I'm not sure what the intention of your comment is. Yes, I linked to the guidelines on feeding studies because that is entirely the point of my comment.
You linked to a study where food was provided to the subjects (the food obviously nutritionally selected and provided per the study groups), and the subjects obviously are assumed to stick to the provided food and to accurate report what they ate among that reported food (with the study counting packaging, remainders, etc). This is a *UNIVERSE* better than the classic "tell us how many eggs you ate over the past two months" type nutrition studies, which are by far the most common (e.g. the Nurses' Health Survey).
Are you expecting the people to be inprisoned? I mean, there are in-patient studies but they are obviously massively more difficult to carry out.
> Are you expecting the people to be inprisoned? I mean, there are in-patient studies but they are obviously massively more difficult to carry out.
I expect rigorous methodologies to be employed before conclusions are drawn or held to be widely applicable. Self-reporting is intrinsically flawed. It does not seem like feeding studies as defined here addresses this or has been validated to produce superior results -- detected non-compliance was significant (though they did not report the difference between self-reported non-compliance and methodologically detected non-compliance) and undetected non-compliance was of course not measured.
Would I expect to be only satisfied by imprisonment or inpatient studies? I don't even think I'd be satisfied by that! The differences in activity would make all such results difficult to interpret. But if inpatient is the best we can do, but it's difficult, then we have to live with the fact that our understanding of nutritional interventions is extremely dubious. You can't just accept bad science because it's the best you can do.