The Society of Metabolic Health Practitioners has reviewed the new reanalysis of a study conducted by the NIH examining the differences between an animal-based low-carbohydrate diet and plant-based low-fat diet. The report expresses concerns about anomalies uncovered by the research team. Doug Reynolds, the President of the SMHP, states, “We have reviewed the new reanalysis and agree with the author’s sentiment that the overall data appears to favor low-carb diets more than previously presented and this further confirms the importance of metabolic health when considering a diet prescription.”

The reanalysis reveals unexpected complexities beyond anticipated support for low-carb diets. Notably, Low-Carb Diets (LCD) impact future eating habits, contrasting sharply with low-calorie, low-fat diets. Some uncertainty arises from the fact that apparently four out of twenty participants seemingly requested removal of their data from the open science dataset years after publication. 

Adding to the complexity, new data expose fundamental flaws in the original research paper, particularly its oversight of diet-carryover effects. This implies a metabolic advantage favoring the low-carb diets and indicating positive metabolic ‘priming.’

In summary, these revelations signify a significant shift:

• The previous study’s conclusions are invalidated.
• The data is more supportive of the Carbohydrate Insulin Model than previously presented. 

You can find the paper [link]. These unexpected findings stress the need for careful scrutiny when interpreting scientific studies and the need to support open data when possible. We are hoping to see clarification of why the data from those four participants was not shared with the re-analysis authors and why those four patient’s data was initially shared in the open science database and then removed years later.