Here is one last exclamation as you have clearly proven yourself to NOT be of a scientific field.
You say you have no problem with a 3 year old study being cited less than 5 times.
I provide you with this:
http://scholar.google.com/scho...s=10816355517466738888
Google scholar alone found 75 cites to a 2006 article on Gold conjugated antibodies and their role in PDT.
Scifinder/web of science found about 5 times more, but being as you aren't at a university you would have to pay ALOT to see that info so I'll save you from that.
Also, you demand to see recent studies on "classical nutrition".
This is an inherently flawed request.
You seem to have gaping holes in your understanding of how academic research is conducted.
Research is performed using grant money.
Do you know how you get grant money?
You present drafts and requests based upon how novel your experiment is.
You do realize that we (as in science) mapped out the mechanisms for glycolisis, gluconeogenisis, beta oxidation and the up and down regulators of each decades ago?
We've known the roles of PFK-1 and 2 for decades.
We know the phosphorylation/de-phosphorylation events that trigger messangers to control these cycles.
We know the structure and function of these messengers.
We know the intracellular second messengers that these have.
We know the transcription factors and the genes in which are up or down regulated.
We know the post translational processing events that occur to produce the final state of the proteins made.
We know the 3d structure and function of the native state of these proteins.
No one is going to give any money to people performing decades old experiments.
The only people who do these experiments any longer are undergrads.
The way you get money is to rock the boat.
You pick your fights, you cherry pick you subjects and settings and use the best fitting statistical methods.
This is why scientists are instructed to be critical of new findings.
The experts in these fields then turn to writing textbooks as a source of funds.
You conveniently ignore text books.
Unless you feel like digging through microfiche you aren't going to find a lot of this information elsewhere.
Think about it, when is the last time you saw a study conducted to test the Newtonian concepts of physics.
No one would give you a grant to conclude that gravity due to acceleration is a constant 9.8meters per second squared.
There are some things that are just common knowledge in their fields and research just isn't done upon them any longer.
An example that you should think about:
Lets say I cook a bowel of brown rice and a bowl of white rice.
Both have the same number of calories.
Both have the same composition and amount of carbohydrates, only the brown rice packs 2~3 more grams of fiber per serving than the white rice.
Assuming i eat the same amount of each, the brown rice will make me feel fuller for longer.
Also, the fiber speeds the passage of the food through my digestive tract.
The impact of this is flux....well I'll tone it down a bit.....
The food passes through faster, meaning the digestive tract has less time to pull the nutrients out of the food.
Typically the most essential elements (dietary essential amino acids and fats) are sucked out right away and the energy containing elements take the longest.
The fiber aids to reduce the number of calories taken in by the system, which get passed right back out, thus preserving thermodynamics.
Also, feeling fuller longer decreases portion sizes eaten.
This reduces the "in" of calories in.
You also attempted to mock the principal of empty calories earlier, claiming it better supported your argument.
Think about this:
Fried chicken dripping in oil
Baked chicken, using the same breading but simply prepared in an oven versus deep fried.
There are LOADS of empty calories in the fried chicken.
The oil provides little if any satiation while packing in a huge caloric load.
You claimed (by proxy) that carbohydrates induce hunger.
The flaw here is that the composition of the food is cause of the hunger.
If you look at the diets all of these low carb studies use, they tend to pack in a lot of fiber or other elements that aid in satiation.
The diet they test this against always has little fiber or other satiation providing agents.
These people will eat larger portions and sneak in what they can where they can.
Monitoring ones intake is one of the most difficult tasks for a researcher.
I'm glad this book piqued your interest.
Now at the very least, read some academic texts on the subject or take some classes in the field before you try to discredit a scientist.
There have been several works published in a variety of fields that I've been credited to.
As an undergraduate for an advanced statistics course I did some number crunching for the communications studies department.
I don't remeber the journal name, but I know I've pulled it up on google scholar before.
I've also done with in the Biochemical fields mostly on cell membranes.
There have been a few papers published on pig mitochondrial ornithine transporters that I worked in the lab to isolate and classify.
I've also worked in the Biophysics field using AFM to "map" and characterize the surface of the smooth and rough ER.
You know what the common link between all of the studies was?
They all twisted the parameters to make their conclusions appear definitive.
When you've been in these situations you become rather critical of your peers.
I would normally at this point say feel free to PM if you have anymore questions, but I already have them blocked from you as preventative measure against trolling.
You'll also note I protected my name and the title of the studies to keep my e-mail address private.
I'm completely done here, and assuming you've read my entire post, I certainly hope you are as well.
