On February 7th, 2006 revolutionary findings were revealed to the public, as the results of an eight-year, $415 million federal study that involved over 48,000 women aged 50 to 79 told the world that a low-fat diet has no effect on the risk of getting cancer or heart disease.
The women assigned to the low-fat diet experienced the same rates of breast and colon cancer, and heart attacks and strokes, as did the group of women who were allowed to eat anything that they wanted. I would be seriously bummed out if I was part of this study, ate a low-fat diet and got sick. Anyway…
Big shots from all over the world of diet and nutrition have weighed in and they are all saying basically the same thing. Science doesn’t lie.
The only people who are disappointed in these findings are people who promote a low-fat diet. And by “promote” I mean sell books and other products and services that allow these people to make money by telling the rest of us to eat a low-fat diet.
For instance, Dr. Dean Ornish who favors a draconian low-fat, vegetarian diet has been vocal in his opposition to the findings of this study. His Life Choice diet tells people that they need to get less than 10% of their total calories from fat. You have to avoid all oils, all low-fat dairy-products, ALL MEATS INCLUDING CHICKEN AND FISH, olives, nuts and seeds, and alcohol.
Why live? Seriously. What the hell is the sense of living on this planet if you cannot ever eat any of these foods? This Dr. Ornish must be a heck of a fun guy. What a waste of time and effort. If eating any of these foods on Dr. Dean’s list were really bad for you the entire nation of Italy – among just one of the great culinary nations – would have been extinct hundreds of years ago.
You would be very miserable if you had to try and stick to this program for two days. You can thank the researchers involved with this study for allowing all of us to ignore this kind of unsound and baseless nutritional advice.
Hopefully people will heed the words of Dr. Jules Hirsh of the Rockefeller University in New York City who said in an article that appeared in the the February 7, 2006 edition of the New York Times, “These studies are revolutionary…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.” That goes for you, Dr. Ornish.
Article comments
1 - Lisa McKay
Excellent write-up and perspective on this, Sal. It really kind of confirms the notion that in diet, as in most things, moderation and common sense trump fads any day.
2 - htom
While I tried Ornish for almost a year, and abandoned it, to claim that this study refutes his claims is just silly -- and very bad science. The "low fat"[sic] diet group were told to aim for 20% of calories from fat, achieved 24% in the first year, and gradually increased their "success" to 29% in the final year. In other words, they were consuming two to three times as much fat as the Ornish "heart cure" diet allows, and it's not surprizing that it did not confim his study. It would have been stunning if it had.
What is surprizing is that it's being sold as a study that shows something that it never could have done, and that you're going along with this horrid example of bad science.
Ornish (and Pritikin) may or may not be correct; this study doesn't address that. It just doesn't.
3 - bbence
As it may be foolish to unseeingly follow any diet hype, in my opinion it's just as foolish to condemn all reform diets based only on ONE scientific resarch. Don't you agree?
4 - Vat
Don't forget to exercise!
5 - Anna
Here's a link to the study published in JAMA:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629
6 - Vatbbence
Yup, totally disregard anyone actually trying to loose weight, its all about the Cancer and Heart Disease isn't it?
7 - John
Thanks for the interesting article! However...
This was a very limited sample...post-menopausal women. Furthermore, the studies did not include or test the types of fats consumed. I thought that was a BIG oversight on their part, as most people know many fats are good for the heart while some (saturated) are bad for the heart. The high fat women could have been eating healthy fats like walnuts, flax, and salmon. The type of fats consumed is the most important factor. The Mediterranean diet is very high in good fats and these people suffer a very low incidence of heart disease.
8 - sal m
bbence wrote:
"As it may be foolish to unseeingly follow any diet hype, in my opinion it's just as foolish to condemn all reform diets based only on ONE scientific resarch. Don't you agree?"
it isn't foolish or misguided to use the data from one study, especially when the study is so all encompassing as this one was, and resulted in data that is clear cut.
and weight loss is ONLY about calories in and calories out. it is that simple...to avoid fats for any reason is foolish and counterproductive...
this study doesn't mean - and i'm not saying - that people can go out and eat KFC everyday all day and not have a problem.
but it does mean that all of the food nazis out there have one less leg to stand on...and that's good for everyone, especially the vast majority of people out there who have forgotten how to eat properly.
9 - Trouble
As an overweight person I know all this is true, from personal views of experience. BUT, its not that simple.
Eating and drinking properly is a science in itself. We should not lose that ideal either. Just because of this study, we do not go need to go to a fast food place and pig out.
Keep things clean, simple, and excercise. Simple
10 - sal m
the point about the mediterranean diet is well taken, but that is not a LOW FAT diet but a HEALTHY FAT diet...HUGE difference...the Ornish plan calls for less than 10% fat and no oils or meats...
and with regards to the types of fats eaten in this study, it would be impossible to track that kind of detail with any kind of accuracy in the kind of trial of this length.
11 - John
Sorry I just don't get the point of your article. Are you thinking that the study condones eating lots of animal fat? I don't think so. I'm guessing there are many, many studies showing that excess saturated fat leads to heart disease. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't make too many generalizations about the study because it was too vague about the fat.
Furthermore, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to determine which fats people were eating. To get the result in the first place they must of had the subjects' menus, no? They should do a multivariate analysis on the types of fats consumed my the indivduals and I think the results would be much different. Just my 2cents.
12 - sal m
john wrote:
"I'm guessing there are many, many studies showing that excess saturated fat leads to heart disease."
if you're guessing than you'd be wrong...that's why this study is significant, because the guessers and assumers have been telling people that all kinds of different foods are bad for us, or are good for us, without any real scientific data to back up their claims.
if you don't understand the point of the article i suggest going back and rereading it.
13 - John
I totally understand the article. The problem is, I think you are reading way too much into it. You must consider the types of fats people are consuming. It is the biggest factor between American people dying of heart disease because of french fries and hamburgers and Eskimos, Islanders and Italians not being afflicted at near the same ratio even though they eat A LOT of fats (good fats).
I said, "I'm guessing" because I don't have the time to go searching for nutrition articles. However, I can direct you to the American Heart Association. Here I can GUARENTEE that they will tell you to avoid saturated fat to prevent heart disease.
Look I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sails or start a flame war. It just seems you're jumping the gun over just one study.
14 - sal m
john:
i don't think your comments constitute a flame by any means...
and the wind isn't out of my sails...i didn't say that french fries are the way to go or that people can eat whatever they want...but at the same time I AM saying that this study does prove that there are no preventative benefits that come from a low fat diet.
and no offense to the American Heart Association, but they have jumped the gun before and have used anecdotal findings or small, inconclusive studies to advise Americans to stay away from all kinds of foods. first it was eggs, then is was salt, then it was a low-fat diet...they have been wrong on all three counts.
dr michael thun from the American Cancer Society said that this study was "the Rolls-Royce of studies" and it would likely be the final word on the subject.
and as a matter of fact also according to the Times article, heart disease researchers have long since moved on from their position that reducing total fat would have a positive affect.
so i'm not some lone voice in the woods.
15 - John
I agree with you that a low-fat diet is not the way to go. Fat is an important macronutrient and is essential for life. And I think I understand your main point...to debunk "no-fat" diet fads. I totally agree with you.
I just don't want people to go out and say, "I was reading on the internet that I can eat fried chicken and steak everyday. They won't hurt my heart!" With vague reports that "fat" is ok, I think these ideas might come to be. People trust scientific reports and I feel they have the responsibility to be as concise and accurate as possible to prevent misinformation.
16 - sal m
john wrote:
"I just don't want people to go out and say, "I was reading on the internet that I can eat fried chicken and steak everyday. They won't hurt my heart!" With vague reports that "fat" is ok, I think these ideas might come to be. People trust scientific reports and I feel they have the responsibility to be as concise and accurate as possible to prevent misinformation."
unfortunately people are going to do what they want to...this kind of info will be of value and interest to those people who want to help themself...your comments deal with a completely different kind of person...and no where does it say that this study means it's ok to fried foods everyday...and actually there is a huge difference between eating fried chicken everyday - which is bad - and eating a good steak everyday - which is good...you can make all the assumptions that you want to about red meat, but none of it has been proven because there is nothing inherently bad about eating meat.
17 - dani
i love ross
18 - dani
hi