4 ms·
What a ridiculous "study"; no wonder it hasn't been mentioned much in the scientific press. 1) population was an obscure breed of mice that was prediabetic at
by DrScump 11y ago
What a ridiculous "study"; no wonder it hasn't been mentioned much in the scientific press.
1) population was an obscure breed of mice that was prediabetic at study onset.
2) carb content of the "paleo" group was 100% pure sucrose. For the control group, 2% total simple sugars.
3) saturated fat was just 1.8% of calories for the control group but 45% of calories for the "paleo" group.
4) whereas any real-world paleo diet will be higher in protein than a control diet, in this phony study, the control group diet was almost 50% higher in protein than the "paleo" diet!
5) the study was NOT CONTROLLED FOR EQUAL CALORIES between "paleo" and control! Mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
I can hardly imagine a more concocted, phony "study".
- DanBC 11y agoI agree it's a lousy study, but: > 5) the study was NOT CONTROLLED FOR EQUAL CALORIES between "paleo" and control! Mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted. One of the things that paleo advocates constantly wang on about is how satiating it is. Thus it makes sense to try to test that, which means you let mice eat what they like. (Although I accept this study was a poor way of testing it.)
- DrScump 11y agoBut satiety requires protein satiety, and the faux-paleo group was getting a lower percentage of protein than the control group. Also, sources/quality of protein was not stated.