Comment by nradov
1 year ago
As I suspected, another low-quality study which changed a bunch of variables in a small study group for only a few months and found a minor change in a few blood tests (no actual measured change in longevity or other health outcomes). The most obvious flaw in the study design is that the two diets weren't isocaloric, which basically invalidates all of their conclusions. It's really disappointing to see junk "science" like this make it through peer review. I mean this is the kind of garbage that an undergraduate journal club could rip apart without any advanced statistics.
And I have searched on my own before. Never found much of anything reliable or actionable.
I believe the mid study data from the end of the meal service is what you are looking for as that was isocaloric.
"And I have searched on my own before. Never found much of anything reliable or actionable."
Basically a tautology.
The study as a whole wasn't isocaloric so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Why are you trying to make claims based on junk science?