Hi,

I am surprised at this unscientific "scientific" study. We already knew that Atkins etc has many times the recommended daily level of fat. Did it really need doctors working round the clock with a big expensive computer to confirm that?

They were measuring things they already knew, leading to no new conclusions. They were not measuring important things they didn't know, which might have led them to make some new discovery, or at least be able to take a tilt at us with a little more authority.

I really object to this pseudo-science masquerading as medical research. As far as I am aware, the first and most essential requirement for research is that you approach the task with an open mind, and you throw away preconceptions and prejudice. Thank goodness not all scientists, historians, anthropologists, biologists, astronomers, and doctors have thought this way in the past. There has been as much progress in all fields through error as through success.

If institutions want to spend money on evaluating diets, then I would suggest they organise themselves in a more practical and academic manner. They could follow the example of real scientists, people who scientifically threw preconceptions to the wind, scientifically opened their minds, scientifically made their observations, scientifically tested their hypotheses, and medically went on to restore the health of thousands of people all over the world. They could read some diet books properly for starter ....

Einstein himself said (pardon my paraphrase) that any new discovery is ALWAYS derided at the outset. Low carb is not a new discovery, but proper research into it is long overdue. I don't think I am alone in my discovery that I react in exactly the OPPOSITE way I should to eating a low fat diet - it makes me extremely ill. Same for low carb - opposite reaction. It makes me extremely well. For the sake of other people who could be made well, aren't the universities and labs of the world remotely curious about that?

Jilly