tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post117345941900431948..comments2024-03-13T06:54:20.063-05:00Comments on Weight of the Evidence: Might the Brain Not Know the Body is Fat?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13260386.post-1173515736092236212007-03-10T02:35:00.000-06:002007-03-10T02:35:00.000-06:00Hi Regina,The high fat aspect of this study is one...Hi Regina,<BR/><BR/>The high fat aspect of this study is one of the classic errors ubiquitous in nutritional research. I had to search the net for the actual diet compositions, you certainly don't get them from the paper.<BR/><BR/>The D12451 diet provides 1092kcal of sugar (sucrose plus maltodextrin) out of every 4057kcal, plus a few kcal from starch. That is 27% kcal from sugar. In a mouse eating 1700kcal over an experiment this gives 459kcal or 115g sugar. From 2000kcal food intake this gives 135g sugar.<BR/><BR/>The Purina 5001 diet provides 6% by weight of sugars and 1kg of diet provides 4000kcal. The mice ate 2000kcal in the experiment which gives 120kcal sugar, or about 30g<BR/><BR/>So it is possible to go though the whole of this paper crossing out "high fat" and replacing it with "high sugar". Both would be misleading. It comes back to controlling your variables. The fairest I can suggest is that this study compares Ornish with Starbucks. Clearly the "cafeteria" type diet ruins the mice more effectively than the low fat diet. What is always missing from these studies is a genuine high fat diet, ketogenic or nearly so. Now that would be an interesting study...<BR/><BR/>PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527788116058656094noreply@blogger.com