Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

My theme for this week is meat, poultry, and their alternatives, starting today with this:

The study: Unprocessed red meat in the dietary treatment of obesity: a randomized controlled trial of beef supplementation during weight maintenance after successful weight loss.  Faidon Magkos, Sidse I Rasmussen, Mads F Hjorth, Sarah Asping, Maria I Rosenkrans, Anders M Sjödin, Arne V Astrup, Nina R W Geiker.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, nqac152, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac152.  

Objectives: “We sought to investigate the effects of healthy diets that include small or large amounts of red meat on the maintenance of lost weight after successful weight loss….”

Hat tip to Matthew Kadey for this one.  It’s a great example of a study title that makes me want to know : Who paid for this?

• The study: Randy L. Aldret, Michael McDermott, Stephanie Aldret, Greggory Davis and David Bellar. The Acute Effects of a Maple Water Drink on Exercise Responses, Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in Overweight College Males. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research. 2022; 10(9):593-599. doi: 10.12691/jfnr-10-9-2
• Rationale: “The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effect of maple water on exercise responses and biomarkers of post-exercise inflammation and muscle damage in an overweight male college population.”
• Method: “The treatments for the study consisted of 12 fluid ounces (355ml) of pure MW (Drink Simple Maple Water, Drink Maple LLC) or an identical volume of distilled water flavored with maple extract to mimic the smell and taste.”
• Conclusion: “Early outcomes indicate maple water has positive benefits for those that exercise in the areas of cardiovascular fitness and post exercise inflammation.”
• Competing Interests: “The authors declare the following real or perceived conflicts of interest in the context of this study: financial conflict of interest, as this study was funded in part by grants from Drink Simple LLC (Grant #370261).”
• Comment:  The comparison here is maple water versus plain water.  Maple water contains sugars and electrolytes (potassium, manganese, calcium); the water placebo does not.  The result seems predictable from the funder, as is the study design.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: KPFA book talk in Berkeley.  The Back Room, 1984 Bonita Avenue, 7:00 pm.  Ticketing info is here.

*****

Jim Krieger, who I will see in Seattle on Saturday, sent this one.

The study: Protocol for a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled trial on the effect of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers on health, obesity and safety in overweight adults and children: the SWEET project.  Louise Kjølbæk ¹, Yannis Manios ^2 3, Ellen E Blaak ⁴, J Alfredo Martínez ^5 6, Edith J M Feskens ⁷, Graham Finlayson ⁸, Sabina S H Andersen ⁹, Kyriakos Reppas ², Santiago Navas-Carretero ^5 10, Tanja C Adam ¹¹, Charo E Hodgkins ¹², Marta Del Álamo ¹³, Tony Lam ¹⁴, Hariklia Moshoyiannis ¹⁵, Jason C G Halford ^8 16, Joanne A Harrold ¹⁶, Anne Raben ^9 17  BMJ Open.  2022 Oct 12;12(10):e061075.   doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061075.

Purpose: “The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate whether prolonged consumption of sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) within a healthy diet will improve weight loss maintenance and obesity-related risk factors and affect safety markers compared with sugar.”

Competing interests: “AR has received honoraria from Unilever and the International Sweeteners Association. CEH’s research centre provides consultancy to, and has received travel funds to present research results from organisations supported by food and drink companies. JCGH and JH have received project funds from the American Beverage Association. TL works for a company, NetUnion sarl, which has no conflict of interest in the study outcome.”

Comment: This is the official announcement of the research and analysis methods for a new clinical trial.  Once the study gets going, it will take a year to get the results.  It looks like the trial will be comparing the effects of artificial sweeteners and sugar on body weight and other markers.  It is sponsored by a company that makes artificial sweeteners and a trade association for the makers and users of artificial sweeteners.  Want to take bets on what the results will look like?

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I haven’t posted anything about pistachio industry conflicts of interest since 2019 so it’s time for another one.

Here’s a press release sent to me by a reader, Matthew Kadey:

NEW STUDY REVEALS PISTACHIOS ARE AN ANTIOXIDANT POWERHOUSE…Antioxidant-rich foods are regularly encouraged as part of a healthy lifestyle, and research suggests that a diet high in antioxidants may even help to reduce the risk of death.¹ While certain fruits and vegetables are often thought of as high-antioxidant foods, a new study conducted by Cornell University and published in the journal, Nutrients, produced surprising results². Pistachios have a very high antioxidant capacity, among the highest when compared to values reported in research of many foods commonly known for their antioxidant capacity, such as blueberries, pomegranates, cherries, and beets.^3,4,5  (I’ve posted the references at the end).

My first question, as always when I see a press release like this: Who paid for it?

The study: uan, Wang, Bisheng Zheng, Tong Li, and Rui Hai Liu. 2022. Quantification of Phytochemicals, Cellular Antioxidant Activities and Antiproliferative Activities of Raw and Roasted American Pistachios (Pistacia vera L). Nutrients 14, no. 15: 3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153002

Conclusion:  It is shown that the roasting of pistachios could produce a series of beneficial phytochemical changes, leading to enhanced biological activity. Pistachios are a nutrient-dense food containing a unique profile of good-quality protein, fats, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants, such as carotenoids and polyphenols, with cellular antioxidant activity. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020–2025 suggested including nuts as a health dietary pattern. Further research on antiproliferative activity and mechanisms of action of free-form extracts of roasted pistachios, and more biological activities related cellular antioxidant activity and oxidative stress, are worthy of further investigation.

Funding: This study was partially supported by Innovative Leading Talents Project of Guangzhou Development Zone and 111 Project: B17018, Cornell China Center, and American Pistachio Growers: 2021-09.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment: Roasted pistachios are healthy?  No surprise here.  Further research needed?  Also no surprise.  This is another example of an industry-funded study with unimpressive results but plenty of interpretation bias, along with the usual contention that industry funding does not induce conflicts of interest.  Alas, it does.

References to the press release paragraph

¹ Jayedi A, Rashidy-Pour A, Parohan M, Zargar MS, Shab-Bidar S. Dietary Antioxidants, Circulating Antioxidant Concentrations, Total Antioxidant Capacity, and Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Observational Studies. Adv Nutr. 2018 Nov 1;9(6):701-716. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy040. PMID: 30239557; PMCID: PMC6247336.
² Yuan W, Zheng B, Li T, Liu RH. Quantification of Phytochemicals, Cellular Antioxidant Activities and Antiproliferative Activities of Raw and Roasted American Pistachios (Pistacia vera L.). Nutrients. 2022; 14(15):3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153002
³ Wolfe KL, et al. Cellular Antioxidant Activity (CAA) Assay for Assessing Antioxidants, Foods, and Dietary Supplements. J Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 8896–8907.
⁴ Song W, et al. Cellular Antioxidant Activity of Common Vegetables. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 6621–6629. DOI:10.1021/jf9035832
⁵ Wolfe, K., Kang, X., He, X., Dong, M., Zhang, Q., and Liu, R.H. Cellular antioxidant activity of common fruits. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (18): 8418-8426, 2008.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The Alliance for Potato Research & Education is explicitly “Dedicated to advancing the scientific understanding of the role potatoes play in promoting the health of all people.”

As the Alliance explains:

Potatoes are a nutrient-rich vegetable and one of the top sources of potassium in Americans’ diets, yet they are often singled out as a food to limit. This recommendation is often based on misperceptions that eating potatoes is linked to increased cardiometabolic disease risk, even though potatoes contribute to overall fruit and vegetable consumption.  However, a newly published study in the Journal of Nutritional Science finds that advice may be unwarranted

Guess who sponsored that study.

• The study:  Potato consumption is not associated with cardiometabolic health outcomes in Framingham Offspring Study adults

• Conclusion: In this prospective cohort, there was no adverse association between fried or non-fried potato consumption and risks of T2DM/IFG, hypertension or elevated triglycerides.

• Funding: This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute …with additional support from the Alliance for Potato Research and Education. The funders had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article…The authors have declared that no conflict of interest.

Comment: We can argue about the effects of potatoes on insulin and blood sugar levels, a contentious issue because the ways they are cooked and prepared influence digestion of their starches to sugars and how quickly those sugars are absorbed.  But industry funding confuses the arguments, as it has a high probbility of inducing more than the usual level of bias into the results.  Much industry influence occurs at an unconscious level where it is unrecognized by rsearchers, so much so that they do not see it as a conflict of interest.  I think it is.

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

The study:  Refined grain intake and cardiovascular disease: Meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies.  Glenn A.Gaesser.  Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, Available online 6 September 2022.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2022.08.002

Conclusions:  Meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies demonstrate that refined grain intake is not associated with risk of CVD, stroke, or heart failure. This conclusion holds for studies that restricted analyses to staple grain foods only, as well as for studies that included both staple and indulgent grain foods as a single refined grains category. Although refined grains are included as a component of the Western dietary pattern, the present findings suggest that refined grains do not contribute to the higher CVD risk associated with this unhealthy dietary pattern. This information should be considered in formulation of future dietary recommendations.

Declaration of Competing Interest:  The author is a scientific advisory board member of the Grain Foods Foundation and the Wheat Foods Council.

Funding: Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by a grant from the Grain Foods Foundation.

Comment: Refining of grains removes the outer bran and germ and most of the fiber and nutrients along with them, leaving some nutrients along with teh starch and protein.  Refined starch is quickly digested to sugars and rapidly absorbed.  The Wheat Foods Council wants to reassure you that you can eat as much refined grain as you like without raising disease risk.  Much independently funded research argues otherwise, alas.  If nothing else, refined grains contribute calories relatively low in nutrients and constitute major components of ultra-processed foods.  This study did not look at dietary patterns.

And thanks to David Ludwig for alerting me to this one.

************

The publication date is tomorrow!

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I so appreciate the Obesity and Energetics newsletter that comes out every week, and particularly its occasional listing of “Headlines versus Study.”  This one is from a couple of months ago, but I am just getting to it.

• Headline: The Largest Study Ever on Avocados Has Some Good News for Your High Cholesterol: “Eating one avocado per day could lower LDL cholesterol and improve overall diet quality, according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.”
• Press Release: Daily Avocados Improve Diet Quality, Help Lower Cholesterol Levels: “Eating one avocado a day for six months was found to have no effect on belly fat, liver fat or waist circumference in people with overweight or obesity, according to a new study. However, it did lead to a slight decrease in unhealthy cholesterol levels.  In the randomized trial, the team — including Penn State researchers — also found that participants who ate avocados had better quality diets during the study period.”
• Study Results: The primary outcome, change in visceral adipose tissue volume during the intervention period, was not significantly different between the Avocado Supplemented and Habitual Diet Groups…No significant group differences were observed for the secondary outcomes…Changes in the other additional and post hoc measures (body weight, body mass index, insulin, very low‐density lipoprotein concentrations, and total cholesterol:high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio) were similar between the 2 groups.
• Conclusions:  Addition of 1 avocado per day to the habitual diet for 6 months in free‐living individuals with elevated waist circumference did not reduce visceral adipose tissue volume and had minimal effect on risk factors associated with cardiometabolic disorders.

This is a classic example of putting a favorable spin on no-effect results.  The study was NOT funded by the avocado industry and I cannot find a Haas Avocado Board comment on it.

The authors were quite clear about “no effect.” The press release is another matter.

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I very much appreciate the weekly newsletter, ObesityandEnergetics.org (If you want to subscribe, do so here).

I particularly enjoy its section, Headline vs Study.  Here’s the most recent, with my additions.

Headline: “Astonishing” Effects of Grape Consumption and “Remarkable” Impacts on Health and Lifespans.

Study: Grape Powder (Not Grapes) Modulates Gene Expression, Reduces Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, and Extends Longevity… In Female Mice.

I took a look at the study.

• Conclusion: “These results suggest the potential of dietary grapes to modulate hepatic gene expression, prevent oxidative damage, induce fatty acid metabolism, ameliorate NAFLD (non-alcohol fatty liver disease), and increase longevity when co-administered with a high-fat diet.”
• Funding: This work was supported in part by the California Table Grape Commission. The sponsor was not involved: in the preparation of the article; in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Here is another study:

Study: Behavioral and Genetic Changes of Grape Powder (Not Grapes)… In Female Mice.

Its funding?  “This research was supported in part by the California Table Grape Commission.”

And one more:

Study: Grape Powder (Not Grapes) Modifies Hepatic and Urinary Metabolite Profiles… In Female Mice.

This study is also enlightening.

• Conflicts of interest: [onE of the authors] “serves on the scientific advisory board of the California Table Grape Commission. There are no other conflicts to declare.”
• Acknowledgements:  [two of the authors] “acknowledge grant support from the California Table Grape Commission and seed grant funding from Long Island University. The California Table Grape Commission was not involved: in the preparation of the article; in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.”

Comment:  As usual, these authors deny the problems inherent in industry funded studies that have marketing of health benefits as their primary purpose.  Grapes are fruits.  Fruits are healthy.  Do grapes perform health miracles?  Only if you believe in miracles.  Should you eat grapes?  Sure, if you like them.

You don’t believe this is about marketing?  Here’s one more headline (thanks to Karen Zornow Leiding for sending).  And you know who funded this.

Eating grapes can counteract harmful effects from processed foods, while boosting metabolism too

************

Coming soon!  My memoir coming out in October.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.