BBC Radio Oxford broadcast an infomercial for Patrick Holford’s books and his commercial diet programme (transcript below). BBC i) did not invite any experts to discuss Holford’s diet or claims, ii) question whether the ‘free diet trial’ involved purchasing supplements or blood tests iii) ask for details of the ‘science’ that he claims supports his advice. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Low GL Diet
In the holiday season, people often worry about weight gain. I’m not sure that things quite add up with Holford’s blog’s contribution to the discussion, though. A contributor has blogged that
Research has shown that women in particular tend to put on 7 pounds a year. This steady weight gain is often linked to the excesses of the festive season, which are not discontinued come January, so more weight piles on year after year.
Assuming that a women starts out at 150lb at 18, a steady weight gain of 7lb/year would mean that she reached 500lb by her 68th birthday. This type of sustained weight gain is – clearly – unusual. While I am not sure on what research ‘has shown’ this level of weight gain, I suspect that things may be rather more complicated than the blog post suggests.
Holford has had varied engagements with Cochrane Reviews, so we were interested to see the Holford Diet site – which promotes a low glycaemic load (LGL) diet plus supplements – celebrating one Review’s alleged finding that
a low GL diet is more effective than any other diet for weight loss and improving overall health…’Overweight or obese people lost more weight on a low Glycemic Load diet and had more improvements in lipid profiles than those receiving conventional diets.’
However, on looking at the Review itself we noted that it did not distinguish between LGL and low glycaemic index (LGI) diets. This was a review of
Randomised controlled trials comparing a low glycaemic index or load diet (LGI) with a higher glycaemic index or load diet or other diet (Cdiet) in overweight or obese people.
The review found some evidence that LGI and LGL diets can be especially beneficial, but did not aim to find whether an LGI or LGL diet was best. Given that this was a review of only six trials involving only 202 participants, this seems a sensible decision.
While it is nice to see a Holford site referring to such good quality sources, it is a shame that the Review could not have been reported more accurately.