U.S.A Cholesterol Guidelines are changing
Options
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?0 -
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
0 -
double post0
-
neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?0 -
It will always be CICO. All metabolic anomalies, dysfunction etc is already accounted for in the EBE, we just keep finding them and calling it something other than what t is.neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
It will always be CICO. All metabolic anomalies, dysfunction etc is already accounted for in the EBE, we just keep finding them and calling it something other than what t is.neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?
Call it what they want or what you want, if there is a way of eating that lets me have more calories while losing or maintaining for whatever reason, I want in!0 -
Protein is king.neanderthin wrote: »
It will always be CICO. All metabolic anomalies, dysfunction etc is already accounted for in the EBE, we just keep finding them and calling it something other than what t is.neanderthin wrote: »
Your reading it backwards.neanderthin wrote: »
Gems like this particular study are hard to find.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
They acknowledged this in the paragraph that followed:
"This is a pilot study that will provide a trial run of the methodologies that in turn will be used in a larger, randomized controlled trial of longer duration that will constitute an even more rigorous test of the hypothesis. The results will also provide the necessary data to “power” the follow-up study – that is, to determine how many participants will be necessary for a reliable test of the hypothesis. Because this pilot study may be too short in duration to detect a significant change in fat mass under these conditions, the primary outcome measure of the study is the change in total energy expenditure of the participants during the four weeks on the ketogenic diet. If the restriction of carbohydrates in the ketogenic diet reduces fat mass, the crossover to the ketogenic diet will be accompanied by an increase in energy expenditure."
This is going to be very interesting. And they have to confine them to a metabolic ward because they're going to have to ensure people don't try to claim anyone was slipping out for extra on either diet and they're going to have to do very precise testing as well.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
Interesting that this doesn't deter them from their new proposed study. Even more interesting that it also doesn't show CICO. It simply shows a low fat diet was the 'favored' one.
Edit: Or am I reading it wrong and it's the other way around?
Okay, but either way, still not CICO, right?
Call it what they want or what you want, if there is a way of eating that lets me have more calories while losing or maintaining for whatever reason, I want in!
0 -
About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.0
-
When Walter Willett agrees on something that was the cornerstone of his philosophy, you know he's ready to retire.....lol just kidding, but seriously, he must be eating crow.MoiAussi93 wrote: »About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.
0 -
I think that's a problem with nutritional recommendations in general. Doctors and scientists are taught one thing early on. Or they build a career on certain findings...and then they are resistant to new evidence that contradicts what they believed. It's human nature to some degree. You need to have the same smoking gun show up in 100 different studies before they will finally be convinced to change their thinking. That's probably why certain recommendations...like limiting cholesterol...stick around much longer than they should.neanderthin wrote: »
When Walter Willett agrees on something that was the cornerstone of his philosophy, you know he's ready to retire.....lol just kidding, but seriously, he must be eating crow.MoiAussi93 wrote: »About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Real world is full of confounders. Ward studies are the gold standard as is doubly labeled water.from the third study posted:
"This study is designed to utilize the most rigorous environmental and dietary controls to isolate the effect of dietary carbohydrate and fat on metabolism. This study confines participants in a metabolic ward and carefully determines their caloric requirements while they maintain a constant body composition on a standard American diet (50 % carbohydrates, 35% fat and 15% protein). After four weeks of this diet, the participants are shifted to a diet of identical caloric content, but radically different macronutrient composition. In this diet, known as a “ketogenic” diet, the carbohydrate content is reduced to only 5 % of calories; fat content is increased to 80% (protein content remains unchanged). By keeping calories constant while making this radical shift in carbohydrate and fat content, the study constitutes a robust test of the hypothesis that the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the caloric content of the diet independent of macronutrient composition."
confining people in a "metabolic ward" sounds like a real life application ….
and the study size is 16 people …seems really small…
Well, the metabolic ward is for controlling food intake and not meant to be real life. It will, however, remove the criticism that participants recording their own food intake generally isn't reliable.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be more like a pilot study and more funding would be generated if the results are promising. However, only men is going to lead to extrapolation errors and I'm sure whatever is found will be way overblown by the media and whichever side "wins." But with 14 participants who are all men, the results will be nothing more than perhaps interesting.
makes sense…but wouldn't you want it to reflect actual real world situation and real world error with logging the can and does take place….
Sorry. You're right. It will be 16. While real world applications are important, it looks like they're going to try to suggest causation, with a bigger participant pool eventually I think is the idea, or at least be able to suggest that one diet actually is more effective than the other and they have the controls in place to secure more funding for future research. You can't get that level of research without something like a metabolic ward because you can't get that level of control. Basically, you can get the real world from the theoretical, heavily controlled world, but you can't get it the other way around.
Of course, 16 male participants is a very limited pool to be making said recommendations from, so we'll see.
0 -
I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers. It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet. A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »Gems like this particular study are hard to find.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154
That was an awesome study -- thanks for the link.
0 -
Good news about our bad habits are always popular.......... http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/0
-
I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers. It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet. A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
so hit your calorie/micro/macro goals for the day and one will have no issues. < why is that so ground breaking/hard to understand?0 -
I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers. It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet. A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
so hit your calorie/micro/macro goals for the day and one will have no issues. < why is that so ground breaking/hard to understand?
Not everyone in the world counts calories. And if you do, how are your goals informed? The conventional suggestion is that a "balanced" diet is 60% carbs. Even though it is common, accepted, and encouraged for people to eat 300grams of carbs a day does not make it moderate; that would be considered a very high carb diet. How is that more balanced than say 40/30/30 c/p/f? Or 30/40/30 c/p/f, which may look "low carb" to many, but is really just moderate carb.0 -
I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers.
You're using loaded terms here. Yes, all government work is ultimately supervised by "political policy makers" but civil servants themselves are not subject to the changing whims of politicians, i.e. they generally can't be fired, even if they refuse to go along with the conclusion of a political appointee. On the other hand, all "scientists in the field" are paid by grants from one organization or another and pretty much all of them have some political agenda. To proscribe bias to one group but not the other is misleading at best.
Science does have an edge with peer review and retrials, however these generally take a lot of time to complete properly. Also, it's become a standard practice for groups with political agendas to fund multiple studies in order to lend more credence to the viewpoint they wish to push. Nowadays, you need a long period of time with multiple, independent studies, preferably international, before a true scientific consensus is reached.
The media, however, is quick to jump on the latest study, "OMG! You can totally eat cheeseburgers and french fries all day and still lose weight!" and then splash these latest diet "scoops" all over the headlines or in one of those click-bait links you see on websites. Which link do you think would generate more hits? The above link or "Study on cheeseburgers and fries generally inconclusive: sample size too small, trial too short"It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet.
This has been common knowledge for decades.A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
Anyone claiming something is "100% proven" is severely overstating the case. Nothing is ever fully "proven" in science. Research either supports, contradicts or (quite often) modifies an existing scientific theory. Also, it's almost a tautology to say that our bodies need to be nourished with food that has high nutritional value - that concept is pretty much contained within the definitions of the words "nutrition" and "nourish".0 -
I was never taking food advice from the feds anyway.0
-
I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers. It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet. A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
so hit your calorie/micro/macro goals for the day and one will have no issues. < why is that so ground breaking/hard to understand?
Not everyone in the world counts calories. And if you do, how are your goals informed? The conventional suggestion is that a "balanced" diet is 60% carbs. Even though it is common, accepted, and encouraged for people to eat 300grams of carbs a day does not make it moderate; that would be considered a very high carb diet. How is that more balanced than say 40/30/30 c/p/f? Or 30/40/30 c/p/f, which may look "low carb" to many, but is really just moderate carb.
not really sure what your response has to do with what I said..
if people don't count their calories then how do t hey know if they are high/low/moderate carb?
0 -
benjaminhkohl wrote: »I was never taking food advice from the feds anyway.
- Feds fund universities and institutions for R & D.
- Some of the brightest minds from the society get involved.
- They look into areas where last left off R & Ds need to be looked into.
- Test are done, people sign up to volunteer for the research.
- This research goes on for months, sometimes years.
- Evidences and Results are gathered and presented to the committee.
- Panel of members challenge, re-challenge the study.
- Then bright minds from the society, other research institutions, universities get together and come to conclusion of what has been proven in the new research and what needs to be discarded from the old. i.e. what stays and what needs to go away.
- Because Fed had funded this R & D they reserve the authority to publish it in their little .org website
- Once this gets published the nutritionist, dietitians, physicians, ... get the update of this new research.
I tried summarizing in layman's language of what happens behind the scenes when things get posted in the "Fed" journal. To take it or not to take it is of course individuals' choice.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions