> 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.