Randomised controlled trialcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-SOD-21 standard review

Soda calories vs jelly-bean calories

Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake and body weight.

Overview

DiMeglio DP, Mattes RD. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000 · PMID 10878689 · DOI 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801229

People ate less to balance jelly-bean calories but not soda calories, and gained weight only with soda.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: Do liquid and solid carbohydrate loads differ in dietary compensation?
How was the study done?: Crossover feeding study (4-week periods).
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 15; Healthy adults (7 men, 8 women)
What was actually found?: Solid: compensation 118%; liquid: -17%; body weight and BMI increased only during liquid period.
How large was the observed effect?: Compensation 118% vs -17%
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Liquid sugar calories are less filling.
What are the study's limitations?: Very small; Randomisation not described in abstract
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Supports C-SOD-02.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: High.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Long-term effect.

Do liquid and solid carbohydrate loads differ in dietary compensation?

Study design: Randomised controlled trial – Crossover feeding study (4-week periods).
Population: Healthy adults (7 men, 8 women)
Country: USA
Period: not stated in abstract
Sample size: 15 (7 men + 8 women)
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not stated in abstract

Results: Solid: compensation 118%; liquid: -17%; body weight and BMI increased only during liquid period.
Absolute risks: not applicable
Authors' conclusion: Liquid carbohydrate promotes positive energy balance whereas solid elicits precise compensation.

Low precision.

Supports C-SOD-02.

None.

High.

Plausible mechanism, small evidence.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	low
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	low
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	partly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	mixed
Regional transferability	high
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not applicable

Replication.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card).
A. What was actually studied?: Liquid vs solid calories.
B. What did the authors find?: As above.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: As above.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Supports 'liquid calories that fail to satisfy'.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Consistent but small study; note jelly beans (allowed sweets) are compensated in this study — not proof sweets are healthy.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): not applicable