Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 11:23
dan_rose dan_rose is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 187
 
Plan: None, limit carbs, Omega6
Stats: 161/140/140 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Loughborough, UK
Unhappy Sat fat affects concentration

Hoping there's something wrong with this Ohio State Uni study.

Link to paper abstract (I don't have access).
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 12:46
less_tara less_tara is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 253
 
Plan: <20g when motivated
Stats: 229/219/145 Female 175 cm
BF:40%/40.6%/less
Progress: 12%
Location: France
Default

Saw the abstract. Haven't got the full paper yet (will post it somehow if I get it).

So my first general impression is that this is pretty bogus. For example, they gave a clinicaltrials.gov number for their protocol. So, you can go see the 5 primary outcomes they had planned for their study here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04247763

Huh, waddya know. None of those five outcomes are mentioned in the abstract. And none of the outcomes in the abstract were declared in an a priori fashion on clinicaltrials.gov. Did they not follow their protocol? I mean they are experimenting on human beings, so going off protocol seems kindof hitlerish. I'm guessing that their original protocol did not produce any significant results, and so they went through a whole bunch of non-declared, secondary outcomes until they found one that gave a result they liked. This is called p-hacking, and reflects the pressure put on scientists to publish publish publish significant results. It's also a red-flag for a form of bias called "cherry picking". Their study was obviously not designed for comparing afternoon distraction/performance between groups.

Something else that is weird is the one effect (the saturated fat versus non-saturated fat effect) with a coefficient at 4.44 and other coefficients at like 0.002. That is a huge relative difference with how variables contribute to their model, with the fat-type effect (at 4.44) vastly outweighing the other effects. Despite this vast difference they conclude that via interactions, the weak endotoxemic effects end up canceling the whopping fat-type effect.

Just by comparing the abstract to clinicaltrials.gov and logically thinking through their model, I place a great deal of doubt on the validity of these results. I'm curious to get my hands on the full article.

-Tara
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 14:30
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 37,199
 
Plan: LC paleo/ancestral
Stats: 241/188/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Personally, I don't need to see the "study" . From the OSU article ..
Quote:
The high-fat meal followed: eggs, biscuits, turkey sausage and gravy containing 60 grams of fat, either a palmitic acid-based oil high in saturated fat or the lower-saturated-fat sunflower oil. Both meals totaled 930 calories and were designed to mimic the contents of various fast-food meals such as a Burger King double whopper with cheese or a McDonald’s Big Mac and medium fries.
IMO, the conclusion statement should state "Sat Fat + High Refined Carbohydrates = Bad News" .. which is hardly news

.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 18:42
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 7,035
 
Plan: Keto IMO Atkins 72 Induct
Stats: 283/229/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250, 225
Progress: 52%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default

^^^^^What Doreen said ^^^^^^
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 19:34
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 19,176
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Yuuuuppppp !!!

My last issue of DANDR was Printed in 2002.... and that edition repeated all earlier editions from 1990's..... fat plus refined carbs was bad news.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 19:46
LCinAust's Avatar
LCinAust LCinAust is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 262
 
Plan: low carb/keto
Stats: 234.8/215.2/154 Female 163cm
BF:
Progress: 24%
Location: Australia
Default

I was able to look at the article online through my uni log in.

Not low carb/LCHF at all:

"Both research meals were 930 kcal with 60 g fat, 60 g
carbohydrate, and 37 g protein, with 60% of total calories
from fat"
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jul-05-20, 23:54
less_tara less_tara is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 253
 
Plan: <20g when motivated
Stats: 229/219/145 Female 175 cm
BF:40%/40.6%/less
Progress: 12%
Location: France
Default

You guys are totally right.

So it looks like they compared "palmitic-acid based oil" mixed with carbs to sunflower oil mixed with carbs? Is that right?

Their motives must be quite strange, especially since they are trying to conclude that a bacterial endotoxin signal trumps the fat effect. They set out wanting to compare fats, and they have a HUGE fat effect, and then try to turn the message towards "endotoxins" trump fat. Even within their very own mislead paradigm (i.e. silly hypotheses), they're just behaving weird.

Why didn't they say "palm oil" or "coconut oil" or "lard" instead of palmitic-acid based oil?
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Jul-06-20, 06:42
sheryl2020's Avatar
sheryl2020 sheryl2020 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 109
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 207/172/140 Female 5'3”
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: New Mexico
Default

I think what bothers me is that, yes, both test meals were high carb, but only the high saturated fat one had negative results. Thoughts? Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Jul-06-20, 06:50
sheryl2020's Avatar
sheryl2020 sheryl2020 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 109
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 207/172/140 Female 5'3”
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: New Mexico
Default

Also, I agree with Tara about the specific oil not being mentioned. Maybe coconut oil has different effects on the brain than lard, for example. But we don’t know what they even used. Too many variables.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jul-06-20, 08:59
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,600
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheryl2020
I think what bothers me is that, yes, both test meals were high carb, but only the high saturated fat one had negative results. Thoughts? Thanks!


They played with statistics to make sat fat look bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by less_tara
I'm guessing that their original protocol did not produce any significant results, and so they went through a whole bunch of non-declared, secondary outcomes until they found one that gave a result they liked. This is called p-hacking, and reflects the pressure put on scientists to publish publish publish significant results. It's also a red-flag for a form of bias called "cherry picking". Their study was obviously not designed for comparing afternoon distraction/performance between groups.


And since the study seemed to be about comparing different fast food meals, I'm guessing no one was a brainiac during the testing
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Jul-09-20, 06:59
sheryl2020's Avatar
sheryl2020 sheryl2020 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 109
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 207/172/140 Female 5'3”
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: New Mexico
Default

Thanks WereBear!
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Jul-09-20, 10:06
BawdyWench's Avatar
BawdyWench BawdyWench is offline
Posts: 8,791
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 212/179/160 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Rural Maine
Default

I always look at studies like this and think, "If this were true, would we have survived and thrived as a species?"
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Jul-09-20, 10:57
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I'm not sure not caring about some silly cognitive test they want to give you after a meal constitutes dysfunction. Or that it's wrong to feel a little sleepier after consuming a meal with saturated fat versus mono or polyunsaturated fat. Maybe the fat choice made a difference to ability to concentrate.

A fasted animal in certain circumstances might be more alert--ancestrally, a useful thing if you still need to do something to feed yourself. Mice and rats are more active and alert coming into a usual meal time. The difference between the fasted and the fed state varies depending on the meal, include fat choices. This gets into all that stuff about physiological insulin resistance Peter at Hyperlipid and Michael Eades of Protein Power have written a bit about

The tie in to endotoxins--well, maybe. But there you get into what will be worst long-term. In the short term, saturated fat does seem to facilitate an increase of endotoxins in the blood stream, but in the long term, with those subjects mentioned with high baseline endotoxemia, that's not an acute effect of eating this or that fat, but a chronic one, a diet that leads to leaky gut etc. is maybe more important to the long term.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Jul-09-20, 23:36
less_tara less_tara is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 253
 
Plan: <20g when motivated
Stats: 229/219/145 Female 175 cm
BF:40%/40.6%/less
Progress: 12%
Location: France
Default

Teaser, you have some great thoughts, and indeed there is lots of science that needs to be done.

I am still extremely skeptical of these results because science was not performed. Science is more of a method, and not necessarily just a production of results. This article didn't even follow it's own protocol. It's got all kinds of red flags saying that this is part of what makes 2/3s of current scientific papers non-reproducible.

What annoys me is that I really STRUGGLE to get my papers published. Peer review regularly wipes me on the pavement like sh** stuck on the bottom of their shoes. I would never be able to get a paper like this published. I've been told in the past that two (or more) sets of scales are being used in peer review. I didn't want to believe it (cuz like previously stated, I get the hard end of peer review, but it's consistent across time... I'm really good friends with pavement.), but I have to start believing now (especially after the behaviour of NEJM and Lancet in relation to COVID.... utter nonsense).

Currently, most peer review is single-blinded. I.e. the authors of the papers are visible to the reviewers, who remain anonymous. I think it should be the other way around. For the purposes of the review process, author information should be removed from the manuscript, resulting in an anonymous manuscript. And reviewers, faced with an anonymous manuscript, work under the knowledge that their names, corrections and what they impose on the paper will be fully disclosed at the time of publication.

Anyway blah blah. rant rant rant. Science is broken.

I see no reason why a good nap after a dose of saturated fat wouldn't help repair a brain and keep it younger. Something to look into.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Fri, Jul-10-20, 03:50
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,600
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by less_tara
Currently, most peer review is single-blinded. I.e. the authors of the papers are visible to the reviewers, who remain anonymous. I think it should be the other way around. For the purposes of the review process, author information should be removed from the manuscript, resulting in an anonymous manuscript. And reviewers, faced with an anonymous manuscript, work under the knowledge that their names, corrections and what they impose on the paper will be fully disclosed at the time of publication.


I agree. Or we wouldn't be in such a sad state with nutritional science.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:03.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.