Reply to comment
Study not thought out enough?
May 15, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 27 weeks ago
Comment id: 29841
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Why aren't these studies measuring, individually, the macronutrient content of the diet rather than the overall calories (or even as well as)?
If carbohydrate consumption elevates insulin you might expect that a diet high in protein and fat and very low in carbohydrates would produce the same results as a diet very low in calories, and thus very low in carbohydrates.
I suspect that there is a fear to even want to suggest that its carbohydrates that's the crucial factor in effective weight loss and longevity rather than calories in vs calories out; the current dogma it seems you can't go against without being labelled a charlatan.