Here’s the link, although I’m not sure it will work unless y’all have a subscription to the NYT:
According to a huge and well-designed new study, cutting overall fat in the diet DOES NOT reduce anybody’s risk of developing cancer or heart disease.
But this is NOTHING NEW!!! The SAME results were found in the Framingham study and the JoAnn Manson nurse study (where the group of women who ate the most fat actually had the least breast cancer.) I’ve been going around saying this for YEARS. I jumped and down and screeched with happiness when I read this story, which was, BTW, the lead front-page story in the NYT. Now, I’d really be happy if somebody would do a study like this that examined the effect of refined sugar and simple carbs (not just overall carbs) in the diet, because there has never been one done that was nearly as well-designed as this one… but we can’t have everything. Between this and the news yesterday that 20 new species of frogs were found in the Indonesian jungle, I’m happy now.
That’s all we need; something that serial dieters can skim over lightly and go away thinking they need to eat blocks of pure lard; it happened with Atkins, it can happen again.
That’s a big distinction, especially in light of a very recent study showing that women’s cholesterol deposits are different from men’s.
The vegan, extremely low-fat diet espoused by Ornish, for instance, was shown in studies (last I read up on the topic) to actually help reverse the effects of heart disease when adhered to correctly.
And finally, to quote from the researchers’ findings in the article: “Given the lack of benefit found in the study, many medical researchers said that the best dietary advice, for now, was to follow federal guidelines for healthy eating, with less saturated and trans fats, more grains, and more fruits and vegetables.” This doesn’t mean you get to eat a lot of fat and not care at all.
Yup. The NYTimes story at least has the decency to link to the actual study:
The NYTimes science department sucks at dietary stories: I strongly suspect that their main diet reporter is an Atkins afficionado. This isn’t the first time they’ve strongly misrepresented research results.
How did nutrition become such a cluster fuck? You would think how we should it would be a simple matter of basic nutrition and common sense. In reality, it is. However, nutritional studies always get tried in the courts of popular press, talk shows, crackpot book, and a generally scientifically ignorant and selective hearing public. These studies are refinements and elaborations on basic ideas. They aren’t reasons to radically alter people’s diets and twist them well beyond what a human in its natural habitat (that being one unpolluted by many versions of crackpotedness) would eat.
Yes, they probably do. However, I am not talking about those people, and I cannot be responsible for the way in which they interpret this. I have studied this issue for many years. Dean Ornish’s study is highly misleading, and the way it has been presented in the media is generally extremely inaccurate. A large number of lifestyle changes were made by the participants at the same time-- not only a low-fat and vegetarian diet, but also quitting smoking, instituting an exercise program, greatly reducing the number of simple carbs consumed, and beginning a meditation and stress reduction program. Making all of these changes and then claiming that the good results you get are due to only ONE of them is not very good science, and Dr. Ornish should know better.
To be honest, this probably doesn’t belong in the BBQ pit. It’s fun to rant and rave, but I’d rather have a discussion. This is a serious issue, and it bothers me a lot, and I’d rather actually talk about it. Whenever I start a thread here, it always seems to end up that way… I don’t think I like flaming very much…
I agree with Shagnasty. Proper nutrition and diet isn’t hard for the vast majority of folks out there. Put down the Big Mac and the Ben and Jerry’s, reduce your intake of processed crap and junk food, eat some fruits and veggies. And reducing your portions would probably be a good idea, too. It’s really just that simple.
Yes it truly is. Why can’t that be the next big fad diet? Surely most of the other hit diets that have exploded into popularity have been much harder to sustain.
I know this is the pit but can someone help me fight ignorance here?
Does this study show that a low fat diet is helpful for women or not?
I am confused about the study’s conclusions. The articles I’ve read about it have implied that a low fat diet will not help fight offf three major diseases.
The study’s findings, as near as I can tell are limited:
A modest change in dietary fat levels, accompanied by a modest increase in consumption of fruit and vegetables, but not necessarily accompanied by a change in total caloric intake, does not have a statistically significant effect on breast cancer levels in women over a relatively short-term study.
I read the comments and the abstract, but not the meat of the study. There may be more conclusions that can be drawn from the meat. I do not trust media sources to report dietary studies accurately.
Everyone wants a “magic” solution that doesn’t involve any sacrifices. The real lesson I see from most diet studies is what Neurotik says: eat real foods but not too much of them.
I suspect the it’s not lowfat diets that have appeared to be effective in other studies, it’s more that if you eat properly with lots of fruits, veggies, and whole grains and not too much meat, your diet is naturally not particularly high in fat. Substituting a lot of crappy processed low fat stuff ain’t gonna give you the same results.
I didn’t mean that the vast majority of people are eating properly, I meant that it isn’t difficult for them to do so if they actually wanted to. There are no secret tricks or special “hi fat lo carb” or “hi protein lo fat” or whatever diets necessary. Just cut down on the amount, eat some veggies, skimp on the processed crap. It’s just not that difficult.
I know it’s been said before, but it’s really important to look at the details here.
It’s not useful to think of things in terms of “fat” without making distinctions between saturated and trans- fats and unsaturated fats/omega 3 etc. Avoiding all fats offers no net gain, because you need the good fat to be healthy.
Some people glance at one line in the abstract and think “There’s no harm in a steady diet of bratwurst, french fries, and ice cream,” which is ridiculous. These are all things that it’s best to approach in moderation, because they’re loaded with the wrong types of fat.
The deal is that you have to be aware of the type of fat that you need in your diet, which you’ll find in things like fish and most vegetable sources of fat. (Except a few deviants like coconut, palm, and peanut oils.)
In a nutshell, eschewing fat altogether is a bad idea, because you need fat to live. (Duh.) But there’s a world of difference between the fat you get from an all-fried breakfast of bacon, eggs, and hash-browns and the equivalent amount of fat you get from a meal of baked salmon and a nice avocado salad with olive-oil dressing.
You have to be conscious of what constitutes good fat, and which ones, when viewed under a microscope, have molecules that are all sporting “Evil Kirk” goatees.
That’s the problem: this is far beyond what the average person is willing to learn. How do you overcome epidemic intellectual laziness regarding a topic that, to be honest, isn’t all that simple?
