DIETFITS study

[Dominique]

A study conducted at the Stanford University School of Medicine was published last month: Diet Intervention Examining The Factors Interacting with Treatment Success (DIETFITS):

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150

What made it interesting is it lasted for one year and included over 600 people (diets studies are usually much shorter and involve far less subjects).

I listened to this podcast with the lead researcher, Prof. Christopher Gardner:

https://sigmanutrition.com/episode223/ (the interview itself is from 06:15 to 32:45)

In the interview, he provides insightful information about the background of the study, stressing that its purpose was not to find out whether one type of diet (low-carb/high-fat vs. high-carb/low-fat) was better than the other, though it’s usually how the popular media has been viewing it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180220123124.htm

[WendyB]

Thanks for the articles!

I will listen to the Podcast after lunch

[GershonSurge]

The flaw in this study is so obvious, it's laughable. It defines low-fat as below 30%. Excuse me, but the healthiest way of eating has about 8-10% fat. This was raised to 30% because of pressure from the meat and dairy industry. 

You can watch the flaw develop starting with this newspaper article from 2014 that was soliciting volunteers. They were supposed to be put on a diet with less than 20 grams of fat or carbs. That would have been about 10% of their calories. How did it morph into less than 29% fat? 

[Baltoscott]

I just read another article on the DIETFITS study here where the reporter interviewed four of the participants (one successful and one not so successful participant from each of the Low Fat and Low Carb approaches). In the article the reporter goes beyond what the researchers were trying to evaluate (the affect of genetic factors on success of one type of diet vs. the other), and teased out some of the outside environmental factors unique to each dieter that my have affected success).  Interesting.

@GershonSurge -- listening to the podcast that @Dominique posted, the lead researcher explains that each diet started at 20 grams of fat or carbs per day and that the dieters were then encouraged to increase the fat or carbs (depending on the cadre they were in) to the point where they thought they would be able to adhere to the diet permanently.  This addresses an issue that researchers have when lots of participants drop out or lie about adherence.  Unfortunately, at the same time, it means that the advocate's version of each diet is not really tested.  

[GershonSurge]

@Baltoscott,

I read the articles you referenced. Doug Lisle, the nutritionist for Dr. McDougall's program and also for True North, which works with some strange situations and diets and also with compliance. The best assurance of compliance seems to be a soon to be terminal degenerative disease coupled with the almost certainty that it can be cured through diet. 

There is something I'm wondering about. Why will people read hundreds of articles and research studies and not read one book I recommend? Specifically "Whole" by Dr. T. Colin Campbell. He is the most meticulous researcher I've seen, has published well over 350 research papers, has been studying nutrition for 60 years with much of that time in research, has sat on the committees that established the government standards, has testified before Congress many times, understands from an insider's viewpoint the way the medical, pharmaceutical and food industries are trying to kill us for their profit, etc. The list goes on and on.