"Cookie Cutter" wrote
I read in one report that the low carb group started out at 20 grams of
carb (with a focus on vegetable sources of protein and fat) and increased
their intake over the two years to around 110 grams. It sounds like,
toward the end of the study, that the low-carb and Med diets might have
been fairly similar. I can't figure out what these people would be eating
if they were minimizing/abstaining from meat, cheese, eggs, etc. Israel
is in the Middle East. Surely, a Mediterranean style diet is closest to
what they would normally eat and most would probably aim as close to what
they would be traditionally eating as the confines of their diet group
allowed. At 110 grams, they could work in beans, pasta, many wheat-based
dishes, etc.

I think that trying to solve the "mystery" of the results is probably
hopeless. Kind of a "What Did They Eat? And When Did They Eat It?"
conundrum.

Yes, I've been reading more about this one, too. Even more puzzling (to me)
is the fact that the calories were restricted for the low-fat and
Mediterranean diet groups, but not for the LC group. My guess would be that
as the LC group started adding back carbs, they lost the natural appetite
suppresant function of the diet and calories may have increased? Not sure,
as I haven't read the full study or perused the data. If total calories in
is substantially different for the different groups, that can make a
difference in findings that may trump effects of macronutrient diet makeup.

At any rate, it seems like it would have been a good idea to keep as many
parameters as possible equivalent, if they wanted to compare diets. Like
calories, for instance. Sometimes I read these research designs, and wonder
who on earth reviewed and approved them. They just defy logic.

Anyway, it's just not a well-designed study, IMO, even if it does show
advantage for the lower-carb plans (no surprise there.)

HG