I didn't read all of the article, but as usual there's more to this
than first meets the eye.
Firstly, this study was started 8 years ago and the variables they used
were based on things we knew (or thought we knew) then... which have
*changed.*
The first things is that at that time, there wasn't much distinguishing
between TYPES of fat. Now it's commonly felt that saturated fats
(including trans fats) are the culprits, and that monosaturated and
polyunsaturated fats have a protective influence ... this study didn't
discriminate between types of fat at all, so they could have been
eating 100% saturated and trans fats, which is not considered to be
heart healthy over time.
Secondly, the amount of sugar and *total calories* weren't counted...
in other words, they might have kept their proportion of fat down
somewhat, but could have been eating unlimited *amounts* of food, which
can make one fat even if it's all "healthy food"... iow, portion size
matters a lot.
(They also didn't cut their fat percentage by all that much, and most
of them eventually got up to about 30% fat which is only a modest
reduction in fat consumption.)
Lastly, the participants weren't asked to do any exercise at all, and
could have been couch potatoes for all we know. They also didn't tend
to lose any weight which is also protective and usually happens (for
any of the above reasons) when a good diet is followed with some
exercise.
So the study has serious flaws due to what it's premises were and all
the variables that weren't taken into account or only modestly so.
I think a different view will begin to emerge from the "experts" once
the initial hype dies down.
That's my 2 cents anyway,
Diane B.