I would take that bet. Phinney and Volek have a long history of doing pretty good science. I haven't seen any of their work directly contradicted over Phinney's 35+ year career[0]. Also, there is scant evidence that this is actually showing a different result than other studies. The diet-heart hypothesis never had good, controlled studies[1] to back it up; we are just now seeing the good science testing it, and it's not holding up well.
I will agree that nutrition science has been, and, in many cases, continues to be, lacking. It is getting better, though. We are moving past epidemiology being the be-all-end-all and starting to see well controlled trials asking interesting questions. Unfortunately, those are really expensive and hard to do.
0. I could be wrong here; I've read a lot but not everything. Still, they've had enough detractors that I'm sure people would have trumpeted it.
1. Lots of epidemiological studies, but causation shouldn't have ever been inferred from them. Unlike with smoking, risk factors were never 20x, more like 1.2x.
I will agree that nutrition science has been, and, in many cases, continues to be, lacking. It is getting better, though. We are moving past epidemiology being the be-all-end-all and starting to see well controlled trials asking interesting questions. Unfortunately, those are really expensive and hard to do.
0. I could be wrong here; I've read a lot but not everything. Still, they've had enough detractors that I'm sure people would have trumpeted it.
1. Lots of epidemiological studies, but causation shouldn't have ever been inferred from them. Unlike with smoking, risk factors were never 20x, more like 1.2x.