View Single Post
Old 06-08-2009, 06:38 AM   #4
Darryl Shaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gittit Shwartz View Post
Did they feed them mush? I don't see how they could control macronutrient proportions as closely as they claimed otherwise.

Other than that, the diet and exercise protocol didn't have to be good to improve health markers, only better than what they had previously been doing, yada yada yada.

In other words, I don't see how that study furthers anybody's understanding of diet or exercise.
They weighed and measured everything -

Quote:
The study was a block-randomized (stratified on gender), 12-week intervention trial. Each participant was provided a mixed diet (35% fat, 20% protein, 45% carbohydrate) during the 3-day baseline testing period to standardize dietary intake and maintain body weight.

Following baseline measures, participants were provided the ad libitum diet by our metabolic kitchen for 12 weeks. The macronutrient composition of the diet (based on amounts of food consumed) was 18% fat, 19% protein, 63% carbohydrate, and 26 g of fiber/1000 kcal. The diet was designed to provide 150% of predicted energy requirements, and participants were instructed to consume foods ad libitum for the duration of the study. Participants were instructed to return any unconsumed food along with empty food containers; food consumption was measured by subtracting the weight of unconsumed food from the recorded weight of provided food. Dietary intake data over the course of the study did not significantly differ between groups (2250 ± 146 and 2413 ± 155 kcal/d for diet alone and diet plus exercise groups, respectively), as reported previously (12). Postintervention testing was performed with participants continuing to consume the diet (ad libitum) until completion of testing procedures.
Darryl Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote