More bad news for the low fat diet!

[Lifterforlife]

From one of my favorite guys, who I agree with 100% by the way on most things, especially so this one. Been saying this myself forever since the low fat diet craze started!

It turns out that the low-fat diet the so-called "experts" have been touting for decades has NO statistically significant affect on rates of heart disease, strokes or various common cancers, a new large-scale study has revealed.

Now, this isn't just some flimsy University study of 500 participants or anything like that, it's apparently one of the biggest and most comprehensive health studies ever conducted. Executed at a price of $415 million in tax dollars, the National Institutes of Health affiliated research involved approximately 49,000 female subjects aged 50 to 79 divided into two groups: Those that consumed 25-29% of their calories from fat, and those that derived 35-37% of their daily calories from dietary lipids. The two groups consumed roughly the same amount of calories each day.

The results were these:
No statistically significant decrease in heart attack rates in the low-fat group
No statistically significant decrease in the number of strokes among low-fat dieters
No statistically relevant reduction in breast cancer rates among the low-fat eaters
No statistically significant decrease in the number of colon cancer cases in the low-fat group
Though LDL levels were measurably higher among the higher-fat diet group, that increase didn't translate into ANY noticeable increase in their heart disease risk

Hmmm. Now where have we heard all of this before, I wonder? The feds could've just asked me and saved the $415 million - I've been saying this stuff for decades!

As great as it is to see this major study finally validate what I've known for years, it's still funny to see the reaction among the smarmy, do-gooder pointy-heads of modern medicine. The Times article gives ink to several of these, including one left-coast doctor who claims the study didn't allow the low-fat approach enough time to work properly...

To this quack-pot, I say: If a dietary approach ain't workin' in 8 years - it just ain't workin!

 

[SgtSlaughter]

haha.. I just read the Newsweek article on it.

Good post.

 

[*Bunny*]

Did it specifically list what the diet was?
What types of fats eaten?

I am guessing out of all those people, the variety had to be great ... I understand the need for the 'constant' ... but for some reason I'm bothered that the two groups consumed roughly the same amount of calories each day.

My daily rec is much different than the average person ... which is why I'm interest in the diet they were on ...

This is more of my thinking aloud after reading ...

Lifter, thanks for posting this.

 

[SgtSlaughter]

forgot to add:

Newsweek
Headline: "Diet HYPE" - "Confused? From Fat to Calcium, How the Media Collides with Science"
Page 44
"Food News Blues" - By: Barbara Kantrowitz and Claudia Kalb
March 13, 2006 issue
$3.95 US

The FDA and all its pawns are a pain in the general publics asses.

 

[Black03SVTCobra]

Nice read

 

[alex2678]

Saw this a few weeks ago. I'd love to read the whole journal article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11221022/

 

[fiction agent]

it didn't work because the study failed to differentiate between saturated fats. both groups consumed the same amount of saturated fats.

the difference between the groups was i believe the low fat dieters consumed 20% fat in their ratios, while the normal group was 35%. but, both consumed the same amount of saturated fats, which is why the health risks didn't change.

what i really dont like about this study is now people may use it as a crutch to indulge on M+M's, pizza and fast food because the "fats" don't matter. i wish they would clarify the difference in fats.

 

[SgtSlaughter]

what i really dont like about this study is now people may use it as a crutch to indulge on M+M's, pizza and fast food because the "fats" don't matter.

^^^ Amen brotha.

 

[wlmcrae]

it didn't work because the study failed to differentiate between saturated fats. both groups consumed the same amount of saturated fats.

the difference between the groups was i believe the low fat dieters consumed 20% fat in their ratios, while the normal group was 35%. but, both consumed the same amount of saturated fats, which is why the health risks didn't change.

what i really dont like about this study is now people may use it as a crutch to indulge on M+M's, pizza and fast food because the "fats" don't matter. i wish they would clarify the difference in fats.

Yah, see Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill!

 

[Lifterforlife]

it didn't work because the study failed to differentiate between saturated fats. both groups consumed the same amount of saturated fats.

the difference between the groups was i believe the low fat dieters consumed 20% fat in their ratios, while the normal group was 35%. but, both consumed the same amount of saturated fats, which is why the health risks didn't change.

what i really dont like about this study is now people may use it as a crutch to indulge on M+M's, pizza and fast food because the "fats" don't matter. i wish they would clarify the difference in fats.

Well, you make a point. But, I think you would agree with me if you told any health pundit before that you were going to make a 17% (which is what it was) drop in your total fat intake, the world of wonder it would do.

The point is the media blitz on fats. They bashed fats for so long and so hard, people see the word fat and run scared. Even my wife who knows I know about nutrition and set up her competition diets, when I mention adding fats, she cringes! And I am talking EFA's. This was the damage done, and what must be the take home message here for folks.

Not that they can go out and eat unlimited amounts fo fats.