Low Carber Daily Forum

Join

Ugh, another cracked report: this time they're villifying butter

glossbones
glossbones Posts: 1,064 Member
edited November 22 in Social Groups
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/07/the-butter-industry-probably-regrets-paying-for-this-study-that-shows-butter-is-bad-for-you/

and the study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/07/01/ajcn.115.112227.abstract

of note:
The study was a controlled, double-blinded, randomized 2 × 5-wk crossover dietary intervention study with a 14-d run-in period during which subjects consumed their habitual diets.

S.M.H. Seriously??? Their habitual diets. Let's take a few guesses what that means.

Replies

  • KETOGENICGURL
    KETOGENICGURL Posts: 687 Member
    well..TINY study, with younger women, and a average 23 BMI??? that's not a fat or obese person…useless for those of us who ARE heavier, older…so I'll skip the worry on this one.
  • deoxy4
    deoxy4 Posts: 197 Member
    Results resulted in an increase on a marker. A modest increase in LDL and TC linked to higher incidence CHD or stroke? I do see an increase in HDL. Is an increase in HDL linked to a lower incidence of CHD or stroke?
  • auntstephie321
    auntstephie321 Posts: 3,586 Member
    One of my most favorite things about these things is that they take 47 people who volunteered to be compensated (likely) for this study and act as though it proves anything.

    How many billions of people are there in this world? Do a study with more than half of them, then we can talk. I could probably pick 47 people at random who's cholesterol would increase over the next 10 weeks not eating butter at all.

    Why do they even waste time and money on these things
This discussion has been closed.

Categories