Noticed this tweet:
Which refers to this study:
I’m generally keen on learning and I follow people on Twitter that are anti-Keto because I’ve became sort of a skeptic myself. However, this study isn’t very valid in my opinion because:
- they used corn oil as the fat source, which is high in PUFA and Omega-6 and could be toxic too, being a seed oil; the body reacts very differently to SAFAs or MUFAs
- they used liquid food and this means refined nutrients — as in food that’s prepared with micro-nutrients in the proportions that we think are right, think baby formula versus natural mother’s milk, and unfortunately such formulas never perform as well as real food
- note that this is done due to the desire to control the study’s variables, because if you feed them real food, you don’t necessarily know what’s in its composition, so you don’t necessarily know what you’re measuring; nutrition is hard
- a sample of 16 people is too small
I like to keep an open mind and I actually opened that link with interest. Real science is objective, no room for feelings to get in the way.
I’m writing this because people don’t know how to read studies. You basically have to look for how big the sample was, the methodology (how tightly controlled was it?) and also look for the common confounders. In nutritional studies I noticed 3 big confounders:
- usage of added sugar in the diet
- usage of vegetable oils as the source of fat
- usage of liquid formulas, made of refined nutrients
Regrettable, but nutritional studies are expensive and it’s hard to control the variables, which is why they end up using liquid formulas, but then they end up with other problems. And then the actual reporting from various nutritionists can be disingenuous.