NYT: Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html?hp&ex=1139374800&en=545079114baa0725&ei=5094&partner=homepage

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.

Journal of the American Medical Association 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."

The study, published in today's issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, was not just an ordinary study, said Dr. Michael Thun, who directs epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society. It was so large and so expensive, Dr. Thun said, that it was "the Rolls-Royce of studies." As such, he added, it is likely to be the final word.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Aha. Ok. Well I feel less guilty for letting my family eat liek crap, then

[merwin]

2. McDonalds must be happy about this study.

Personally, I think it's bullshit. If you eat like crap, you're going to die sooner. It's a fact. If you eat healthy and exercise, you're going to live longer.

Next thing you know, they're going to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

[Broken_Hero]

5. Yeah, I agree with you on that....

McDonalds is excited, and I bet the next that will happen is a new study that says cigarettes dont' cause cancer, but make you a better athlete, and helps you breathe better....I don't believe the study either...

[Auntie Bush]

6. Big Mack, the Hut and Fried Chicken probably paid for the study.

[Starlight]

11. That's what I was thinking.

:puffpiece:

[anitar1]

19. And litle boots Boosch also. n/t

[crispini]

3. Interestingly enough, though, the study has nothing to do with WEIGHT.

"The women were not trying to lose weight, and their weights remained fairly steady. "

I bet a lot of people are going to miss that, and think that, "It's ok to eat what I like." Whereas there are still a lot of health risks associated with *obesity.*

[bananas]

4. More proof that Atkins was right.

[depakid]

23. Atkins is dead!

and had weight problems and a cardiac arrest the year he died (apparantly from a fall & subdural hematoma).

The again, natural food guru Euell Gibbons also died of a cardiac arrest at age 63.

[Dogmudgeon]

27. How Atkins died

He was outside, taking a walk with his wife, after a snowstorm -- most guys his age can't even walk out to the mailbox. He slipped on some ice, cracked his head on the sidewalk, and died over a protracted period of a traumatic head bleed.

His weight and heart problems were hyped by "health activists" who appeared to care less for Atkins' life than for their own causes. I had a relative who died this way; it's not all that uncommon. Like most such deaths, it was not a pleasant way to go. And, as for her weight, she developed heart failure, which led to a massive edematous weight gain followed by even quicker weight loss.

People love stories about health promoters who die -- it's the cynical human love of the stink their own bullshit. Diet gurus die of heart trouble, preachers die of AIDS, and the Darwin Awards is boffo biz.

Bwa-ha. Bwa-ha. Bwa. Fucking. Ha.

Neither Atkins nor Gibbons were nearly as arrogant and nasty as ... well, in the interest of avoiding a flame war, I'll forgo naming names.

--p!

[depakid]

30. Just because

Atkins' proximate cause of death was a fall, doesn't mean he didn't suffer from heart problems- or that despite this study, his diet wasn't potentially dangerous (think kidney disorders on top of possible CVD).

[Dogmudgeon]

31. The standard misinfo

Health fanatics hated Atkins. They still do.

Are you aware of the "spy" who snuck into Atkins' hospital room -- while he was in a coma, dying -- to take pictures and report on his weight? Atkins' facial edema was reported as "gross obesity". Perhaps they could have drawn a smiley face on his catheterized penis while they were on their jackals' mission.

Atkins may indeed have had heart problems. Most men in their 70s do. Atkins was overweight until his mid-40s, so that should come as no surprise to anyone. Virginia Atkins was eventually pushed to release a number of Bob's health records, facing unfounded accusations of fraud. She had to do this while her husband was dying, on the demand of self-appointed "health activists".

Yes, I referred to him as "Bob". Bob Atkins was a real human being, not some imaginary figure in the imaginations of the "activists" who sought to destroy his reputation while he was unable to defend himself. We often complain about physicians who speak of "that kidney in 335b". Well, activists, reputable or (in this case) not, are prone to the same error. And they certainly dehumanized the late Dr. Atkins.

Why should I "think kidney disorders" (like some iPod or Mac ad)? Dietary carbohydrate restriction doesn't hurt the kidneys except in a few well-studied conditions, in which many foods will also hurt the kidneys. My father died of kidney and heart failure in 1996, and through the 80s and 90s, I learned more about it than I would have liked, and my mother cooked to spec. There has been over 75 years of research on this topic -- none of which seems to matter to the anti-Atkins fanatics.

These fanatics wrote a hundred snickering articles that found a thousand stink-happy editors, snuck into a dying man's hospital room to spy on him, hassled his family and friends, improperly raised allegations of fraud, hired private investigators to dig for as much dirt as they could find, and lied, lied, lied. They did most of this while he was dying and in a short period thereafter.

Such are the ways of vultures. Fuck them. And I don't care what god, creed, country, or diet they espouse. Such people deserve no respect whatsoever. Fuck them twice.

This issue really got to me, much as the tender love of Freepers gets to most of us. The use of Robert Atkins as a whipping boy by the fanatics' club was incomprehensible, and the actual attacks on his character were chilling. The photo of Atkins -- comatose, dying, and without hope -- that appeared in the tabloids was among the worst excesses of journalism I'd ever seen. Are we now expected to eat a certain diet -- or else?

But think about it. We've turned food and diet into a replacement for sexual morality. Either way, it's absurd, and it's brought out a whole new generation of moralists who are "concerned" for our salvation. And I have a suspicion that Robert Atkins won't be the last one to be treated to their "concern".

--p!

[depakid]

32. I don't know about activists

but I do know a little about public health and medical literature. I don't have any thoughts on Atkins the person one way or another. But looking at his diet objectively and skeptically, I've come to the conclusion that it's as much hype as it is evidenced based.

Moreover, aside from the fact that I'm viewing the Times' article with a jaundiced eye (until I see much more critical review) high protien diets can and DO damage the kidneys- run the searches yourself and see.

People need to weigh those risks carefully- as they do with any form of treatment. To the extent that Atkins- as a physician- publically discounted those risks (and perhaps others) while promoting his diet, he was irresponsible and did a disservice to his readers.

[supernova]

33. Atkins' cardiomyopathy from a heart infection

He had a bout of endocarditis in the early 90s. Endocarditis is an infection of the heart, usually the valves and usually strep is to blame. Remember strep throat? Yes, it's the same organism. As a result he had cardiomyopathy, a gradual weakening of the heart muscle. It's a fairly common cardiac problem which had nothing to do with his diet. But before his fall he was coping nicely, eating well, exercising, and taking meds which helped the cardiomyopathy.

Certain activists got hold of his medical records, invading his privacy as a patient, and released them to the public against the wishes of him, his family, and his doctors. I can't think of anything more unethical in this whole sleazy incident.

And yes, I am a well-informed cardiology patient.

[Ilsa]

7. There were a lot of caveats with the conclusions.

For example, there were people who were told to reduce fat, and they may have reduced polyunsaturated or good fats that boost good cholesterol.

Also, all of the subjects were over age fifty when they started the program, so they had 2/3 of a lifetime of bad eating habits that may affect their health outcome regardless of their eating habits later in life.

[jobycom]

8. Weak, misleading study

It didn't differentiate between types of fats, and had nothing to do with overall quality of food. In addition, the ammount of fat given up for a "low fat" diet wasn't that significant.

Most of the research in the last decade has shown that oils and natural vegetable fats weren't a problem, that saturated fats, animal fats, and trans-fats were. These people could have stopped putting olive oil on salads and almond butter on whole wheat crackers and instead put lard on sugar cookies and still fit within the guidelines of the study. Even eight to ten years ago, when the study was begun, people knew the difference.

When I see studies like this, I wonder who was behind the funding. The beef industry? Fast food lobbyists? The makers of cholesterol drugs and chemo-therapy? There is a lot of politics in "science," or maybe I should say in the funding of science.

[Trillo]

9. I feel my blood pressure going up again.

Are they trying to drive people crazy and sick on purpose?

[ckramer]

10. Looks like it's okay to be fat now

Snack on!

[jpgray]

12. Did they discriminate between animal and unsaturated fats?

Healthy fats can be very good for you. Unhealthy fats have little value and many drawbacks.

[hopeisaplace]

14. exactly, your body needs healthy fats to be healthy

Learned about this - read a bit - been on weight watchers for a year - so here's
some of what I've read (in summary...and please note, I'm no expert..*here I go*)

Eating fat does not make you fat..that's a known fact.

The myth that you gain wait by eating fats is a myth - but you will gain weight
by eating "crap fat" ...cause "crap fat" is high in calories. Only carbs/sugars
will "feed" our fat cells. Eating fat itself, per say, does not make you fat.
Fat does not trigger "an insulin response", carbs/sugars do. Carbs/sugars, high
in calories which could also be high in fat does trigger an insulin response.
When your fat cells are "overloaded" and the fat cannot be stored in the fat cell and
your body hasn't used up enough energy to burn off your excess carbs/sugars then you
gain weight.

Eating healthy fats are essential for balanced weight and good health. Good fats being
olive oil, nuts, etc...2 tbsp of olive oil (if I'm remembering my amounts correctly?)
are about what your body needs in good fats everyday.


edit: typo

[baby_bear]

16. Don't forget avocadoes

Olives, too, to a bit lesser degree. And some nuts are better than others. Walnuts and almonds rock!!

And remember to store all your good-high-fight foods like nuts and oils cold and in the dark.

Eat and be happy and healthy!

b_b

[hopeisaplace]

18. yes, thank you...those items too...

just read an excellent report on Almonds...eating a handful
a day is suppose to be very good for us :)

[JI7]

13. "women ages 50 to 79"

i wonder if the same would be true if they followed their eating habits before these ages. maybe what someone eats in earlier years might have a bigger impact than later years.

i don't know.

but these things are always coming out and there is always conflicting news. i imagine genetics plays one of the biggest roles in this also.

[PBass]

15. "Experts" change their minds about nutrition issues all the time

Take this new study with a big grain of salt.

[shanti]

17. of course, because it's not the fat

it's the high fructose corn syrup. fat free, but a killer.

[eridani]

20. Profound effects on small numbers of individuals with specific genetics--

--are likely to be buried in a study like this. I'll bet that if people with hyperlipidemia were separated from the rest of the study population, they'd show significant improvements.

It's like a study of large numbers of kids on a low phenylalanine diet. Such a study would detect no differences in IQ compared to kids not restricting phenylalanine. If they separated out the kids who were genetically unable to metabolize phenylalanine, there would be a dramatic effect on IQ.

Just goes to show that there is no general recipe for a healthy diet that is truly universal.

[BootinUp]

21. I've suspected this for some time now

Once the low carb diets proved succesful for so many, it started to become obvious the recommended diets were based on faulty premises.

[depakid]

22. I'd wait to hear the criticisms from credible sources first

before buying into this on such a broad level.

Not that you shouldn't trust the Times and the rest of the MSM to give you the straight story....

:sarcasm:

[zelda7743]

26. I'm a Registered Dietitian

I really don't like the study or the ramifications for the general public. The study's age group is too high. By the time a person is 50, heart damage is already done. I wish they would take some 20 year olds and follow them for a decade. That would be a much better indicator. I'm terribly afraid that people are going to take this to mean that they can eat whatever they want and still be healthy.
Tinfoil hat time....maybe the government is trying to kill people off?

[depakid]

29. Then there's the diabetes epidemic to consider

which the NY Times just wrote a very disturb series about... seems their editors aren't too adept at making connections (understatement.

I agree with you, btw. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that cardio-vascular disease is a cumulative process- and some (like Barker) say that risk factors may even begin before birth.

[Vinca]

24. Here's the secret the drug companies don't want you to know:

it's all in your genes. Think of all the good/bad/good things we've been told over the years. Coffee - bad, then good. Carbs - good, bad, good. Protein - good, bad, good, bad. Aspirin - good, bad, good, half good. It's been a bonanza for the drug companies, making it easy to convince the masses they need a statin drug (taken daily for the rest of their lives) to survive. I'm convinced worrying 24/7 about health issues is the worst thing you can do to yourself.

[Dogmudgeon]

25. How to eat well (as if!)

Most people have this idea that food consists only of medications and poisons, and freak out if they get so much as a morsel of one food or another. Even the AMA has promoted that kind of view over the years. People really have to "get in touch with food" again.

Make more of your own food. Eat less packaged stuff.

Use less sugar, but don't panic over it.

Eat more vegetables, especially if they're fresh and locally grown.

Don't worry too much about eating the "perfect" diet. Your body will adjust.

Don't eat too much of any one food. Ten pounds of tofu or Special K per week is probably too much.

The only thing you have to work at keeping away from trans-fats (hydrogenated oils). They're quite bad for you -- but they're still short of being poisons.

Let yourself miss a meal or two occasionally.

Of course, people with special needs, like diabetics, will have to follow additional advice.

Learn to pay attention to your body and understand your feelings, emotional as well as physical.

Most people need to exercise more, but that's a different subject. Same, too, with problems from emotional distress, lack of sleep, and so on. It would also be helpful if we got off this "personal responsibility mania" jag and realized that there are a number of pollutants that our bodies also have to deal with, chemicals that are extremely well-known to induce cancer, cause physiological sexual dysfunction, and encourage obesity. There is no practical way of which I'm aware to deal with pollutants except to do what we can to help our bodies heal from damage quickly.

--p!

[plasticsundance]

28. JAMA is a well respected peer-reviewed journal.

There's healthy skepticism, but I do think that JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet can be trusted to do honest studies. They will often have counter opinions critical of the studies they publish and they'll do follow ups. They're very scientific based.

This study does in part support some of Atkins contentions, but one diet might be good for one person, but not another. Atkins is supported by other well-researched studies.

The Atkins diet did wonders for me. I wasn't obese, but I started to feel as if I was losing my health and gaining more weight than I cared to carry around. I started the Atkins diet, and found I had less headaches, which I suffered from almost daily. I also stopped having to urinate so many times a day. I felt a marked improvement, including having more energy. Before the Atkins diet, I ate plenty of fruit and whole grains.

My wife also did the Atkins diet, and it did nothing for her. My wife finds that a well balanced meal of proteins, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and eating yogurt maintains her optimal health.

Perhaps, one should look to the source. Here is the abstract of the study from JAMA:

CONTEXT: Obesity in the United States has increased dramatically during the past several decades. There is debate about optimum calorie balance for prevention of weight gain, and proponents of some low-carbohydrate diet regimens have suggested that the increasing obesity may be attributed, in part, to low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. OBJECTIVES: To report data on body weight in a long-term, low-fat diet trial for which the primary end points were breast and colorectal cancer and to examine the relationships between weight changes and changes in dietary components. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized intervention trial of 48,835 postmenopausal women in the United States who were of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities and participated in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial; 40% (19,541) were randomized to the intervention and 60% (29,294) to a control group. Study enrollment was between 1993 and 1998, and this analysis includes a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (through August 31, 2004). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention included group and individual sessions to promote a decrease in fat intake and increases in vegetable, fruit, and grain consumption and did not include weight loss or caloric restriction goals. The control group received diet-related education materials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in body weight from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: Women in the intervention group lost weight in the first year (mean of 2.2 kg, P<.001) and maintained lower weight than control women during an average 7.5 years of follow-up (difference, 1.9 kg, P<.001 at 1 year and 0.4 kg, P = .01 at 7.5 years). No tendency toward weight gain was observed in intervention group women overall or when stratified by age, ethnicity, or body mass index. Weight loss was greatest among women in either group who decreased their percentage of energy from fat. A similar but lesser trend was observed with increases in vegetable and fruit servings, and a nonsignificant trend toward weight loss occurred with increasing intake of fiber. CONCLUSION: A low-fat eating pattern does not result in weight gain in postmenopausal women.Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00000611.


JAMA: The Journal Of The American Medical Association 2006 Jan 4; Vol. 295 (1), pp. 39-49.

[Dogmudgeon]

34. One size does not fit all

And I think we're slowly learning that lesson.

Low-carb eating helped me tremendously -- but after a certain point, it didn't work at all. I seem to have a "two-state" body; or it's possible that I'm in between two different conditions, either inborn and "normal" for me, or perhaps pathological. None the less, I've avoided developing diabetes,reduced the reactive hypoglycemia, and greatly improved my lipid profile. I was advised to start taking beta-blocker blood pressure meds in 1992, right before I tried Atkins' (and others') approach, but was able to avoid them entirely until just recently, and probably only need them because my activity has been curtailed by other ill health unrelated to the usual weight/blood sugar/lipid problems. A thirteen years' reprieve -- and even now, my high blood pressure is likely to be treatable by exercise when I'm able to "indulge" again.

Naturally, I found the shitstorm that followed Atkins' death was an exercise in the grotesque. I've written about it, above.

Some people get much better responses from other dietary maneuvers, and all such diets should be studied to see what make them work. There is probably a big genetic involvement, but it seems like a few approaches work better than others.

However, it seems as though "Food is the new Sex", and there is no shortage of neo-neo-Puritans.

--p!

[Dulcinea]

37. We have a winner! ding*ding*

I'm absolutely sure there is genetics involved!

The Atkins diet works well for a lot of people. However, I'm not one of them. Low-carb makes me tired, grouchy & brain-dead, even after the adjustment period. I need my complex carbs to function well. I run 20+ miles/week, work part-time outside the home, plus I have 2 toddlers. I can't function without the energy.

Also, I have high cholesterol, which in my case is hereditary; my father has had to take drugs for his triglycerides as far back as I can remember. Therefore, I have to watch my bad-fat intake.

YMMV.

[Yavin4]

39. Atkins Is Primarily For Sedentary People

If you're running 20+ miles a week, you need to eat carbs.

[Starlight]

35. The study does NOT say that low fat diets don't prevent disease.

The reporting of that study was *VERY* misleading! The study absolutely
did NOT show that following a low fat diet had no effect on disease!

If you read the study summary, it says that the test group were only
advised to follow a low fat diet and lose weight if needed. Most of
them didn't follow the instructions, remained overweight and continued
to eat a high fat junk food diet.

A more accurate conclusion would be that *telling* people they should
eat better doesn't prevent disease!

[Gloria]

36. You mean that very low fat heart diet out of MA which showed

that arteries could be cleaned out by diet doesn't count?????

[Neshanic]

38. "They had no hot fudge, no cream pies"? "Sleeper" moment.