# HAHAHAH!!!!! In your FACE, low-fat diets!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 8, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546 "2006-02-08T16:02:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Anise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/anise/32/21721_2.png) [@Anise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anise)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/1 "2006-02-08T16:02:46Z")
Here’s the link, although I’m not sure it will work unless y’all have a subscription to the NYT: > **[Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds (Published 2006)](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/us/lowfat-diet-does-not-cut-health-risks-study-finds.html)** > > 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... 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/2 "2006-02-08T16:10:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/3 "2006-02-08T16:15:44Z")
Any **woman** ’s risk: > [@](#): > > The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women ages 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. That’s a big distinction, especially in light of a very recent study showing that women’s cholesterol deposits are different from men’s. > [@](#): > > Not everyone was convinced. Some, like Dr. Dean Ornish, a longtime promoter of low-fat diets and president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif., said that the women did not reduce their fat to low enough levels or eat enough fruits and vegetables, and that the study, even at eight years, did not give the diets enough time. > > Others said that diet could still make a difference, at least with heart disease, if people were to eat the so-called Mediterranean diet, low in saturated fats like butter and high in oils like olive oil. The women in the study reduced all kinds of fat. > > The diets studied “had an antique patina,” said Dr. Peter Libby, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School. These days, Dr. Libby said, most people have moved on from the idea of controlling total fat to the idea that people should eat different kinds of fat. 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. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/4 "2006-02-08T16:22:01Z")
Those who mindlessly skim over things deserve to come out with the wrong impression, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/5 "2006-02-08T16:22:34Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > 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. Yup. The NYTimes story at least has the decency to link to [the actual study](http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629): > [@](#): > > CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in invasive breast cancer risk over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, the nonsignificant trends observed suggesting reduced risk associated with a low-fat dietary pattern indicate that longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison. > > [From the Comments]After approximately 8 years of follow-up, breast cancer incidence was 9% lower for women in the dietary intervention group compared with women in the comparison group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01). Because incidence rates did not differ between the intervention group and the comparison group at the conventional .05 level of significance, chance provides an explanation for the modestly lower breast cancer incidence rates in the intervention group. > > However, interpretation of these results needs to take into account the following. There were departures from the design assumptions that likely reduced study power. In addition, there was a significant interaction between the HR for the intervention group compared with the comparison group for baseline dietary fat consumption. Women in the intervention group with a higher baseline percentage of energy from fat provided stronger evidence for breast cancer reduction than women in the comparison group. Also, the HR varied among breast cancer subtypes defined by tumor hormone receptor characteristics. Such variation would not be expected if the intervention had no effect on breast cancer risk. > > … > > Relatively few women met the dietary target of 20% of energy from fat: 31.4% at year 1 and 14.4% at year 6. Also, the differences in the consumption of vegetables and fruit and grains between the intervention and comparison groups were modest. > > … > > In light of our findings, additional research on diet and breast cancer prevention could focus on those women most likely to benefit from a low-fat dietary pattern, such as those with diets habitually high in fat. > > … > > In conclusion, among postmenopausal women, a low-fat dietary pattern did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the risk of invasive breast cancer over an 8.1-year average follow-up period. However, nonsignificant trends were observed suggesting a reduced risk with a low-fat dietary pattern and incidence rate differences between groups are in agreement with design assumptions on acknowledging the dietary differences achieved. Because the health implications of a low-fat dietary pattern may take years to be fully realized, longer, planned, nonintervention follow-up may yield a more definitive comparison. 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. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/6 "2006-02-08T16:24:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Anise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/anise/32/21721_2.png) [@Anise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anise)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/7 "2006-02-08T16:28:04Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/8 "2006-02-08T16:33:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/9 "2006-02-08T16:37:06Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/10 "2006-02-08T16:37:21Z")
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. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/11 "2006-02-08T16:43:24Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > 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. > > Thanks. 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. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![velvetjones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/5f9b8f/32.png) [@velvetjones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velvetjones)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/12 "2006-02-08T16:56:49Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > 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. This is what I’ve been saying all along. Eat whole foods. Eat food that is as close as possible to it’s natural source and don’t eat so damn much. And go for a long walk every day. It really is simple. ---
**Author:** ![tremorviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@tremorviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tremorviolet)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/13 "2006-02-08T17:00:05Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/14 "2006-02-08T17:19:26Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > Proper nutrition and diet isn’t hard for the vast majority of folks out there. I have to disagree with this portion of your statement. [Unfortunately, obesity is not a well-documented problem; thus, statistical data are hard to obtain. Figure 1 shows percentages of overweight and obese individuals for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries (OECD, 2004). The United States has the highest percentage of obese and overweight population (64.5%); Mexico (62.3%), the United Kingdom (61%), and Australia (58.4%) follow close behind. The lowest percentages are recorded in Japan (25.8%) and Korea (30.6%).](http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-3/obesity/2004-3-02.htm) So it seems proper nutrition and diet really _is_ a problem for the majority of people out there. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/15 "2006-02-08T17:24:12Z")
> [@Anise](#): > > 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’ll move this to MPSIMS for you. If you’d rather it go somewhere else (GD?) shoot me an email and I’ll move it again. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/16 "2006-02-08T17:26:03Z")
> [@Biggirl](#): > > So it seems proper nutrition and diet really _is_ a problem for the majority of people out there. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/17 "2006-02-08T18:53:31Z")
> [@Anise](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/18 "2006-02-08T20:55:27Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/19 "2006-02-08T23:09:13Z")
> [@Anise](#): > > 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. One study by itself doesn’t prove anything. Its only when a series of studies show the same results that it becomes meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![Idlewild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8491ac/32.png) [@Idlewild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idlewild)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546/20 "2006-02-09T12:31:10Z")
I just have to say that the thread title makes me giggle. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hahahah-in-your-face-low-fat-diets/343546.md?page=2)