When bad science goes...pretty much the same!

After the previous post, you may have got the impression that things are getting worse. Hmmm!

From http://covermyfb.com/covers/27316/say%2Csee+and+hear+no+evil

Hat-tip to James Beckerman, MD for https://twitter.com/jamesbeckerman/status/507544419847786496, which refers to Comparison of Named Diet Programs Finds Little Difference in Weight Loss Outcomes.

This study comes to the opposite conclusion of the study in my previous blog post. As that study was a pile of poo, that must mean that this study is 100% correct, right? Hmmm!

Your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend. See What about the Other Weight Loss Diet Study??
"Previous meta-analyses, such as Hession et al, had balanced inclusion criteria that allow us to directly compare low-fat to low-carb diets.  They reported exactly what anyone would expect who is familiar with the weight loss diet literature:

1. At 6 months, low-carb diets consistently lead to greater weight loss than low-fat diets. 
2. At one year, the difference has all but disappeared. 
3. Neither diet produces particularly impressive weight loss at one year or more.
4. The weight loss effectiveness of typical low-fat diets tends to be modest at all time points.

Oh, well. It could have been a lot worse!
 

When good science goes bad, part n+1.

In When good science goes bad , I looked at the effect of funding bias on research.

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ5jbxMjexo

Effects of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets: A Randomized Trial has just been published. As expected, low-carbers are positively creaming themselves over it. I instantly smelled a rat, as the full study was behind a pay-wall.

Remembering Krauss' shenanigans with "carbohydrate", consisting of 50% sugars + 50% "complex" carbs (maltodextrin & amylopectin are complex carbs that hydrolyse into glucose so rapidly that they have a GI of 100 on the "Glucose=100" scale.), I suspected dodgy carbs in the "Low-fat" group.

Luckily, David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP had read the full study, and wrote about it in Diet Research, Stuck in the Stone Age.

As I suspected, it was another "fix-up" job, rigged to make low-carb diets look good, and low-fat diets look bad.

See also:-
Low-carbohydrate vs. Low-fat diets for Weight Loss: New Evidence,
What I Learned By Actually Reading That Low-Carb Is Best Study,
Is low-carb really the best weight loss diet? and
A Question about the latest diet study ...

Jumping through hoops, and my Blog List.

I'm seeing a curious thing. The VLC "camp" seems to be "jumping through hoops" to prove a point.

From http://davidbressler.com/2013/08/26/easier-harder/

From Neuron fuel and function (emphasis & formatting, mine):-
"Ketones and lactate do not drive reverse electron flow through complex I. Glucose can. Palmitate certainly can. What you want from a metabolic fuel depends on the remit of your cell types. Neurons within the brain preserve information by their continued existence.

This is best done by burning lactate or ketones. NOT glucose and, of course, not FFAs.

Anyone who claims that glucose is the preferred metabolic fuel of the brain has not though (sic) about what a neuron has to do and what an astrocyte actually does do. Or much about the electron transport chain."

Basically, glucose is bad mmm-kay. Also, anyone who claims that glucose is the preferred metabolic fuel of the brain is a dumb-ass. Damn our livers & kidneys churning out glucose! Are they trying to kill us?

∴ Carbohydrates are bad and must be avoided at all cost! This, of course, is utter nonsense.

Glucose can drive reverse electron flow through complex I. Can means that it's possible. Is it probable?

On a hypercaloric Western diet of excessive crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle, yes.

On a Kitavan diet of ~70%E from tubers, no.

On a diet of Basmati rice & beans, no.

On a diet of whole fruits, no.

See also Another crash and burn on low carb paleo and CrossFit. Enough of the 'carbs are evil' nonsense. Carbphobia is hurting a lot of people.

I have a list of blogs that I read on a regular basis. As a result of the bad science & cherry-picking displayed in various VLC blogs, I have deleted them from my Blog List.

See also Guest post: Denialism as Pseudoscientific Thinking.

The danger of science denial - Michael Specter.

As per title.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The Science Behind the Paleolithic Diet.

Hat-tip to Melissa McEwen for posting the above-titled video on Facebook. It's 27 minutes of common sense from Matt Lalonde Ph.D Harvard University Chemistry and Chemical Biology.

When good science goes bad

I was rummaging through PubMed (as you do) and it occurred to me that there's a problem.

1) The conclusions in the abstracts don't always tie-up with the data in the full studies.
2) There is no mention of who funded the studies.
3) There is no mention of any conflict of interest for the authors.

Some abstracts link to a free full study and some don't. This makes it difficult to know which studies have been "fixed" to achieve a desired outcome by tweaking the methodology. For example, here are some studies involving Hunter SJ, in chronological order:-

Elderly women in northern New England exhibit seasonal changes in bone mineral density and calciotropic hormones which is about seasonal variations in Vitamin D status affecting bone density and was co-authored by Michael Holick.

Demonstration of Glycated Insulin in Human Diabetic Plasma and Decreased Biological Activity Assessed by Euglycemic-Hyperinsulinemic Clamp Technique in Humans which is about how high blood glucose glycates insulin before it's even secreted, resulting in it working less well in muscle cells.

Reduced prevalence of limited joint mobility in type 1 diabetes in a U.K. clinic population over a 20-year period which pretty much does what it says on the tin.

Then, Hunter starts working for The Sugar Bureau and begins co-authoring studies like this:-

Effect of eucaloric high- and low-sucrose diets with identical macronutrient profile on insulin resistance and vascular risk: a randomized controlled trial, scrutinised in Who pays the piper

Low-fat versus low-carbohydrate weight reduction diets: effects on weight loss, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular risk: a randomized control trial, scrutinised in Who pays the piper part 2

and

Session 4: CVD, diabetes and cancer Diet, insulin resistance and diabetes: the right (pro)portions, which concludes "based on the results of diabetes prevention trials focusing on lifestyle measures, evidence favours low-fat diets as the preferred approach for weight loss and diabetes prevention."

Evidence favours low-fat diets for weight loss and diabetes prevention, huh? See Low-carb diet pitted against low-fat PLUS medication (low-carb still wins) and Diabetes Update

So, getting paid by an organisation which promotes the consumption of sugar makes good science go bad.