Comments on: Brace yourselves for more low-fat buncombe

By: Michael R. Eades, MD

Michael R. Eades, MD — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:53:18 +0000

You’ve made a good point. It seems that this study does “prove” that the low-fat diet is as successful in keeping the obese obese as it the standard American diet.

The data from these large, multi-year, federally funded studies is usually made available to anyone who is willing to pony up for it. Whoever buys this data (available from governmental publishing centers) can use it to create all kinds of papers. I checked on one of these myself a few months ago (I can’t recall which one right at the moment) and found that I could get all the raw data on magnetic tape for about a thousand bucks.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:13:57 +0000

dr. eades,
i was looking over the baseline stats for the participants in the study and noticed that the mean weight of the women was 170 lbs. (77 kgs.) with a mean bmi of 29.1. could it be the reason these women didn’t gain weight is because they were already bordering on obese? i guess the authors won’t be telling us anytime soon how a low-fat/low-calorie diet keeps overweight people overweight.

also, any ideas why the whi chose to publish this information when the objective of the study was to evaluate “the effect of a low-fat, high fruit, vegetable and grain diet on the prevention of breast and colorectal cancer and heart disease”?

love the blog dr. eades…

By: Michael Sayre

Michael Sayre — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:24:08 +0000

Thanks for the information! Unfortunately I have to defend my low-carb lifestyle everyone once in a while to family, so if any of them bring this study up from the news, I’ll be sure to have the correct information to refute it.

By: Michael R. Eades, MD

Michael R. Eades, MD — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:22:51 +0000

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had intended to include that information in my post.

In the first sentence of the Results section the authors of the study report that

“As of August 31, 2004 [the cutoff date] 2092 (4.3% control and 4.3% intervention) participants were deceased…”

So, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups, meaning, of course, that the beloved low-fat diet appears not to confer any longevity benefits over the standard American diet.

By: Mark Levin

Mark Levin — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:59:24 +0000

Having admittedly just glanced through the report, one question stands out. What does the mortality data show? What is the disease incidence, i.e. rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.? The whole point of the low fat diet was not primarily weight loss, but rather disease prevention. To quote, I believe it was Malcom Kendrick,MD, the most important endpoint is death. I hope the authors of this government sponsored study see fit to release this information. Thanks.

By: Michael R. Eades, MD

Michael R. Eades, MD — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:40:48 +0000

I would love to have seen that third group too, Lora.

By: Lora Ruffner

Lora Ruffner — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:34:23 +0000

Mike,

As soon as I read the reports in the news (with a fair amount of disgust, I might add), I knew my first stop had to be your blog to see what you’d have to say about it.

I do want to comment that in addition to the extra added attention the “diet group” received, the carbs added to thier daily regime were not the Twinkies and white bread that Americans eat as their daily carbs. They were fruits, vegetables, and whole grains — carbs with fiber to help blunt the sugar and slow the insulin response.

In the end, the study results are no surprise at all. If the end goal were to showcase how a low-fat, high-carb diet can be contrasted to a low-carb, moderate-fat diet as they are crowing about, why did they not include a third (low-carb)group? Now THOSE are results I would have liked to have seen…

Lora