Pass the butter, please!

[Norajane]

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

By GINA KOLATA
Published: February 8, 2006

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 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.

Full New York Times story


Good thing I never bothered with the low-fat ice cream.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can't afford butter.

"Big and Expensive" means it's right, huh? That's interesting thinking... and several people pointed out that there were side issues unadressed- for 415 million dolars, they could have looked at olive oil....

 

[Guest]

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Wow. That's impressive.

It just goes to prove two things, I think:

(1) Nutritionists don't know what the hell they're talking about. Most of the research they use to support their arguments was done during WWII and was very crude, and no new studies have been done since. The rest of it is mostly anecdotal.

(2) Food fads are motivated at least as much by our stubborn streak of American Puritanism as they are by any hard scientific data. Like with sex, we tend to assume that if it feels good, it has to be bad for you.

 

[Belegon]

Like with sex, we tend to assume that if it feels good, it has to be bad for you.

That quote is just so dead on it needed to be isolated...apologies for the threadjack....

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Ha!!!!!!


'nuff said

 

[silverwhisper]

norajane: hey, i didn't even know it and i was part of the control group!

am i the only one who thought that this was going to be about last tango in paris?

ed

 

[Norajane]

norajane: hey, i didn't even know it and i was part of the control group!

am i the only one who thought that this was going to be about last tango in paris?

ed

Not that, but I'd imagine some people might have thought the thread was about slippery sex...

 

[silverwhisper]

hey, i think i can use that in my next story...thanks!

ed

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, there are always going to be killjoys who will find excuses to maintain the "conventional" view at any costs. For once, I think Doc has a point (although the antebellum South and colonial Pennsylvania were hardly "Puritan"); there are people who distrust pleasure and always will go through life merely existing. NO THANKS! I am more interesting in being "EVIL" (LIVE spelt backwards).

 

[Guest]

 

[Sex and Death]

Wow. That's impressive.

It just goes to prove two things, I think:

(1) Nutritionists don't know what the hell they're talking about. Most of the research they use to support their arguments was done during WWII and was very crude, and no new studies have been done since. The rest of it is mostly anecdotal.

(2) Food fads are motivated at least as much by our stubborn streak of American Puritanism as they are by any hard scientific data. Like with sex, we tend to assume that if it feels good, it has to be bad for you.

Unbelievable...for the money they spent on this study, they did not differentiate between "good" fats, "bad" fats and trans fats.

Also, as is sadly common with the studies of scientific research professionals, they forget about Rule #1 from scientist school: correlation does not imply causation.

S&D

 

[Norajane]

That's how you caught me. Am I that predictable?

Perhaps it's just the venue - on a porn board, we all tend to have one track minds.

 

[3113]

Actually, this tells us nothing. That they got the same rates of Breast Cancer and Colon Cancer is no real surprise. Such diseases are usually genetic. That they go the same rates of heart attack and strokes makes me a little suspicious, however. Once again, there is a genetic factor to these. But I'm wondering about how things averaged out.

For example, my mother was thin. She ate low fat and exercised. But she had rotten genetics. I mean rotten. Hypertention, naturally high colesterol, etc. Now, the question is, did her diet and exercise give her a longer life than she would have had otherwise? It may not have prevented her hypertension (pills required for that), but it may have helped. So put her in the "low diet" camp. She's high risk for the heart attack; it's in the genes. But the lowfat diet might keep that heart attack at bay.

In the other camp, let's put a nice healthy woman. She eats what she wants. In spades. Her weigh balloons. She's now 300 pounds thanks to a rich, irresponsible diet. She doesn't move much, blockages build up, she has a heart attack, one she would not have had if she's stayed fit.

In the study, my thin mother and this fat woman both have heart attacks and, so, average out. But in my mother's case the diet gave her more time before that heart attack hit. In the fat lady's case, the diet contributed to her having a heart attack.

I'm not sure this study proves its point although we know from Atkin's studies that a high fat/high protien diet can actually be positive--carbs being more bad for certain folk than fat.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm not sure this study proves its point.

I don't know that any study really proves any real point!

 

[English Lady]

All it proves is that going on stupid diets does bugger all for your health.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

am i the only one who thought that this was going to be about last tango in paris?

*raises hand* Me!

Paul: "Get the butter."

<grin>

 

[silverwhisper]

thanks, selenakittyn: i was wondering if i was just bonkers... :>

ed

 

[Kev H]

I don't know that any study really proves any real point!

This is no less of a point than the studies; they help you form opinions (along with all the 10,000 other aspects, which may or may not be negated by emotions), but taking them on "faith" that they are accurate and comprehensive seems a little daft to me (but then again, maybe I am just anti-faith).

However, no study will ever prove that lack of moderation and balance is a good thing. At least...not to me.

 

[silverwhisper]

well, perhaps there could be a study on that, kev... :>

ed

 

[Norajane]

All it proves is that going on stupid diets does bugger all for your health.

Exactly, EL!

Genetics, exercise, moderate portions of a variety of vitamin-rich foods is a better way to go than focusing on one thing about your diet (fats, in this case). If you don't indulge in some tasty treats every now and then, you miss out on some of life's simple pleasures.

And, um, can I borrow a little cream for my coffee?

 

[Guest]

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

am i the only one who thought that this was going to be about last tango in paris?

*raises hand* Me!

Paul: "Get the butter."

<grin>

Who, me? Think first about "Last Tango in Paris" instead of good health?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-12/909970/lasttango.jpg

Sure 'nuff.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[rgraham666]

I put our often fanatic chase for good health at the foot of an overlooked facet of North American life.

We don't deal with death anymore. It's not part of our lives. It's the one thing that all our power, wealth and knowledge cannot understand, control or prevent.

But we can't handle that, so we 'eat right', 'don't smoke' and 'exercise properly', and insist everyone else do so, in order that we can cheat death, never have to face it.

But death is the only truly democratic institution. And it will get you sooner or later.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I've got a simple solution. Next time you pick a life, make sure to be reincarnated into one with good or great genes, instead of faulty ones!

Seriously, as disturbing as it is to AGREE with rgraham666 on something, I have to second that one. (Damn, that's TWICE today I have found myself in agreement with someone who is usually on the wrong side on an issue.)