An amusing caveat from the medical community.

[tertius]

This is the MO of pretty much every academic researcher. Bllions of dollars of tax revenue. I think about this every once in a while when I look at my paycheck.

The amount of money spent on academic research in this country is freaking chump change compared to much of the truly worthless crap the US government spends money on, and basic scientific research has massive value to the future of society. This is the same line of thought that says "What did NASA ever do for me?"

[Jonathon Sullivan]

This part is: (weasely words starred)

"This is not a long-term study, and I don't *think* that low-carb diets are fundamentally better than low-fat ones," he said. "Our approach is *likely* to be only of short-term benefit because at some point the benefits of weight loss alone trounce any benefits derived from manipulating dietary macronutrients such as calories and carbohydrates.

And so the guy is trying to qualify and limit his conclusions in an informal setting, instead of "editorializing" (as you unfairly accuse him below)--and therefore he's "weaseling." Poor fucker can't win. My interpretation of the first part of your quote is that the guy is trying to avoid saying that lo carb diets are "fundamentally" better (read": better in general) just because lo carb worked better than simple caloric restriction for the reduction of liver fat in this small population. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but that's the danger of trying to draw conclusions about what this guy thinks based on an interview rather than just looking at his work. I will concede that in the second part he is speculating his ass off and drawing educated conclusions not directly supported by this particular study....which he is absolutely free to do for some silly ass press release, or a roundtable at a conference, or during a Q&A at a platform presentation, or in the Discussion section of his paper...but which he should not and did not do in the actual published conclusions.

"Weight loss, regardless of the mechanism, is currently the most effective way to reduce liver fat."

If he was being exact and scientific then why did he feel it necessary to editorialize about things beyond the scope of this particular study? It looks a lot like CYA.

It's not beyond the scope of the study. Please note that both groups in the study lost weight and reduced liver fat. What the investigators found was that the ones with both weight loss and carb-restricted diet showed better improvement. Therefore, the statement you quote above is directly supported by the study, and is not out of line to my mind, especially for the purposes of some chickenshit press release.

And the last bit contradicts the results of his study. Carb restriction WAS more effective within the bounds of this study.

No, the last bit summarizes the results of his study. Weight loss was effective for the reduction of fatty liver in both groups, but it was more effective when combined with carbohydrate restriction.

And FWIW, I would submit that y'all have missed the real shortcoming of this study (a biggie, and one it shares with the vast majority of both publically and privately funded clinical studies). And it isn't one of the authors running off at the mouth for a news release; it's right there in the published methods and results, in front of God and everybody.

[rpbrown]

And FWIW, I would submit that y'all have missed the real shortcoming of this study (a biggie, and one it shares with the vast majority of both publically and privately funded clinical studies). And it isn't one of the authors running off at the mouth for a news release; it's right there in the published methods and results, in front of God and everybody.

The fact that all participants were obese?

[hippy5alive]

And so the guy is trying to qualify and limit his conclusions in an informal setting, instead of "editorializing" (as you unfairly accuse him below)--and therefore he's "weaseling." Poor fucker can't win. My interpretation of the first part of your quote is that the guy is trying to avoid saying that lo carb diets are "fundamentally" better (read": better in general) just because lo carb worked better than simple caloric restriction for the reduction of liver fat in this small population. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but that's the danger of trying to draw conclusions about what this guy thinks based on an interview rather than just looking at his work. I will concede that in the second part he is speculating his ass off and drawing educated conclusions not directly supported by this particular study....which he is absolutely free to do for some silly ass press release, or a roundtable at a conference, or during a Q&A at a platform presentation, or in the Discussion section of his paper...but which he should not and did not do in the actual published conclusions.

It's not beyond the scope of the study. Please note that both groups in the study lost weight and reduced liver fat. What the investigators found was that the ones with both weight loss and carb-restricted diet showed better improvement. Therefore, the statement you quote above is directly supported by the study, and is not out of line to my mind, especially for the purposes of some chickenshit press release.

to further Sullydog's post, I myself have been fortunate enough in my own scientific career (nothing to do with nutrition or sports 'science') to have published papers that have generated media interest. The media are persistent buggers who call everyone and anyone (whether they have anything to do with the study or not). In each case I have personally turned down requests from the printed popular british press for the reasons illustrated in this thread. Reporters are only after a 'sound bite', and are very prepared to take anything you say totally out of context of their actual question. The articles they write are formulaic, relying on a defined template. They are not interested in representing the science, but rather are after a story that will capture the attention of the masses.

see following for an amusing parody (well i find it amusing anyway): http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/th.../2010/sep/24/1

I do believe in making science and scientific findings accessible to the public (especially considering that the vast majority of my funding ultimately comes from the public). However, I do not believe that trashy media reports are the way to do it. You would be wise to get your information from more appropriate sources.

[Wayne Riddle]

The amount of money spent on academic research in this country is freaking chump change compared to much of the truly worthless crap the US government spends money on, and basic scientific research has massive value to the future of society.

Chump change to the US Government, not to the person getting the money. The problem with "basic scientific research" in this country is that it tends to be biased. If people shoveling out the dough don't agree with your results, even if the evidence is solid, your money can go bye-bye.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Chump change to the US Government, not to the person getting the money. The problem with "basic scientific research" in this country is that it tends to be biased. If people shoveling out the dough don't agree with your results, even if the evidence is solid, your money can go bye-bye.

With this, Wayne, there can be no argument, as I have discovered to my own grief. I hasten to point out that such scientific arm-twisting goes with corporate-funded research as well as public-funded, if not more so, and that this kind of fuckery was already old news when Galileo got his tit caught in the wringer.