More people around the world now have obesity than suffer from starvation thanks to our modern food system. Agriculture was transformed over the 20^th century by a variety of technological advancements that relied heavily on fossil fuels. In the United States of America, government policies and economic incentives led to surplus production of cheap inputs to processed food industries that produced a wide variety of heavily marketed, convenient, rewarding, timesaving, and relatively inexpensive ultra-processed foods. The energy available in the United States food supply increased much more than population needs, albeit with large inequities in food distribution and nutrition security. While most of the rise in per capita food availability during the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries in the United States resulted in increased food waste, a variety of mechanisms have been proposed by which changes in the increasingly ultra-processed food environment resulted in excess energy intake disproportionately in people genetically susceptible to obesity. As populations continue to grow, substantial investments in coordinated nutrition and agricultural research are needed to transform our current food system to one that relies less on fossil fuels, preserves biodiversity, ensures environmental health, and provides equitable access to affordable, safe, and nutritious food that reduces the prevalence of chronic diseases like obesity.

A recent reanalysis of publicly available data claimed that the carbohydrate-insulin model was supported by results from a randomized crossover trial comparing low carbohydrate (LC) versus low fat (LF) diets. The reanalysis also claimed to have invalidated the primary outcome of the trial, namely the within-participant differences in ad libitum energy intake when they consumed LC vs LF diets. Here, we demonstrate that both claims are untrue. The reanalysis was fatally flawed in several respects, with the most egregious errors related to ignoring the within-participant, repeated-measures structure of the data and treating data timepoints as independent. This resulted in almost all statistical comparisons being incorrect and reporting wildly optimistic p-values. Furthermore, the authors failed to engage sufficiently with prior work on the same trail data and portrayed their reanalysis as being more novel than it was. The reanalysis also failed to disclose the possibility of bias and succumbed to common statistical errors that falsely led the authors to interpret the data as supporting the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity.