Cheese lowers fat

(ianrobo) #1

Who would have thought it ?

Study shows those who eat more cheese are thinner (also interesting eat more carbs) Note piece at the end has a good one on declaring interests.

(Tom) #2

Maybe this means I won’t have to go to briehab! :smile:
(crickets)

I’ll see myself out.

#3

Authors had to disclose conflict of interest:

“ELF and APN have previously received speaking honoraria from the National Dairy Council. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.”

I discard all insights and conclusions when studies are paid for or influenced by industry - regardless if the conclusions are favourable towards keto. I only accept research conducted without influence from industry groups.

(ianrobo) #4

then no research would ever be done. There were only two who declared it and the others had none.

According to you, then Phinney’s and Vaolek’s research is irrelevant as they run and own a company using Keto to cure T2D and use the research to fund that ?

What is required is openness and in this article you get very good openness for all to see

#5

I sympathize, but I’ll express my opinion on research a little differently while paraphrasing the quoted post below, otherwise I think a great many studies would be ignored.

I am highly skeptical of all insights and conclusions when studies are paid for or influenced by industry - regardless if the conclusions are favourable towards keto. I only give serious consideration to research conducted without influence from industry groups.

#6

Research without industry group interests influence is possible, and it is done. If the sugar growers association funds a study that shows keto is bad, and then the cheese makers association funds a study that shows keto is good…do you discount the study you don’t like and accept the one you do like? Not logical.

#7

True enough about discounting the one and not the other.

It’s actually also illogical to just dismiss both though, or dismiss anything with any connection to an interest or industry. You will find bias, especially financial bias, in most scientific research, as the money to conduct the research has to come from somewhere, and those with a financial interest have the most incentive to fund. (They also have great motive and ability to hide or indirectly influence ‘independent’ research from time to time).

Skepticism is good, and it’s also a big reason why we sometimes need to go to the research papers themselves to look closer at the methods and data used to see if the reports are perhaps too broad, or if there was a flaw in the methodology, or if there is simply a large question left unanswered that is ignored (were there too many compounding factors? Does this apply to realistic real world exposure, etc?). The extent of the connection should also be taken into account for the level of skepticism, but even without any apparent connection a level of skepticism is usually appropriate.

In this case, the connection is extremely light it seems. Two of the researchers have been compensated for speaking (at a conference, symposium, maybe speaking to their companies, whatever), not for research or as regular employment. That may make them slightly more favorable to people that did them the kindness of paying for them to speak somewhere, but it could also be they were already saying something favorable and thus they got invited to speak. I could also pay a researcher I like to come and speak about something, but it’s not necessarily going to influence that persons research otherwise. As pointed out elsewhere though, the others don’t even have that level of conflict. Could be a clever trick, sure, but that gives reason for skepticism, not complete dismissal.

(ianrobo) #8

In science and studies should always be skeptical.

For example I saw a study tweeted by an anti Keto person that say meta data showed those not eating gluten a bigger risk of T2d. Worrying ??

However then look at research and no idea on their macros and what eaten instead, in other worlds useless.