Low carb dieting (CKD) debate!

[hulksmash]

What have I learned from this thread...

CJ is smarter than me.

The OP is really hulksmash.

If I breathe quickly while eating pizza it will instantly burn off.

No. The OP can't even use or read studies correctly, nor share studies with contradictory results. He falls short in his provisions of science.

 

[dreamscraper]

John Ioannidis at Stanford has found only about 3% meta-analysis are both correct and useful. That is an update to his research from last decade showing the majority of published research is false.

You have all the general problems from the hard sciences in spades for nutrition research :
The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

I don't know why we really need studies for nutrition anyway. We understand the mechanisms of nutrition. The body is not a black box that we need large samples from in order to infer how things work. We know how things work. To me it is like debating how the Internal combustion engine works. What is there to debate?

All diets are basically quasi-religious rituals that have value because of belief in the ritual. Most debates in this area I think are more along the lines of rationalizing the ritual of the diet by cherry picking scientific evidence that fits the ritual and ignoring evidence that does not.