Another classic example of a misleading study

Have a look at this.......................

From the conclusion:

In conclusion, available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials

Let's dissect that.

1. Replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.

2. The benefits recorded were in 'inadequately controlled trials'

The student who wrote this study is biased. So every successful study he put in the inadequately controlled trials group, due to bias. That's why the results of "adequately" controlled trials were a wash but the inadequately controlled trials showed clear benefits

Yet he's very biased as to which trial he puts into which group.

At this point readers of this blog will be demanding an example!

For example the Sydney study he put into the adequately controlled group, yet when we look at it .........

1. The margarine used in that trial contained trans-fat. Which is banned today and has nothing to do with dietary advice.

2. 2/3rds of the participants that started the study weren't found for the follow up.

3. They did not take blood samples of the subjects to test for circulating fatty acids to see if they were adhering to the dietary program. Most of the other trials did.