Julie G wrote:Welcome, genec! Excellent insight, if true. Failure to account for caloric intake is a huge problem. Can you point towards your source of information? Full text is below:
No secret source, the answer is right in their abstract:
To this end mice received either regular chow or a chow diet supplemented with canola oil for 6 months.
They repeat this in the M&M:
Six-month old mice were randomized into two groups: one fed with standard diet (CTR, n = 12), the other with canola oil-enriched diet (50 mg/Kg) (CO, n = 10) for 6 months.
I found this quote funny:
... the group treated with canola oil-rich diet had a significant increase in body weight suggesting that the added oil provided extra calories to the mice.
I'm guessing you're right, genec... BUT no mention of portion sizes for chow in either group. Were they fed ad libitum? Was the chow portion reduced in the canola-enriched group to compensate for the extra calories? We seem to be missing vital information.
I think they would have said ad libitum - the default expectation is for controlled quantities. And they would have said isocaloric if they had designed it that way. I think genec's understanding of the paper is correct, and I agree further with him that the mystery here is prestigious journal Nature's willingness to lend its imprimatur to such a weak study.
Your analysis makes sense, Marc. This is another great example of how often published research reveals very little... other than a sensationalized PR. Shame on Nature.
Hmm, I posted a reply, and I see it under my username, but I don't see it here. I'll try it again:
Julie G wrote:Failure to account for caloric intake is a huge problem. Can you point towards your source of information?
Six-month old mice were randomized into two groups: one fed with standard diet (CTR, n = 12), the other with canola oil-enriched diet (50 mg/Kg) (CO, n = 10) for 6 months
That's it right there. One group was fed standard diet, the other standard diet + canola oil. It's in their abstract too:
To this end mice received either regular chow or a chow diet supplemented with canola oil for 6 months.
I found this quote funny:
... the group treated with canola oil-rich diet had a significant increase in body weight suggesting that the added oil provided extra calories to the mice.
While I’d personally chose EVOO over canola any day, it’s also been mentioned in the forum that for some reason mice don’t do well on fat to begin with.
Be aware that some if not many restaurants now dilute their olive oil with canola oil to save money. I just carry my own dressing container around and only use a restaurant’s own if I can trust it.
ApoE 3/4 > Thanks in advance for any responses made to my posts.
Be aware that some if not many restaurants now dilute their olive oil with canola oil to save money. I just carry my own dressing container around and only use a restaurant’s own if I can trust it.
Me too. I have a small 4 oz dark brown glass bottle that I fill with good quality high polyphenol EVOO that I keep in my purse. I would never trust a restaurant's oil.
Hmm, I posted a reply, and I see it under my username, but I don't see it here. I'll try it again:
Your post shows up twice in this thread, genec. Did you happen to notice that Susan reached out to one of the authors who confirmed the diets were isocaloric? They sure did a poor job of communicating that information.
