As much as I respect Cochrane Reviews, the review you linked was one of the weaker ones. It regarded six studies with altogether ~200 participants and although each employed randomization, none had allocation concealment. 5 of the 6 studies also used data from participants who had dropped out.

In addition, the review’s authors note themselves:

“The number of studies was too small for us to be able to explore publication bias through assessment of funnel plot asymmetry.”

What I hold against the Diogenes study stands: it was not conducted in a way that allowed reliable results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359496/table/T2/

ie – they didn’t achieve significance, as the study says “No overall significant differences between groups were found for changes in body fat mass, fat free mass, sagittal height, waist and hip circumferences.” They seem interested rather – in weight loss maintenance, as that’s what this study was designed to do. So re lean body mass, you took a number that didn’t achieve significance and used it as a fact.. If you want to play with nonsignificant results, why not look for the kilo of fat vs 220g, that the two groups in average lost? Or compare with low protein, low gi diet, which both gained significant fat-free mass and also lost almost as much fat?

Next, your link is a study of 7 individuals in a 30day period, on some other variable, from which you extrapolate widely to get a conclusion about a variable that was, neither the target nor was it misreported as such to the population. Further, in that 7 people study the difference in the GI index was 24 units. Even disregarding your number-crunching “sin”, you use those numbers as they stand and apply them to a 700+ person study where the GI difference is 5.

Your objection on small margins boils down to the fact that the four diets weren’t all that different (they aimed for bigger differences)- but the large sample size allows for some statistically significant results nevertheless.

And aren’t you double-counting your “results” on muscle glycogen? Or is it supposed to look like fat in x-ray absorptiometry perhaps?

Anyhow, instead of number-crunching, original “research”, you could have used for eg the Cochrane review on the matter – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17636786 , which reaches the opposite conclusion to yours:

“The decrease in body mass (WMD -1.1 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.0 to -0.2, P < 0.05) (n = 163), **total fat mass (WMD -1.1 kg, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.4, P < 0.05) (n =147)** and body mass index (WMD -1.3, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.5, P < 0.05) (n = 48) was significantly greater in participants receiving LGI compared to Cdiets. The decrease in total cholesterol was significantly greater with LGI compared to Cdiets (WMD -0.22 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.02, P < 0.05), as was the change in LDL-cholesterol (WMD -0.24 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.05, P < 0.05)."

Re GI, they dealt with it like this: http://www.mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk/research/research-sections/nutrition-health-interventions/gi-database/ – some measured, most published, some estimates – and anyhow were precise enough to obtain measurable effects. Which if anything is a vindication of the practicality of GI measures for choosing food – even a small achieved difference was significant. This is noted in the study "However, the results indicate that even a modest increase in dietary protein or a modest reduction in glycemic-index values was sufficient to minimize weight regain and promote further weight loss in obese patients after a successful weight-loss diet. ". And there were some other effects. Including, say, a significant reduction of hsCRP in a low glycemic diet.

And the really disgusting part of this post is raising the possibility of manipulation of the evidence, especially if the entirety of your objection is that they supposedly studied some other variable than what you wanted them to study.

Thank you! 🙂

Seriously, I think critical thinking *should* be taught at schools. Never before in mankind’s history have we been confronted with the amount of information now available to – or forced upon – us.

Depends on the point of view, doesn’t it? 😉

People love to trust non-experts as though they’re experts, but when a true expert comes on, they’re boring and their explanations too complicated. Add on to that those who decide the output of the media (the journalists may be commies, doesn’t matter) sell their product to major corporations, they’re the clients.

So what’s the solution? Teach critical thinking, make sure everyone can read through an abstract and find simple flaws, and understand the basics of science. As if that’s going to happen ^^