New York Times – February 8, 2006:

The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect.

The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women ages 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer, heart attacks and strokes as those who ate whatever they pleased, researchers are reporting today.

“These studies are revolutionary,” said Dr. Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University in New York City, who has spent a lifetime studying the effects of diets on weight and health. “They should put a stop to this era of thinking that we have all the information we need to change the whole national diet and make everybody healthy.”



  1. Anthony says:

    Low fat foods are not always healthy.
    Low calorie foods are not always healthy.

    Nutritious foods are healthy.
    Nutritious foods are often low fat.
    Nutritious foods are sometimes low calorie.

    Eat nutritious foods, live longer.

  2. J. Cottrell says:

    nicotine and coffee are low cal and low fat. mmmm, does a body good!

  3. C. Flowers says:

    Let me guess, they will be doing another $415 million federal study to see the effects of low fat diets on men. So much money…so little results!

  4. RTaylor says:

    If you want to know what the human animal was designed to eat, just examine the diet of hunter gathers. Game animals are low in fats, and then it’s the nuts and berries. We need a five year study of people eating just rabbit, walnuts, and huckleberries. No frickisy with the rabbit either. It’s more about genetics. If your relatives are dropping from heart disease, it would suggest being a bit more diet conscious.

  5. Apollo Lee says:

    I find this whole study dubious, despite the large price tag and sample. It seems to me that the study sample, being exclusively female and exclusively over fifty, demonstrated a failure, on the part of the researchers who recommended to some a lower fat diet, to definitely show a difference between one set of postmenopausal women and another. What were the women like before they began the study? Did they get any exercise? What percentage of them were obese or overweight before the study (yeah, I know that weight loss wasn’t studied, but maybe BMI has a bearing here)? Somebody in that article mentioned that they were pretty sure that the heart disease and colon statistics would apply to men. How do they know?

    Maybe we need another $400+ million study.

  6. Ivor Biggun says:

    Frankly, I’m shocked that this study ever saw the light of day. The government really screwed up on this one. Other studies that show something the government doesn’t support are routinely sent to the shredder, then to the burn barrel. Whoever allowed this to get publicized is going to fry for sure.

  7. Pat says:

    I guess any study following 49,000 women for 8 years would cost a lot.

    The error the study made was not differentiating the different types of fats, saturated, unsaturated, and trans fat. It has been understood for a long time that saturated and trans fats are not healthy and do promote weight gain. Also if the diets were further divided so specific high fiber, low carbohydrates, olive oil type fats, or even vegan diets had any effect.

    The study authors might be enthused by the report. I just wonder why with all those resources they couldn’t have broadened the study to include more variables. By knowing what the variables are and measuring them, the background noise is reduced.

  8. Andrew says:

    Well, one things for sure — a high fat diet can be very bad. So stay somewhere in between the lowfat/highfat area.

  9. James says:

    We are also starting to see that some types of saturated fats arn’t all that bad for use. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND GOUGH DOWN ON THOSE FRENCH FRIES!

    You really need to balance your fat-protein-carb ratio. People have different metabolic types.

    And some other real tips that I need to point out to you. Some oils are good, some oils are bad. The American Heart Association is calling “corn, soy oil, canola oil.” heart healthy. They are really heart unhealthy and should never be cooked. Stay away also from the following: Margarine (Any margarine even though it says no transfat.), vegtable shortening, or any so-called vegtable fats. All these are far worse than even bad quality lard. Canola oil? Tub margarines? Vegtable shortening? It doesn’t matter. A Processed fat is a processed fat is a processed fat. Our bodies arn’t designed to handle processed fats. That’s why we are having so many health problems these days.

    Instead, only use fish, flax, and cod liver oil. These are the only polyunsaturated oils that are permitted. Softgells are preferred. Monounsaturated fat oils, good for salad dressings and sauteing, are olive oil, grapeseed oil, and nut oils (Almond oil is preferred). If you want to bake or have high-heat cooking, coconut and palm oils are two best oils (They are actually the healthiest!) Grass-fed lard or tallow are the runner ups. It is better to used bad quality butter and lard than to use those processed junk fats. And refined fats are like refined sugar. It’s like butter to complex carbohydrates and margarine to sugar.

    Remember, your ratio of fats: Saturated-polyunsaturated-monounsaturated is about 4:1:5. Short and medium chain saturated fats are the good saturated fats. Your polyunsaturated omega 6-3 balance should balance 1:1 to 3:1. And your ratio of fat-protein-carbohydrate should be about 4:3:3 idealy. For a 2000 calorie diet, the ideal would be 90 grams of fat a day, 150 grams of protein, and 150 grams of carbohydrate.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4261 access attempts in the last 7 days.