View Single Post
Old 03-01-2010, 06:27 AM   #3
Darryl Shaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Low View Post
considering:

1. It's all processed food so they could blind which is not very good.
I would assume this was done to prevent the subjects knowing the fat content of the different diets as this may have influenced the amount they ate.

Quote:
2. they didn't even state which mono-unsats they used.
According to Appendix A they used olive oil, high–oleic acid safflower oil and safflower oil margarine for both diets.

Quote:
3. 25% overconsumption was required.
No, an extra 25% was offered but it's consumption was not required -

"The diets offered contained 125% of the estimated energy requirement to allow self-selection of food quantity"

Quote:
4. low fat diet had much more fiber
Unavoidable and addressed by the author -

"A low-fat diet will generally be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and higher in dietary fiber than will a high-mono diet, so that the composition of the 2 diets in our study likely mirrored the composition of these diets as they would be eaten in the "real world.""

Quote:
5. refined sugar was 10% in both diets
Not ideal I agree but it does reflect the real world diets of overweight diabetics and as it was the same for both diets it wouldn't have influenced the results.

Quote:
Ewwww...
Darryl Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote