Posted by Emily Kane, Senior Legislative Assistant
Today, talk around the RAC’s lunch table turned from the usual gab of
politics and prose to, appropriately, food. We transcended the usual “What did
your dad make you for lunch today?” to discuss the seemingly counterintuitive
article printed in the Washington Post entitled “ Low-Fat Diet's Benefits Rejected.” After a tantalizing
discussion, I returned to my desk to find a line by line rebuttal sent out by
Dr. Richard Schwartz, PhD, President of the Jewish Vegetarians of North America (JVNA). I’d only wish he’d
been at the table today…
For more information on JVNA or to subscribe to their listserv visit their site.
Misleading Article on Nutrition and Health/Comments Interspersed:
As indicated above, in spite of the very negative headline for the article
below, there are some positive statements in the article below re vegetarianism.
This is pointed out along with other comments interspersed below. Comments are
preceded and ended by three asterisks (***)
Low-Fat
Diet's Benefits Rejected
Study Finds No Drop In Risk for Disease
By Rob Stein
Washington Post
Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A01
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.
*** As JVNA advisor Dan Brook points out: Hi Richard. I saw this too
and was thinking about it. The study doesn't distinguish types of fat, which is
critical, but then notes than women who ate less saturated fat were at lower
risk for certain diseases. I think that's the point. It also neglects
cholesterol, which is a serious lacuna. The old paradigm was simply focused on
fat; the newer paradigm looks at types of fats: saturated, transfat,
polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, etc. (Likewise with carbohydrates and sugars;
they are neither created nor digested equally.) Further, despite coaching of the
subjects, fat levels were still higher in the subjects' diets than the
recommended 20%. And, of course, this study is only about personal health, not
animal or environmental health, let alone mental and spiritual health.
***
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.
*** Ignored are the many epidemiology studies, wartime studies,
migration studies, and others that point to the health benefits of vegetarian
diets. ***
"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.
*** Just imagine if this $415 million was used to educate people on
the benefits of vegan diets. ***
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.
*** Why isn’t this paragraph headlined? ***
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.
*** They make no distinction re good fats and bad fats. I have a half
an avocado daily. This is a high fat food, but it has many health benefits. ***
"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."
*** But, so much good info is not being put out there by scientists,
doctors and nutritionists. ***
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.
*** Good point. ***
"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.
*** That last sentence is so important, but it is buried in the
article, and many people do not get much beyond the headlines. ***
"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.
*** It would be interesting to see results if the women really
limited their fat intake to 20 percent. ***
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.
*** Once again, when the saturated fat amount is lowered, there are
positive results. ***
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.
*** So, again, there are hints of positive benefits, even though the
reduction in fat in the diet was not as great as they had hoped for. ***
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."
*** Especially when the results of many other studies are ignored or
not sufficiently considered. ***
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Posted by 
Posted by
Posted by 
Posted by 
Posted by 