Why hasn't there been a difinitive study on which foods cause weight gain the most?

[Assuming_facts_not_in_evidence]

Let’s find something we can all agree on:

If you had a row of cages of cloned white mice, and each one had only one food for a week (cornedbeef, marshmallows, oatbran muffins, grapefruit, etc.)…
Then at then end of the week they could not possibly all weigh exactly the same as when they started.

This experiment would be at the bottom range of what drug companies do every day. If someone wants to invest in a few mice, Cecil’ Labs could have the answer next week.

And then follow by testing the promising, non-detrimental, diets on humans.
In an absolutely controlled environment, with diet the only variable and the food supply under objective monitoring.
(And yes, they do use volunteers in all the institution types mentioned in the OP.)
I think it would behoove us to do that test.
So the question is, why hasn’t it been done.

When Atkins was challenged at dietary conventions by detractors, they would say “There is no independent proof your diet works.” His response was always “I have my own clinical trials with my patients. It may be limited, but I’m one doctor, I do not have the cash to fund a 1,000 patient hospital test. If you demand such a test, you apply for the grant. Nobody’s stiopping you.”
But nobody has.

[ultrafilter]

@Assuming facts not in evidence

I think it would behoove us to do that test.
So the question is, why hasn’t it been done.

Because there’s no single food that you can limit yourself to without being on a detrimental diet.

[Colophon]

I don’t really see how such a trial would be conducted.

How would you define the portion sizes? Say one subject was eating grapefruit, the other corned beef.

100g of grapefruit has about 32 calories.

100g of corned beef has about 250 calories.

Do you feed subject A 200g of grapefruit and subject B 25g of corned beef, or what? Not to mention the fact that sticking to one food for a whole week is (a) not realistic, and (b) likely to cause health problems in the subjects.

[Boldface_Type]

@Assuming facts not in evidence

If you had a row of cages of cloned white mice, and each one had only one food for a week (cornedbeef, marshmallows, oatbran muffins, grapefruit, etc.)…
Then at then end of the week they could not possibly all weigh exactly the same as when they started.

They could … if they ate the same number of calories. This type of experiment has been carried out numerous times. Warwick & Schiffman (1992) [Neurosci Behav Rev 16: 585-596] reviewed the literature on the role of fat / carbs on weight gain. Abstracted from the abstract:

‘An overview of 40 animal studies which compared growth on high-fat (HF) and high-carbohydrate (HC) solid/powdered diets indicated that the HF diet elicited greater weight gain in 33 out of 40 studies. Enhanced growth on the HF diet was often, but not exclusively, attributable to greater caloric intake. Additional evidence for the growth-enhancing effect of HF diets emerges from “diet option” and “supermarket” feeding studies in rats, and experimental and epidemiological studies in humans. Three principal factors that contribute to the different responses to HF and HC diets are (a) caloric density, (b) sensory properties and palatability, and © postabsorptive processing. It is concluded that both calorie intake and metabolic energy expenditure are biased towards weight gain when a HF diet is consumed, and that the high caloric density of high-fat diets plays a primary role in weight gain.’

Basically, it doesn’t really matter where your calories come from - if you have too many of them, you will gain weight. Animals tend to gain weight more readily on high fat diets because such diets are palatable and simultaneusly calorie-dense. There’s also some evidence that fats can be stored relatively efficiently.

And then follow by testing the promising, non-detrimental, diets on humans.
In an absolutely controlled environment, with diet the only variable and the food supply under objective monitoring.
I think it would behoove us to do that test.
So the question is, why hasn’t it been done.

It has. A PubMed search reveals more than 100 papers on this and allied topics (in humans and animals).

[Rick]

@InvidiousCourgette

My issue with ketosis is that it not a good explanation of why the Atkins diet works. It was debunked in this BBC Horizon programme. I accept that the BBC is not a reputable science cite, and I am willing to retract my statement if I am wrong.

We discussed this a while back in the Pit. Here is my post on if it is Ketosis or lower calories that causes the weight loss with Atkins.
BTW update since that post was written Aril 14th I have now lost 65 lbs since the middle of Jan. 10 more to go before my vacation at Christmas.

[Princhester]

@Assuming facts not in evidence

If you had a row of cages of cloned white mice, and each one had only one food for a week (cornedbeef, marshmallows, oatbran muffins, grapefruit, etc.)…

You are underestimating the complexity of the problem.

Are the mice given controlled amounts of each food or are they simply allowed as much of the particular food in question as they want?

We’ll start with that. When you answer that question, we’ll move on.

[astro]

No question.

Planters unsalted dry roasted peanuts mixed 50/50 with Sunmaid raisins will pack the pounds on like nothing else. Delicious, high caloric density, easy to eat and digest. It’s like reverse lipo.