Govt Report (draft) on efficacy of low carb diets

[Tannith]

The register of interests to which I referred was posted on their website and includes the part about Prof Taylor's book. I don't have any concerns about his interests and as I already noted I am following his research in guiding my own decisions. If you see the SACN document as helpful for you, that's fine. I see it differently.

Their website contains the interests of ALL members of ALL committees. The only ones relevant to this study are the interests of those who took part in it, not those of all and sundry who have ever been associated with any & every SACN study over many years and many subjects. You are entitled to dislike the findings of every one of the multiple studies reviewed by this group, but it is not fair to accuse those involved of bias or having inappropriate interests (especially commercial ones), simply because you personally disagree with their conclusions and with the results of the reputable surveys etc that they used.

 

[OzBlossom]

Their website contains the interests of ALL members of ALL committees. The only ones relevant to this study are the interests of those who took part in it, not those of all and sundry who have ever been associated with any & every SACN study over many years and many subjects. You are entitled to dislike the findings of every one of the multiple studies reviewed by this group, but it is not fair to accuse those involved of bias or having inappropriate interests (especially commercial ones), simply because you personally disagree with their conclusions and with the results of the reputable surveys etc that they used.

We are at an impasse. I have made no such accusations of any individual, it is you who are persistently drawing that inference. In fact I have repeated my favourable view of Prof Taylor's work in particular. My comments were regarding the interests of the SACN committee overall and therefore it is my sceptical view that in any report coming out, it would be difficult to make statements that would be as frank as possible and perhaps as frank as advisable, due to the interests within the organisation overall. I used to work in public health and have seen multiple instances of that over time. Many important health messages have taken decades to cut through the fog. The statements of public health organisations in many countries seem to be far behind the cutting edge research. I wonder why that is. I do have a preference for peer reviewed journal articles and for example, looking at whether results are replicated and making my own decisions based on those. Big studies, randomised control trials with complicated exclusion criteria and meta-analyses can blur out things that are important (thanks Dr Unwin!). In any case, my first and major point was that the way low-carb versus high-carb was treated in the draft report seemed to prevent the kind of real comparison of the effects of those two conditions.

 

[bulkbiker]

Their website contains the interests of ALL members of ALL committees. The only ones relevant to this study are the interests of those who took part in it, not those of all and sundry who have ever been associated with any & every SACN study over many years and many subjects. You are entitled to dislike the findings of every one of the multiple studies reviewed by this group, but it is not fair to accuse those involved of bias or having inappropriate interests (especially commercial ones), simply because you personally disagree with their conclusions and with the results of the reputable surveys etc that they used.

At least half of the leads have links to DUK who sponsored the DiRECT study so how can they possibly be unbiased?
Twenefour especially has been very vocally anti low carb.