinner I ate about 450 calories, finishing my day at just a little over 1500, and I felt completely full; no hunger pangs that night or starving feeling in the morning. Also lost a couple pounds that week.

    Secondly, my boss holds a PhD and she told me her oversight professor told her, “Never mind what you find, make the data work.” No joke; at an internationally respected research university nonetheless. Cheers.

    If you torture the data long enough, it will say whatever you want to hear.

    Reply
  35. Captain ChiliDog

    “This study was supported in part by the US Department of Agriculture. ”
    Years ago, I worked for an engineering firm that specialized in providing expert analysis and testimony for traffic collision law suits. I bet you can guess how often the “science” was favorable to the people that were paying for our services.

    No surprise there.

    Reply
  36. Craig

    I recently started my own forced overeating experiment for my barbecue blog, since I still have friends who don’t understand how I eat so much barbecue without gaining weight no matter how much I try to explain insulin to them. Of course, since I’m keeping my carbohydrate intake the same, the percentage of calories I get from carbs is going down while I intentionally increase my total calories with a daily whey protein and coconut milk shake.

    Granted this is totally unscientific. I’m just hoping that when I fail to swell up like a tick I can finally make a lightbulb go off over the heads of some fat-phobic friends.

    http://memphisque.blogspot.com/2012/01/burning-fat-do-calories-actually-matter.html

    That would be nice, but I’ll wager they conclude you’re just lucky enough to have a high metabolism.

    Reply
  37. Craig

    I recently started my own forced overeating experiment for my barbecue blog, since I still have friends who don’t understand how I eat so much barbecue without gaining weight no matter how much I try to explain insulin to them. Of course, since I’m keeping my carbohydrate intake the same, the percentage of calories I get from carbs is going down while I intentionally increase my total calories with a daily whey protein and coconut milk shake.

    Granted this is totally unscientific. I’m just hoping that when I fail to swell up like a tick I can finally make a lightbulb go off over the heads of some fat-phobic friends.

    http://memphisque.blogspot.com/2012/01/burning-fat-do-calories-actually-matter.html

    That would be nice, but I’ll wager they conclude you’re just lucky enough to have a high metabolism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.