Low-Fat Diets and Health (article)

[Guest guest]

And *this* one also was included in the IVU-Veg-News of today. Well, we never

did say

that low-fat was a cure-all - just that it helps to cut down on fatty foods if

one wants to

cut calories. Otoh, tomorrow they might come up with another study that says the

opposite. Me? I'll continue as I am.

Best, Pat

 

[uS] Low-Fat Diet Not Sufficient to Protect Health

 

The Washington Post - Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A01

Low-Fat Diet's Benefits Rejected

Study Finds No Drop In Risk for Disease

By Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer

 

Low-fat diets do not protect women against heart attacks, strokes,

breast cancer or colon cancer, a major study has found, contradicting what

had once been promoted as one of the cornerstones of a healthy

lifestyle.

The eight-year study of nearly 50,000 middle-age and elderly women --

by far the largest, most definitive test of cutting fat from the diet --

did not find any clear evidence that doing so reduced their risks,

undermining more than a decade of advice from many doctors.

The findings run contrary to the belief that eating less fat would have

myriad health benefits, which had prompted health authorities to begin

prominent campaigns to get people to eat less fat and the food industry

to line grocery shelves with low-fat cookies, chips and other products.

" Based on our findings, we cannot recommend that most women should

follow a low-fat diet, " said Jacques Rossouw of the National Heart, Lung

and Blood Institute, which funded the $415 million study.

Although the study involved only women, the findings probably apply to

men as well, he said.

Several experts cautioned, however, that the study hints that there

still may be some benefits to reducing the total amount of fat in the

diet, especially for breast cancer. In addition, there is clear evidence

from this and other studies that particular fats -- saturated fats from

meat and trans fats from processed foods -- are unhealthful and should

be avoided.

But the findings, being published today in three papers in the Journal

of the American Medical Association, deflate the notion that a simple,

easily communicated message of reducing overall fat intake would stave

off a host of ills.

" We set out to test a promising but unproven hypothesis that has proven

to be less promising than we anticipated, " Rossouw said. " This is the

nature of science: to have incremental gains and setbacks. We have a

duty as scientists to put the best information out there at any given

time, even if it can become confusing at times. "

Skeptics said the findings confirm their long objections to the message

that all fat is bad. That strategy may have diverted attention from

much more effective approaches that differentiate between healthful and

detrimental fats and may have contributed to the obesity epidemic because

people worried more about how much fat they ate than how many calories

they consumed, they said.

" It was a mistake, and this study really confirms that it was the wrong

direction to go for nutritional advice, " said Walter Willett of the

Harvard School of Public Health. " It did do harm. It was a lost

opportunity. People were given the idea that it was only fat calories that

counted. This should be the nail in the coffin for low-fat diets. "

Willett and other researchers fear that the findings will leave the

public skeptical about all health advice, or will be misinterpreted to

mean that diet and lifestyle are unimportant. A large and convincing body

of evidence shows that eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and

whole grains and low in saturated and trans fats; avoiding smoking;

exercising regularly; and maintaining an appropriate weight have a powerful

effect on health, they said.

" There's a danger people will throw up their hands and say, 'Why should

I believe anything else?' " Willett said. " But there is strong evidence

that diet and lifestyle do make a big difference. "

The findings stem from the Women's Health Initiative, which also

shocked the medical establishment in 2002 when it showed that taking hormones

not only did not protect the hearts of postmenopausal women but also

was dangerous.

For the new findings, researchers analyzed data from 48,835 women age

50 to 79 who joined the study between 1993 and 1998. About 40 percent

were counseled to eat more fruits and vegetables and to cut their overall

fat intake, with the goal of reducing their total fat consumption to no

more than 20 percent of their daily calories.

After about eight years, those women had cut their total fat from 35 to

38 percent to 24 to 29 percent on average, while the rest continued to

consume about the same amount.

The women on the low-fat diet had slightly lower levels of " bad "

cholesterol -- low-density lipoprotein -- and blood pressure, but their risk

of heart attack, stroke and heart disease was unaffected, one paper

showed. There were indications, however, that women who cut down on

saturated fat, or who ate more fruits and vegetables, did lower their risk.

Similarly, when the researchers looked at colorectal cancer, the women

who cut their fat intake had no decrease in risk, according to the

second paper. But they were less likely to develop polyps that increase the

risk, suggesting that a benefit may emerge later on, the researchers

said.

The third paper found that the low-fat diet also did not significantly

decrease the risk of breast cancer. Women on the low-fat diet did have

9 percent fewer breast cancers, but researchers could not be sure that

difference was not the result of chance. There were other encouraging

hints, however, including signs that women who were consuming the most

fat when the study began, or those prone to certain types of tumors, may

benefit, especially if they were followed longer.

" I think women who are currently following a low-fat diet should be

encouraged to do so. We didn't see any unfavorable effects, " said Ross

Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who

noted that the women on the diet also avoided gaining weight. " For women

who are at high risk for breast cancer, they should talk it over with

their physicians whether adopting a low-fat diet might be warranted. "

But overall, the findings fell far short of warranting a broad

recommendation for low-fat diets, several experts said.

" We had hoped that this approach would prove to be beneficial, " said

Barbara Howard of the MedStar Research Institute, who helped conduct the

study. " I think we've learned that nutrition is never simple and there

are no simple solutions. "

 

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[Guest guest]

Pat wrote:

 

> ....This should be the nail in the coffin for low-fat diets. " .....

> After about eight years, those women had cut their total fat from 35

> to 38 percent to 24 to 29 percent on average, while the rest continued

> to consume about the same amount.

 

This study compared a very high fat diet to a high fat diet. Anyone can

read work by Dr. Ornish and Dr McDougall and Dr Esselstein (spelled that

wrong!) and see that a true low fat diet reverses heart disease and

lowers cholesterol.

[Guest guest]

> Pat wrote:

>

> > ....This should be the nail in the coffin for low-fat diets. " .....

 

With respect, Pat did NOT say that - Pat simply sent along a current item on the

subject

but Pat's own comments were not those quoted in Laura's email. Pat's comments

preceded

the article were meant to sound a very skeptical note indeed.

 

> This study compared a very high fat diet to a high fat diet. Anyone can

> read work by Dr. Ornish and Dr McDougall and Dr Esselstein (spelled that

> wrong!) and see that a true low fat diet reverses heart disease and

> lowers cholesterol.

 

But of course. No argument there. But please, do not say Pat said the article

was 'a nail in

the coffin for low-fat diets', okay? ;-)

 

love, Pat

[Guest guest]

Hi Laura and others ;-)

 

I've read several articles on the subject and will look through again to say

who/what said

which thing, but . . . and this is a big BUT - But I'm pretty sure I read that

the people

tested were already overweight/obese AND that there was no distinction made

between

animal fats and non-animal fats, transfats, etc. etc. etc. You get the picture.

A column in

The Globe And Mail warned people to ignore the latest 'findings' and to continue

eating

low-fat foods.

 

But don't you just hate these bandwagons that come rolling along for people to

climb on

and roll off!

 

Back to my non-fat muffins - and very good they are too! They won't cure me of

anything I

haven't got, but they won't add to my woes either.

 

Love, Pat

[Guest guest]

>

> But of course. No argument there. But please, do not say Pat said the

> article was 'a nail in

> the coffin for low-fat diets', okay? ;-)

>

I'm sorry, Pat, I certainly didn't mean to quote you as saying that. I

could blame it on the email program that automatically puts a

" So-and-so-wrote " quote at the top of the page when I reply, but I can

delete that.

 

Laura

[Guest guest]

>

>

> But don't you just hate these bandwagons that come rolling along for

> people to climb on

> and roll off!

 

Yes, I hate it!

 

I have a dear friend who follows all of this and won't listen to me at

all. I really can't blame her, why listen to some goofy broad when your

doctor is telling you to buy canola oil and margarine and that dairy

products make you lose weight?

 

I'm not only losing faith in researchers, but some doctors who listen to

these reports and don't read the fine print.

[Guest guest]

> > But please, do not say Pat said the

> > article was 'a nail in

> > the coffin for low-fat diets', okay? ;-)

> >

> I'm sorry, Pat, I certainly didn't mean to quote you as saying that. I

> could blame it on the email program . . .

 

's'okay hon. I kinda knew that - somewhere inside what was passing for my head

late last

evening - but I had visions of someone coming along and reading that 'quote'

from 'pat'

and tying me to a stake and slowly broiling my toes! But hey, I do agree with

you 100 per

cent - more, if that were possible .

 

Big hugs, pat

[Guest guest]

Laura wrote:

This study compared a very high fat diet to a high fat diet. Anyone can

read work by Dr. Ornish and Dr McDougall and Dr Esselstein (spelled that

wrong!) and see that a true low fat diet reverses heart disease and

lowers cholesterol.

-----

 

 

No, 24-29% is not a high fat diet. I've never seen it referred to as a

high amount of fat (until now!), except perhaps by those who feel that

fat is to be [almost] completely eliminated in the diet (Ornish et al).

Based on my own reading, I would consider 24-29% to be a moderate amount

of fat, and probably a fairly healthy one if the fats are healthier fats.

 

It is strange that they didn't reduce fat more in the study. It doesn't

seem like a difference of ~10% is enough to draw the conclusion that

they did, and of course, a super low-fat diet might be different.

Ornish's plan is difficult for most people in the real world to follow

though. I don't see it catching on with the general population.

 

Interestingly, I hit reply to the previous mail and tried to send it

(twice)...and told me that no html was allowed - and I wasn't

using html! So now I have to reformat the entire post if I want to send

anything.

[Guest guest]

> I have a dear friend who follows all of this and won't listen to me at

> all. I really can't blame her, why listen to some goofy broad when your

> doctor is telling you to buy canola oil and margarine and that dairy

> products make you lose weight?

 

Oh yeah. The old cottage cheese and yoghurt line. Been there, worn the T-shirt.

For some

reason the medical profession seems to feel reassured if we tell them that we

eat a little

dairy now and then. I have no problem with tentatively agreeing with this, since

I probably

DO that now and then away from home - when you don't quite know how the bread

was

made, or or or . . . But really, I want to sit down and give them a lecture.

Unfortunately, no

only would they not accept it from a layperson (and quite right - gotta have

some

standards ;-)) but they wouldn't have the time to listen anymore than they have

the time to

read everything that comes out. Our docs are sadly overworked.

 

> I'm not only losing faith in researchers, but some doctors who listen to

> these reports and don't read the fine print.

 

Me too. Overworked or not, if one doesn't read the fine print one shouldn't

advise. Btw, it's

a sad comment - truly - but our last 2 doctors have been, quite by coincidence,

vegetarian

(I thought one was vegan, but turns out not) - and they STILL don't get it.

 

love, pat

[Guest guest]

Let's also not forget the huge dairy lobby, which spends millions of

dollars annually convincing lawmakers and physicians that Americans

(don't know about other countries) cannot live healthy lives without

consuming dairy products.

Karen

[Guest guest]

Suzanne Day Lueer wrote:

 

>

> Based on my own reading, I would consider 24-29% to be a moderate amount

> of fat, and probably a fairly healthy one if the fats are healthier fats.

 

I used to think the same thing. For quite a few years we tried doing a

Mediterranean type diet and used the so-called good fats like olive

oil. Our diet was between 20 and 30 percent fat and our cholesterol

levels were going up and I simply could not lose weight. For someone

who is trying to reverse the buildup of plaque in their arteries, that

is too much fat. Since I'm one of those people, I need to keep my

intake at 10 percent or less, which isn't really difficult now that I

know how. I agree it isn't for everybody, but I've already had three of

my cousins on one side of the family die of heart attacks (at ages 42,

49, and 50! -- I am 47) and all of my elderly aunts and uncles have had

at least one cardiac bypass surgery or stent procedure. I was scared

and just kept looking for answers that didn't involve surgery. I have

read (along with every diet and nutrition book I can find) Dr. Ornish

and Dr. McDougall's books and also The China Study and am convinced that

I'm on the right path to be as healthy as possible. There might not be

much I can do about my genetics but I can do much with diet and

exercise. My husband and I eat a diet that is between 5 and 10 percent

fat, although he gets more at times because he eats in restaurants about

once a month. We don't find it difficult to stick to this difficult at

all, but changing over to it was the hardest thing I've ever done.

 

Oh, and yes, my friends and family DO think I'm a freak! LOL

 

Laura

[Guest guest]

> Interestingly, I hit reply to the previous mail and tried to send it

> (twice)...and told me that no html was allowed - and I wasn't

> using html! So now I have to reformat the entire post if I want to send

> anything.

 

You would have added some message of your own, though - right? Is it possible

that you

inadvertently copied in something that was in html as part of your message?

That's the

only thing I can think of.

 

Otoh, does have the most endearing little glitches, doesn't it? :-(

 

Best love, Pat