Study : Less Fat May Not Lower Cancer Risk

In article <[email hidden]>, Ignoramus3308

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I caught a very abridged version of this onthe radio news this morning
and appreciate that you have the details.

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman

This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely known in
scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much meaningless. If the
women in the study had reduced their fat intake most likely some of them
would have lost weight. Carefully reading the article provides the truth to
any scientifically bent critical thinker.
--
Lesanne
"Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I think that we are getting closer to the "heart establishment"to
admit just that.

Highlight: ``The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of
breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate
lower-fat diets and those who didn't.''

I am quoting one article in full at the bottom, but you may want to
see some additional articles:

Major new study shows low-fat diet largely pointless
``WASHINGTON (AFP) - It turns out that all the suffering and privation
could have been in vain.''
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth_060208142337

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds
``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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html

It must be noted that at least one article in JAMA
(http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629) does not present
conclusions quite as simple as reported by those media headlines, but
by and large there is no big overall effect of fat reduction on
disease rates.

######################################################################

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_he_me/diet_low_fat_disappointment_7

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Feb 7, 11:01 PM ET

CHICAGO - Eating less fat late in life failed to lower the risk of
cancer and heart disease among older women, disappointing news for
those who expected greater benefits from a healthy diet.
ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, scientists say the results from the government study of
48,835 women don't mean dieters should just throw up their hands and
eat cake.

Researchers suggested that the women in the long-running study ? with
an average age of 62 ? may have started their healthy eating too
late. They also didn't reduce fats as much as the diet demanded, and
most remained overweight, a major risk factor for cancer and heart
problems.

"These results do not suggest that people have carte blanche to eat
fatty foods without health problems," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of
preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital, a
co-author of the study and respected nutrition authority.

The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast
cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat
diets and those who didn't.

But the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a
failure, pointing to signs of less breast cancer in women who cut out
the most fat, and in less heart disease in women who ate low amounts
of the worst kinds of fats.

Heart and cancer specialists said the overall results were not
surprising since scientific thinking on the role fats play in disease
prevention has evolved since this study was designed. That is
especially true when it comes to good and bad fats and heart disease.

The research involved postmenopausal women who either cut overall fat
consumption and increased vegetables, fruits and grains, or who
continued their usual eating habits. The researchers said the dieters
may not have cut out enough fat for a meaningful comparison. Cancer
and heart disease incidence was similar in both groups.

"The results, of course, are somewhat disappointing. We would have
liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health,"
Manson said.

The study, appearing in Wednesday's
Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of the Women's
Health Initiative, a landmark government project involving tens of
thousands of postmenopausal U.S. women. An earlier WHI study linked
long-term use of hormone pills with breast cancer and heart disease
risks.

One of the women in the study, 66-year-old Judy LaCour of Kent, Wash.,
began the low-fat diet more than 10 years ago.

"I was raised in a farm family where high-fat food was the norm,"
LaCour said. "It was a real culture shock for me when I first
started."

But she said she has stuck with the changes and is disease-free. She
also thinks the diet has helped keep her weight down while her friends
have gotten heavier with age.

The study was designed mainly to investigate breast cancer
risk. Dietary fat was initially thought to be implicated because
breast cancer rates are high in Western countries with fatty diets,
but recent studies have failed to show any relationship, said
Dr. Michael Thun of the
American Cancer Society.

Recent research also has suggested that for breast cancer in
particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on risk.

Another target was colon cancer, which some studies have linked with
red meat.

Thun said the results aren't surprising because fat in the diet "is no
longer center stage" when it comes to cancer risk. While the Cancer
Society recommends limiting fats, that's primarily because of the
calories, Thun said.

Breast cancer rates in both groups were about 3 percent, marginally
higher than for postmenopausal women in the general U.S. population,
probably because these women got routine mammograms, said study
investigator Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Colon cancer rates in both groups were similar to national
rates for similarly aged women ? roughly 1 percent in both groups.

The researchers assumed that lowering fats would help prevent heart
disease, too, but specialists now stress the differences in
fats. Some, like the kind in olive oil and nuts, are healthier than
the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried foods.

Study participants filled out food questionnaires but might not have
reduced the right kinds of fat, said Dr. Robert Eckel, president of
the
American Heart Association.

"It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study," he
said.

Both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5
percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women
nationally, Prentice said.

Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from
fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group; the
women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year, but it
climbed to about 29 percent later on, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, WHI
project officer at the

"Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely known

in

Quoted message said:

scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much meaningless. If

the

Quoted message said:

women in the study had reduced their fat intake most likely some of them
would have lost weight. Carefully reading the article provides the truth

to

Quoted message said:

any scientifically bent critical thinker.
--
Lesanne

I imagine some people will read the report and decide they can eat as much
fat as they wish. If they carefully read the report they will realize the
researchers weren't totally surprised by the findings since the findings on
certain fats have changed since the start of this study. I believe many
associated with the study indicated the type of fat still matters -
saturated and trans fat should be limited.

Beverly

Quoted message said:

"Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I think that we are getting closer to the "heart establishment"to
admit just that.

Highlight: ``The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of
breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate
lower-fat diets and those who didn't.''

I am quoting one article in full at the bottom, but you may want to
see some additional articles:

Major new study shows low-fat diet largely pointless
``WASHINGTON (AFP) - It turns out that all the suffering and privation
could have been in vain.''

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth_060208142337

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds
``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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html

It must be noted that at least one article in JAMA
(http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629) does not present
conclusions quite as simple as reported by those media headlines, but
by and large there is no big overall effect of fat reduction on
disease rates.

######################################################################

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_he_me/diet_low_fat_disappointment_7

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Feb 7, 11:01 PM ET

CHICAGO - Eating less fat late in life failed to lower the risk of
cancer and heart disease among older women, disappointing news for
those who expected greater benefits from a healthy diet.
ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, scientists say the results from the government study of
48,835 women don't mean dieters should just throw up their hands and
eat cake.

Researchers suggested that the women in the long-running study ? with
an average age of 62 ? may have started their healthy eating too
late. They also didn't reduce fats as much as the diet demanded, and
most remained overweight, a major risk factor for cancer and heart
problems.

"These results do not suggest that people have carte blanche to eat
fatty foods without health problems," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of
preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital, a
co-author of the study and respected nutrition authority.

The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast
cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat
diets and those who didn't.

But the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a
failure, pointing to signs of less breast cancer in women who cut out
the most fat, and in less heart disease in women who ate low amounts
of the worst kinds of fats.

Heart and cancer specialists said the overall results were not
surprising since scientific thinking on the role fats play in disease
prevention has evolved since this study was designed. That is
especially true when it comes to good and bad fats and heart disease.

The research involved postmenopausal women who either cut overall fat
consumption and increased vegetables, fruits and grains, or who
continued their usual eating habits. The researchers said the dieters
may not have cut out enough fat for a meaningful comparison. Cancer
and heart disease incidence was similar in both groups.

"The results, of course, are somewhat disappointing. We would have
liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health,"
Manson said.

The study, appearing in Wednesday's
Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of the Women's
Health Initiative, a landmark government project involving tens of
thousands of postmenopausal U.S. women. An earlier WHI study linked
long-term use of hormone pills with breast cancer and heart disease
risks.

One of the women in the study, 66-year-old Judy LaCour of Kent, Wash.,
began the low-fat diet more than 10 years ago.

"I was raised in a farm family where high-fat food was the norm,"
LaCour said. "It was a real culture shock for me when I first
started."

But she said she has stuck with the changes and is disease-free. She
also thinks the diet has helped keep her weight down while her friends
have gotten heavier with age.

The study was designed mainly to investigate breast cancer
risk. Dietary fat was initially thought to be implicated because
breast cancer rates are high in Western countries with fatty diets,
but recent studies have failed to show any relationship, said
Dr. Michael Thun of the
American Cancer Society.

Recent research also has suggested that for breast cancer in
particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on risk.

Another target was colon cancer, which some studies have linked with
red meat.

Thun said the results aren't surprising because fat in the diet "is no
longer center stage" when it comes to cancer risk. While the Cancer
Society recommends limiting fats, that's primarily because of the
calories, Thun said.

Breast cancer rates in both groups were about 3 percent, marginally
higher than for postmenopausal women in the general U.S. population,
probably because these women got routine mammograms, said study
investigator Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Colon cancer rates in both groups were similar to national
rates for similarly aged women ? roughly 1 percent in both groups.

The researchers assumed that lowering fats would help prevent heart
disease, too, but specialists now stress the differences in
fats. Some, like the kind in olive oil and nuts, are healthier than
the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried foods.

Study participants filled out food questionnaires but might not have
reduced the right kinds of fat, said Dr. Robert Eckel, president of
the
American Heart Association.

"It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study," he
said.

Both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5
percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women
nationally, Prentice said.

Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from
fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group; the
women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year, but it
climbed to about 29 percent later on, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, WHI
project officer at the

Beverly said:

I imagine some people will read the report and decide they can eat as much
fat as they wish. If they carefully read the report they will realize the
researchers weren't totally surprised by the findings since the findings on
certain fats have changed since the start of this study. I believe many
associated with the study indicated the type of fat still matters -
saturated and trans fat should be limited.

Beverly

That's the fine print that nobody reads in these type of studies.

Read "Avoid fat" and miss, "limit saturated and trans-saturated fats."
Read "Avoid carbs" and miss, "limit simple carbs."
Read "Eat lots of protein" and miss, "lean protein."

--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contact/cheese

Carol Frilegh said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ignoramus3308

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I caught a very abridged version of this onthe radio news this morning
and appreciate that you have the details.

I am glad that you found it interesting. One of the links is for the
actual article in the medical journal.

i

Lesanne said:

This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely known in
scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much meaningless. If the
women in the study had reduced their fat intake most likely some of them
would have lost weight. Carefully reading the article provides the truth to
any scientifically bent critical thinker.

I think that you made an excellent point. On the other hand, how else
would you study tens of thousands of people, without relying on their
own self reporting.

i

Cheese said:

Beverly said:

I imagine some people will read the report and decide they can eat as much
fat as they wish. If they carefully read the report they will realize the
researchers weren't totally surprised by the findings since the findings on
certain fats have changed since the start of this study. I believe many
associated with the study indicated the type of fat still matters -
saturated and trans fat should be limited.

Beverly

That's the fine print that nobody reads in these type of studies.

Read "Avoid fat" and miss, "limit saturated and trans-saturated fats."
Read "Avoid carbs" and miss, "limit simple carbs."
Read "Eat lots of protein" and miss, "lean protein."

The fine print is actually interesting. See

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629

The diet was not simply "eat less fat". It involved eating more
grains, fruits and vegetables. ``The Women's Health Initiative (WHI)
began in 1992 and included a full-scale randomized controlled trial
with a dietary modification intervention consisting of consumption of
a reduced amount of fat (20% of energy) and of an increased amount of
vegetables and fruit (5 servings/d) and grains (6 servings/d) referred
to herein as the low-fat dietary pattern.''

As to how helpful was that low fat diet, see Table 3:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/295/6/629/JOC60003T3

You can see that total cholesterol in the intervention group declined
from 220 to 211. Total cholesterol in the comparison group (who did
not change diet) changed from 220 to 213. Not much of a difference. A
disclaimer, I do not consider total cholesterol to have much of
value. No differences were seen in "good" cholesterol, "bad"
cholesterol, HDL, or triglycerides. See the same table.

Some comments were made in his thread how the study is not relevant
since "it is type of fat that matters", and referred to saturated fat
as the bad one that had to be reduced for helpful effects.

The trouble with this is that these comments miss the point. The
intervention group did eat less saturated fat. They reduced saturated
fat consumption by over one third, from 12.7 grams to 8.1 grams. They
also ate more vegetables and fruits. See Table 2. That did not help
them much.

i

Funny. All the assessments I heard of this study say the important word
"alone."
In other words as I keep saying, you have to exercise to be healthy. Diet
alone isn't going to change a damned thing.

"Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I think that we are getting closer to the "heart establishment"to
admit just that.

Highlight: ``The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of
breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate
lower-fat diets and those who didn't.''

I am quoting one article in full at the bottom, but you may want to
see some additional articles:

Major new study shows low-fat diet largely pointless
``WASHINGTON (AFP) - It turns out that all the suffering and privation
could have been in vain.''
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth_060208142337

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds
``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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html

It must be noted that at least one article in JAMA
(http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629) does not present
conclusions quite as simple as reported by those media headlines, but
by and large there is no big overall effect of fat reduction on
disease rates.

######################################################################

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_he_me/diet_low_fat_disappointment_7

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Feb 7, 11:01 PM ET

CHICAGO - Eating less fat late in life failed to lower the risk of
cancer and heart disease among older women, disappointing news for
those who expected greater benefits from a healthy diet.
ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, scientists say the results from the government study of
48,835 women don't mean dieters should just throw up their hands and
eat cake.

Researchers suggested that the women in the long-running study ? with
an average age of 62 ? may have started their healthy eating too
late. They also didn't reduce fats as much as the diet demanded, and
most remained overweight, a major risk factor for cancer and heart
problems.

"These results do not suggest that people have carte blanche to eat
fatty foods without health problems," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of
preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital, a
co-author of the study and respected nutrition authority.

The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast
cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat
diets and those who didn't.

But the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a
failure, pointing to signs of less breast cancer in women who cut out
the most fat, and in less heart disease in women who ate low amounts
of the worst kinds of fats.

Heart and cancer specialists said the overall results were not
surprising since scientific thinking on the role fats play in disease
prevention has evolved since this study was designed. That is
especially true when it comes to good and bad fats and heart disease.

The research involved postmenopausal women who either cut overall fat
consumption and increased vegetables, fruits and grains, or who
continued their usual eating habits. The researchers said the dieters
may not have cut out enough fat for a meaningful comparison. Cancer
and heart disease incidence was similar in both groups.

"The results, of course, are somewhat disappointing. We would have
liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health,"
Manson said.

The study, appearing in Wednesday's
Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of the Women's
Health Initiative, a landmark government project involving tens of
thousands of postmenopausal U.S. women. An earlier WHI study linked
long-term use of hormone pills with breast cancer and heart disease
risks.

One of the women in the study, 66-year-old Judy LaCour of Kent, Wash.,
began the low-fat diet more than 10 years ago.

"I was raised in a farm family where high-fat food was the norm,"
LaCour said. "It was a real culture shock for me when I first
started."

But she said she has stuck with the changes and is disease-free. She
also thinks the diet has helped keep her weight down while her friends
have gotten heavier with age.

The study was designed mainly to investigate breast cancer
risk. Dietary fat was initially thought to be implicated because
breast cancer rates are high in Western countries with fatty diets,
but recent studies have failed to show any relationship, said
Dr. Michael Thun of the
American Cancer Society.

Recent research also has suggested that for breast cancer in
particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on risk.

Another target was colon cancer, which some studies have linked with
red meat.

Thun said the results aren't surprising because fat in the diet "is no
longer center stage" when it comes to cancer risk. While the Cancer
Society recommends limiting fats, that's primarily because of the
calories, Thun said.

Breast cancer rates in both groups were about 3 percent, marginally
higher than for postmenopausal women in the general U.S. population,
probably because these women got routine mammograms, said study
investigator Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Colon cancer rates in both groups were similar to national
rates for similarly aged women ? roughly 1 percent in both groups.

The researchers assumed that lowering fats would help prevent heart
disease, too, but specialists now stress the differences in
fats. Some, like the kind in olive oil and nuts, are healthier than
the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried foods.

Study participants filled out food questionnaires but might not have
reduced the right kinds of fat, said Dr. Robert Eckel, president of
the
American Heart Association.

"It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study," he
said.

Both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5
percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women
nationally, Prentice said.

Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from
fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group; the
women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year, but it
climbed to about 29 percent later on, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, WHI
project officer at the

Once again proving that the media are completely clueless when it comes to
reporting science. Always read the original study.

"Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely known
in scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much meaningless. If
the women in the study had reduced their fat intake most likely some of
them would have lost weight. Carefully reading the article provides the
truth to any scientifically bent critical thinker.
--
Lesanne
"Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I think that we are getting closer to the "heart establishment"to
admit just that.

Highlight: ``The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of
breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate
lower-fat diets and those who didn't.''

I am quoting one article in full at the bottom, but you may want to
see some additional articles:

Major new study shows low-fat diet largely pointless
``WASHINGTON (AFP) - It turns out that all the suffering and privation
could have been in vain.''
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth_060208142337

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds
``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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html

It must be noted that at least one article in JAMA
(http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629) does not present
conclusions quite as simple as reported by those media headlines, but
by and large there is no big overall effect of fat reduction on
disease rates.

######################################################################

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_he_me/diet_low_fat_disappointment_7

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Feb 7, 11:01 PM ET

CHICAGO - Eating less fat late in life failed to lower the risk of
cancer and heart disease among older women, disappointing news for
those who expected greater benefits from a healthy diet.
ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, scientists say the results from the government study of
48,835 women don't mean dieters should just throw up their hands and
eat cake.

Researchers suggested that the women in the long-running study ? with
an average age of 62 ? may have started their healthy eating too
late. They also didn't reduce fats as much as the diet demanded, and
most remained overweight, a major risk factor for cancer and heart
problems.

"These results do not suggest that people have carte blanche to eat
fatty foods without health problems," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of
preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital, a
co-author of the study and respected nutrition authority.

The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast
cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat
diets and those who didn't.

But the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a
failure, pointing to signs of less breast cancer in women who cut out
the most fat, and in less heart disease in women who ate low amounts
of the worst kinds of fats.

Heart and cancer specialists said the overall results were not
surprising since scientific thinking on the role fats play in disease
prevention has evolved since this study was designed. That is
especially true when it comes to good and bad fats and heart disease.

The research involved postmenopausal women who either cut overall fat
consumption and increased vegetables, fruits and grains, or who
continued their usual eating habits. The researchers said the dieters
may not have cut out enough fat for a meaningful comparison. Cancer
and heart disease incidence was similar in both groups.

"The results, of course, are somewhat disappointing. We would have
liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health,"
Manson said.

The study, appearing in Wednesday's
Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of the Women's
Health Initiative, a landmark government project involving tens of
thousands of postmenopausal U.S. women. An earlier WHI study linked
long-term use of hormone pills with breast cancer and heart disease
risks.

One of the women in the study, 66-year-old Judy LaCour of Kent, Wash.,
began the low-fat diet more than 10 years ago.

"I was raised in a farm family where high-fat food was the norm,"
LaCour said. "It was a real culture shock for me when I first
started."

But she said she has stuck with the changes and is disease-free. She
also thinks the diet has helped keep her weight down while her friends
have gotten heavier with age.

The study was designed mainly to investigate breast cancer
risk. Dietary fat was initially thought to be implicated because
breast cancer rates are high in Western countries with fatty diets,
but recent studies have failed to show any relationship, said
Dr. Michael Thun of the
American Cancer Society.

Recent research also has suggested that for breast cancer in
particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on risk.

Another target was colon cancer, which some studies have linked with
red meat.

Thun said the results aren't surprising because fat in the diet "is no
longer center stage" when it comes to cancer risk. While the Cancer
Society recommends limiting fats, that's primarily because of the
calories, Thun said.

Breast cancer rates in both groups were about 3 percent, marginally
higher than for postmenopausal women in the general U.S. population,
probably because these women got routine mammograms, said study
investigator Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Colon cancer rates in both groups were similar to national
rates for similarly aged women ? roughly 1 percent in both groups.

The researchers assumed that lowering fats would help prevent heart
disease, too, but specialists now stress the differences in
fats. Some, like the kind in olive oil and nuts, are healthier than
the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried foods.

Study participants filled out food questionnaires but might not have
reduced the right kinds of fat, said Dr. Robert Eckel, president of
the
American Heart Association.

"It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study," he
said.

Both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5
percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women
nationally, Prentice said.

Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from
fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group; the
women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year, but it
climbed to about 29 percent later on, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, WHI
project officer at the

"Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:41:44 -0500, Cheese <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Beverly said:

I imagine some people will read the report and decide they can eat as
much
fat as they wish. If they carefully read the report they will realize
the
researchers weren't totally surprised by the findings since the findings
on
certain fats have changed since the start of this study. I believe many
associated with the study indicated the type of fat still matters -
saturated and trans fat should be limited.

Beverly

That's the fine print that nobody reads in these type of studies.

Read "Avoid fat" and miss, "limit saturated and trans-saturated fats."
Read "Avoid carbs" and miss, "limit simple carbs."
Read "Eat lots of protein" and miss, "lean protein."

The fine print is actually interesting. See

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629

The diet was not simply "eat less fat". It involved eating more
grains, fruits and vegetables. ``The Women's Health Initiative (WHI)
began in 1992 and included a full-scale randomized controlled trial
with a dietary modification intervention consisting of consumption of
a reduced amount of fat (20% of energy) and of an increased amount of
vegetables and fruit (5 servings/d) and grains (6 servings/d) referred
to herein as the low-fat dietary pattern.''

As to how helpful was that low fat diet, see Table 3:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/295/6/629/JOC60003T3

You can see that total cholesterol in the intervention group declined
from 220 to 211. Total cholesterol in the comparison group (who did
not change diet) changed from 220 to 213. Not much of a difference. A
disclaimer, I do not consider total cholesterol to have much of
value. No differences were seen in "good" cholesterol, "bad"
cholesterol, HDL, or triglycerides. See the same table.

Some comments were made in his thread how the study is not relevant
since "it is type of fat that matters", and referred to saturated fat
as the bad one that had to be reduced for helpful effects.

The trouble with this is that these comments miss the point. The
intervention group did eat less saturated fat. They reduced saturated
fat consumption by over one third, from 12.7 grams to 8.1 grams. They
also ate more vegetables and fruits. See Table 2. That did not help
them much.

i

And yet a study also released this week that I linked to showed that whole
grains really do help reduce heart disease risk - and diabetes. The subjects
in that study did eat less saturated fat. I guess they cancel each other
out!

Just goes to show you how much credence one should really put in any of
these studies since they'll all be contradicted at one time or another.
Instead one should probably just stick with what's working for them as
individuals and accept that not every plan works for every body.
--
the volleyballchick

Quoted message said:

The trouble with this is that these comments miss the point. The
intervention group did eat less saturated fat. They reduced saturated
fat consumption by over one third, from 12.7 grams to 8.1 grams. They
also ate more vegetables and fruits. See Table 2. That did not help
them much.

The point is that the study participants were SUPPOSED to eat less fat, but
in fact after the first year they were back to eating almost as much fat as
they did before the study. They didn't actually reduce the fat they were
eating by the prescribed amount. And considering the flawed nature of self
reporting diet, most likely what was reported was inaccurate.

Quoted message said:

I think that you made an excellent point. On the other hand, how else
would you study tens of thousands of people, without relying on their
own self reporting.

i

The national weight control registry has similar problems. It is not
worthless from a standpoint of gathering data, but it is also not reliable
data. If you take that study in it's entirety the results are not valid,
there is just too much room for error.
L

Quoted message said:

"Patricia Heil" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Once again proving that the media are completely clueless when it comes to
reporting science. Always read the original study.

The media loves to report anything that has to do with dietary info, which
is one reason people pretty much ignore it unless it agrees with their own
personal view. And frankly, it is all nuts because genetically some people
do much better health wise on a higher protein diet than others. I have a
friend who is a healthy and happy vegetarian, totally impossible for me
despite my mental inclination to be one. The only thing written in stone is
that there is an optimal diet for each person. Mine is most likely not yours
or Ig's. There are a few truths out there in the area of whole foods as
opposed to processed but otherwise it is mostly to sell papers and
magazines.

Quoted message said:

"Lesanne" <[email hidden]>

Lesanne said:

This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely known in
scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much meaningless. If the
women in the study had reduced their fat intake most likely some of them
would have lost weight. Carefully reading the article provides the truth to
any scientifically bent critical thinker.

Actually, it is common for fat to be reduced, and carbohydrates to fill
in the void left by fat reduction.

And, it is frequently alleged that the increase in carbohydrate calories
consumed will be greater than the fat calorie reduction because of
limited appetite suppression of carbs, compared to fats (and proteins).

So, with respect, I differ with your allegation that the fat reduction
MUST lead to a weight reduction.

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplimental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

Patricia Heil said:

Funny. All the assessments I heard of this study say the important
word "alone." In other words as I keep saying, you have to exercise
to be healthy. Diet alone isn't going to change a damned thing.

Hard to disagree with importance of exercise...

i

What's hard to spin away is that this clearly shows that reducing fat
and even reducing saturated fat, as a practical matter, do not reduce
the risk of heart disease or cancer. Here are some of the points
raised in this thread and my reaction:

"But it wasn't a good study, since the data is self reported."

There isn't any alternative, unless you want to lock people up in a lab
for 8 years, is there? These people knew they were part of an
important study and had no particular reason to lie about what they
ate. They also met with dieticians 4 times a year for guidance. This
is far more intervention and motivation than a typical person will ever
have to stay on a diet. Sure it's possible that what they reported
and what they did was exactly the same. But still, two irrefutable
points remain. One is that even with some reporting bias, one would
expect to see some positive effects in the results, instead there were
none at all. And second, IMO, it all doesn;t matter anyway, because
if these people couldn't make low fat work, how could anyone in the
general population be expected to do any better?

"But now we know that there is good fat and bad fat."

This isn't all that new. The study was done over the last 8 years, not
20. Even 8 years ago there was plenty of attention beginning to be
focused on good fat vs bad fat. These people didn;t live in a vacuum
and weren't forced to eat a particular type of fat. It's very
reasonable to expect that those following the low fat approach and
doing what was supposed to be healthy, also tried to use more of the
good fats over much of the course of the study. This even shows up
in the data, where the low fat
group reduced their saturated fat by a large amount and increased their
fruits and vegetables. Yet, there is no reduction in heart disease
or cancer.

"The national weight control registry has similar problems"

There is no comparison at all. The NWCR is a sham with no intention of
even trying to correctly gather data. Many of us went there, took one
look, and quickly concluded there was no way for people on LC to even
correctly enter data. Instead that database is designed to come to
support a conclusion.

We've studied the low fat thing to exhaustion. Maybe now researchers
will finally do a long term study of LC. Even a more modest size study
would be very informative. But. I wouldn't hold my breath.

In other words, it doesn't agree with your opinion therefor it's wrong and
studies that report that low-fat diets lose weight are right. Because you
agree with that premise.

You're a sucker, plain and simple.

"Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely known
in scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much meaningless. If
the women in the study had reduced their fat intake most likely some of
them would have lost weight. Carefully reading the article provides the
truth to any scientifically bent critical thinker.
--
Lesanne
"Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
besides wishful thinking.

I think that we are getting closer to the "heart establishment"to
admit just that.

Highlight: ``The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of
breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate
lower-fat diets and those who didn't.''

I am quoting one article in full at the bottom, but you may want to
see some additional articles:

Major new study shows low-fat diet largely pointless
``WASHINGTON (AFP) - It turns out that all the suffering and privation
could have been in vain.''
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth_060208142337

Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds
``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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html

It must be noted that at least one article in JAMA
(http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629) does not present
conclusions quite as simple as reported by those media headlines, but
by and large there is no big overall effect of fat reduction on
disease rates.

######################################################################

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_he_me/diet_low_fat_disappointment_7

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Feb 7, 11:01 PM ET

CHICAGO - Eating less fat late in life failed to lower the risk of
cancer and heart disease among older women, disappointing news for
those who expected greater benefits from a healthy diet.
ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, scientists say the results from the government study of
48,835 women don't mean dieters should just throw up their hands and
eat cake.

Researchers suggested that the women in the long-running study ? with
an average age of 62 ? may have started their healthy eating too
late. They also didn't reduce fats as much as the diet demanded, and
most remained overweight, a major risk factor for cancer and heart
problems.

"These results do not suggest that people have carte blanche to eat
fatty foods without health problems," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of
preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital, a
co-author of the study and respected nutrition authority.

The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast
cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat
diets and those who didn't.

But the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a
failure, pointing to signs of less breast cancer in women who cut out
the most fat, and in less heart disease in women who ate low amounts
of the worst kinds of fats.

Heart and cancer specialists said the overall results were not
surprising since scientific thinking on the role fats play in disease
prevention has evolved since this study was designed. That is
especially true when it comes to good and bad fats and heart disease.

The research involved postmenopausal women who either cut overall fat
consumption and increased vegetables, fruits and grains, or who
continued their usual eating habits. The researchers said the dieters
may not have cut out enough fat for a meaningful comparison. Cancer
and heart disease incidence was similar in both groups.

"The results, of course, are somewhat disappointing. We would have
liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health,"
Manson said.

The study, appearing in Wednesday's
Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of the Women's
Health Initiative, a landmark government project involving tens of
thousands of postmenopausal U.S. women. An earlier WHI study linked
long-term use of hormone pills with breast cancer and heart disease
risks.

One of the women in the study, 66-year-old Judy LaCour of Kent, Wash.,
began the low-fat diet more than 10 years ago.

"I was raised in a farm family where high-fat food was the norm,"
LaCour said. "It was a real culture shock for me when I first
started."

But she said she has stuck with the changes and is disease-free. She
also thinks the diet has helped keep her weight down while her friends
have gotten heavier with age.

The study was designed mainly to investigate breast cancer
risk. Dietary fat was initially thought to be implicated because
breast cancer rates are high in Western countries with fatty diets,
but recent studies have failed to show any relationship, said
Dr. Michael Thun of the
American Cancer Society.

Recent research also has suggested that for breast cancer in
particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on risk.

Another target was colon cancer, which some studies have linked with
red meat.

Thun said the results aren't surprising because fat in the diet "is no
longer center stage" when it comes to cancer risk. While the Cancer
Society recommends limiting fats, that's primarily because of the
calories, Thun said.

Breast cancer rates in both groups were about 3 percent, marginally
higher than for postmenopausal women in the general U.S. population,
probably because these women got routine mammograms, said study
investigator Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. Colon cancer rates in both groups were similar to national
rates for similarly aged women ? roughly 1 percent in both groups.

The researchers assumed that lowering fats would help prevent heart
disease, too, but specialists now stress the differences in
fats. Some, like the kind in olive oil and nuts, are healthier than
the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried foods.

Study participants filled out food questionnaires but might not have
reduced the right kinds of fat, said Dr. Robert Eckel, president of
the
American Heart Association.

"It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study," he
said.

Both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5
percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women
nationally, Prentice said.

Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from
fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group; the
women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year, but it
climbed to about 29 percent later on, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, WHI
project officer at the

[email hidden] wrote:
:: What's hard to spin away is that this clearly shows that reducing fat
:: and even reducing saturated fat, as a practical matter, do not reduce
:: the risk of heart disease or cancer. Here are some of the points
:: raised in this thread and my reaction:
::
:: "But it wasn't a good study, since the data is self reported."
::
:: There isn't any alternative, unless you want to lock people up in a
:: lab for 8 years, is there? These people knew they were part of an
:: important study and had no particular reason to lie about what they
:: ate. They also met with dieticians 4 times a year for guidance.
:: This is far more intervention and motivation than a typical person
:: will ever have to stay on a diet. Sure it's possible that what
:: they reported and what they did was exactly the same. But still,
:: two irrefutable points remain. One is that even with some reporting
:: bias, one would expect to see some positive effects in the results,
:: instead there were none at all. And second, IMO, it all doesn;t
:: matter anyway, because if these people couldn't make low fat work,
:: how could anyone in the general population be expected to do any
:: better?
::

Excellent point, Chet. This moreso than anything else, proves that this LF
recommendation was just pulled out of the collective ass of some committee.

::
:: "But now we know that there is good fat and bad fat."
::
:: This isn't all that new. The study was done over the last 8 years,
:: not
:: 20. Even 8 years ago there was plenty of attention beginning to be
:: focused on good fat vs bad fat. These people didn;t live in a vacuum
:: and weren't forced to eat a particular type of fat. It's very
:: reasonable to expect that those following the low fat approach and
:: doing what was supposed to be healthy, also tried to use more of the
:: good fats over much of the course of the study. This even shows
:: up in the data, where the low fat
:: group reduced their saturated fat by a large amount and increased
:: their fruits and vegetables. Yet, there is no reduction in heart
:: disease or cancer.

Right. And if you're eating low fat, then you can't, by definition, be
eating much sat fats. And, of course, since they were eating low fat, so
they weren't eating enough good fats, either. Hence, eating probably hurt
those people as opposed to not helping them.

::
:: "The national weight control registry has similar problems"
::
:: There is no comparison at all. The NWCR is a sham with no intention
:: of even trying to correctly gather data. Many of us went there,
:: took one look, and quickly concluded there was no way for people on
:: LC to even correctly enter data. Instead that database is designed
:: to come to support a conclusion.
::
:: We've studied the low fat thing to exhaustion. Maybe now
:: researchers will finally do a long term study of LC. Even a more
:: modest size study would be very informative. But. I wouldn't hold
:: my breath.

Right. Sad world. We'll have to wait for a whole generation of researchers
to die before something new can show up.

Lesanne wrote:
:: This study has serious flaws. Self reporting food intake is widely
:: known in scientific circles to be Quasi science, and pretty much
:: meaningless. If the women in the study had reduced their fat intake
:: most likely some of them would have lost weight. Carefully reading
:: the article provides the truth to any scientifically bent critical
:: thinker. --
:: Lesanne

Critical thinker? heh. Simply lowering fat intake won't lead to weight
loss without an intent, especially over an 8-year period. Lower fat = eat
more Snackwells, LF Pringles, pasta, etc.

:: "Ignoramus3308" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: This highly amusing article sheds some light on the fact that
::: recommendation to "eat low fat to be healthy" is based on nothing
::: besides wishful thinking.
:::
::: I think that we are getting closer to the "heart establishment"to
::: admit just that.
:::
::: Highlight: ``The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate
::: of breast cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate
::: lower-fat diets and those who didn't.''
:::
::: I am quoting one article in full at the bottom, but you may want to
::: see some additional articles:
:::
::: Major new study shows low-fat diet largely pointless
::: ``WASHINGTON (AFP) - It turns out that all the suffering and
::: privation could have been in vain.''
:::
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth_060208142337
:::
::: Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds
::: ``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.''
::: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/health/08fat.html
:::
::: It must be noted that at least one article in JAMA
::: (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/6/629) does not
::: present conclusions quite as simple as reported by those media
::: headlines, but by and large there is no big overall effect of fat
::: reduction on disease rates.
:::
::: ######################################################################
:::
:::
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_he_me/diet_low_fat_disappointment_7
:::
::: By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
::: Tue Feb 7, 11:01 PM ET
:::
::: CHICAGO - Eating less fat late in life failed to lower the risk of
::: cancer and heart disease among older women, disappointing news for
::: those who expected greater benefits from a healthy diet.
::: ADVERTISEMENT
:::
:::
::: Even so, scientists say the results from the government study of
::: 48,835 women don't mean dieters should just throw up their hands and
::: eat cake.
:::
::: Researchers suggested that the women in the long-running study ?
::: with an average age of 62 ? may have started their healthy eating
::: too late. They also didn't reduce fats as much as the diet
::: demanded, and most remained overweight, a major risk factor for
::: cancer and heart problems.
:::
::: "These results do not suggest that people have carte blanche to eat
::: fatty foods without health problems," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief
::: of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital, a
::: co-author of the study and respected nutrition authority.
:::
::: The eight-year study showed no difference in the rate of breast
::: cancer, colon cancer and heart disease among those who ate lower-fat
::: diets and those who didn't.
:::
::: But the scientists declined to call the $415 million venture a
::: failure, pointing to signs of less breast cancer in women who cut
::: out the most fat, and in less heart disease in women who ate low
::: amounts of the worst kinds of fats.
:::
::: Heart and cancer specialists said the overall results were not
::: surprising since scientific thinking on the role fats play in
::: disease prevention has evolved since this study was designed. That
::: is especially true when it comes to good and bad fats and heart
::: disease.
:::
::: The research involved postmenopausal women who either cut overall
::: fat consumption and increased vegetables, fruits and grains, or who
::: continued their usual eating habits. The researchers said the
::: dieters may not have cut out enough fat for a meaningful
::: comparison. Cancer and heart disease incidence was similar in both
::: groups.
:::
::: "The results, of course, are somewhat disappointing. We would have
::: liked this dietary intervention to have a major impact on health,"
::: Manson said.
:::
::: The study, appearing in Wednesday's
::: Journal of the American Medical Association, is part of the Women's
::: Health Initiative, a landmark government project involving tens of
::: thousands of postmenopausal U.S. women. An earlier WHI study linked
::: long-term use of hormone pills with breast cancer and heart disease
::: risks.
:::
::: One of the women in the study, 66-year-old Judy LaCour of Kent,
::: Wash., began the low-fat diet more than 10 years ago.
:::
::: "I was raised in a farm family where high-fat food was the norm,"
::: LaCour said. "It was a real culture shock for me when I first
::: started."
:::
::: But she said she has stuck with the changes and is disease-free. She
::: also thinks the diet has helped keep her weight down while her
::: friends have gotten heavier with age.
:::
::: The study was designed mainly to investigate breast cancer
::: risk. Dietary fat was initially thought to be implicated because
::: breast cancer rates are high in Western countries with fatty diets,
::: but recent studies have failed to show any relationship, said
::: Dr. Michael Thun of the
::: American Cancer Society.
:::
::: Recent research also has suggested that for breast cancer in
::: particular, earlier eating habits may have the most influence on
::: risk.
:::
::: Another target was colon cancer, which some studies have linked with
::: red meat.
:::
::: Thun said the results aren't surprising because fat in the diet "is
::: no longer center stage" when it comes to cancer risk. While the
::: Cancer Society recommends limiting fats, that's primarily because
::: of the calories, Thun said.
:::
::: Breast cancer rates in both groups were about 3 percent, marginally
::: higher than for postmenopausal women in the general U.S. population,
::: probably because these women got routine mammograms, said study
::: investigator Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
::: Center. Colon cancer rates in both groups were similar to national
::: rates for similarly aged women ? roughly 1 percent in both groups.
:::
::: The researchers assumed that lowering fats would help prevent heart
::: disease, too, but specialists now stress the differences in
::: fats. Some, like the kind in olive oil and nuts, are healthier than
::: the saturated fats and trans fats found in processed and fried
::: foods.
:::
::: Study participants filled out food questionnaires but might not have
::: reduced the right kinds of fat, said Dr. Robert Eckel, president of
::: the
::: American Heart Association.
:::
::: "It would be easy to misinterpret the results of this study," he
::: said.
:::
::: Both groups had relatively low rates of heart disease, about 2.5
::: percent compared with just over 4 percent among postmenopausal women
::: nationally, Prentice said.
:::
::: Both groups started out with about 37 percent of daily calories from
::: fat. The goal was to cut that to 20 percent for the low-fat group;
::: the women managed about 24 percent on average in the first year,
::: but it climbed to about 29 percent later on, said Dr. Jacques
::: Rossouw, WHI project officer at the