10 ms·

Low-fat diet could kill you, major study shows

85 points by thomyorkie 9y ago

fhood 9y ago
Oh good, I was getting worried that my quesadilla and cereal diet was unhealthy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
userbinator 9y ago
Not too much and not too little, seems to be the way to go. But, given the amount of previous research about harmful effects of fat, it's hard to tell whether this is just an outlier. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if "High-fat diet could kill you, major study shows" has appeared in headlines more than once. "Loosening the restriction on total fat and saturated fat and imposing limits on carbohydrates when high to reduce intake to moderate levels would be optimal." Emphasis mine. What...?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
  > But, given the amount of previous research about harmful effects of fat Dietary fat has been shown to be healthy over and over again. There's nothing controversial about saying dietary fat is good for you; it is established science at this point. I believe what the quote was trying to say about saturated fat is that they feel it is less dangerous than carbohydrates and sugars, and while the UK food industry has been busy trying to reduce the amount of saturated fat, they've sometimes been replacing them with sugar/carbohydrate ingredients which could be even worse for your health. It is frankly disappointing that even thirty years later, many people still believe that dietary fat is unhealthy.
  - the_gastropod 9y ago
    Hmm? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/saturated-fat-regardless-of-type-found-linked-with-increased-heart-disease-risk/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/satu...
    - UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
      There's a difference between dietary and saturated fat.
      - justin66 9y ago
        Saturated fat is specific, "dietary fat" isn't.
    - keymone 9y ago
      fwiw: https://www.xperthealth.org.uk/Home/News/ArtMID/454/ArticleID/63/X-PERT-response-to-new-Saturated-Fat-research-in-the-BMJ https://www.xperthealth.org.uk/Home/News/ArtMID/454/ArticleI... The usual pattern of research is for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be performed to confirm or deny trends identified in observational studies. In the case of SFAs however, there have already been a number of RCTs performed; and even a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pooling their outcomes (e.g. 6-11). This raises the immediate question, why are observational studies still being produced on the subject? It is notable that the evidence from these RCT’s and meta-analyses does not support the conclusions of the Harvard Group’s observational data. For example, a recent Cochrane review (the gold-standard of evidence) found that there was no statistical difference in all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality in participants with higher SFA intake (12).
    - eisrep 9y ago
      I would take the results of this with a grain of salt. Linking saturated fats and coronary heart disease is not as simple as we'd like it to be. The first reference this article lists in particular has many reasons to stay skeptical[1]. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796/rr-4 http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796/rr-4
- stryan 9y ago
  I'm assuming "when high" refers to carbohydrate intake. Though really, the sentence works regardless /s.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  It's way too easy to binge on carbs and it's really really hard to eat too much fat. I've guzzled 6 packs of beer and eaten entire pizzas in a sitting more times than I care to admit. (Also because I lost count after the first dozen times or so). Now that I'm on a low-carb high-fat diet, I find myself eating until I'm full, and at that point I simply have too much fat and protein in my stomach for my body to even want any more food, so I stop. Then I wake up the next morning to find yet another half-pound of body fat has mysteriously vanished and my clothes fit better.
  - cgh 9y ago
    I switched to a roughly 40/30/30 split of carbs/protein/fat (including lots of saturated fat and at least 120g of protein/day) a couple of years ago. I have never been so lean and my athletic performance has improved hugely. Saturated fat is my friend.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bmcusick 9y ago
Sigh. I mean, they're right, but they're also still missing the concept of "What kind of fat?". Different kinds of fats effect you differently. This has been known for a long time. One my favorite blog posts summarizing some research on this point, on Butter vs Margarine, is 8 years old now, and it still hasn't penetrated the mainstream. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/10/butter-vs-margarine-showdown.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/10/butter-vs-marg...
- xzel 9y ago
  You sure thats not mainstream? NYC banned trans fats starting in July 2007. I learned about them in middle or high school 10-15 years ago.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > It's worth mentioning that this study was conducted from the late 1960s until the late 1980s. Artificial trans fat labeling laws were still decades away in the U.S., and margarine contained more trans fat than it does today. Currently, margarine can contain up to 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving and still be labeled "0 g trans fat" in the U.S. The high trans fat content of the older margarines probably had something to do with the result of this study.
- swsieber 9y ago
  Golden quote from the comments there: Re: [comment] touting margarine as a healthier choice. One thing I've learned is that looking at intermediary effects of food - for instance, lowering LDL cholesterol - is not a good indicator that something is good for you or prevents heart disease. If you look only at intermediary effects, you might miss some other effects of the food/substance that are harmful. (Cancer lowers cholesterol, but no one advocates getting it.) I feel like that touches upon one of the problems in diet studies pretty well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
clort 9y ago
I keep thinking that diet, and fitness in general, is a complex thing to keep track of. I'm reminded that the wealthy, who can afford a personal trainer or physician to give advice for a significant proportion of the time would be better able to manage this, and I wonder when it will be that our own personal digital assistants will be able to help more of us do that. Problem is of course, privacy.. if Ltd create a PDA which monitors you, then it is Ltd who are doing that for their own purposes. If the PDA is owned by the people who use it, that is better.. but thats unlikely to happen I fear.
- xj9 9y ago
  the privacy problem is solved by free software and self-hosted/self-contained solutions. of course, there is a potential revenue problem, but there's always hosting, support, and other angles you can take to make monies.
  - dhimes 9y ago
    Or, y'know, they could charge money for it and not sell the private stuff because they are making money. Comply with HIPAA etc. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-reg...
- adrianN 9y ago
  I keep seeing the argument that only the wealthy can afford a healthy diet. I just don't buy it. At least in western countries, anybody can do it, it's not that hard. Getting the basics right is just a google search away. Buying reasonably healthy food is not that expensive, and preparation doesn't take long. I know that because I prepare my food myself and it doesn't take me more than two or three hours per week. Oats and nuts, maybe some fruit for breakfast. Lentils, potatoes, or rice; frozen veggies and some protein for lunch. Sandwiches or eggs with some veggies for dinner. It might not be perfect, but it's certainly not terribly unhealthy.
  - ashark 9y ago
    It gets more difficult when you're cooking for/dining with your family and not everyone's on board with sandwich and egg dinners all the time. Kids, yeah, they'll eat what you give them (sooner or later) but a spouse/SO is another matter. Not impossible, but harder. Exercise, diet, just so much easier when you're single. Stupid-easy. And before kids, especially the exercise part.
frogpelt 9y ago
Did they consider that people who are unhealthy are more likely to be told to avoid fat? There may be some selection bias.
bitL 9y ago
Last time I've been to US, in Cambridge, MA, it was next to impossible to buy a decent non-low fat yoghurt. It was like observing shelves full of junk food everywhere. Sigh.
- ashark 9y ago
  Same in the grocery stores in the US midwest. If you're lucky, the available options are 80% non-fat (loaded with sugar), 15% low-fat (most sugary, but not all), and 5% full fat. In smaller stores there's no full-fat option at all, typically. The non-fat ones are the "healthy" single-serving cups advertised in commercials with skinny women eating them in really nice kitchens just before they go running, or whatever. Probiotics, yoghurt's supposed to be healthy I think, blah blah. They're fat-free sugary dessert cups. Candy.
- zeep 9y ago
  yes really hard to buy a fullfat yogurt... I try to buy them for my children and all they have is lowfat & nofat.
- JPKab 9y ago
  The low-fat myth is still going strong, especially when it comes to consumer products. My wife has a very hard time fining yogurt with normal fat content. We've settled on a product made with whole milk by Stonyfield that is available in most grocery stores in Colorado.
acconrad 9y ago
Here's a link to the study (which, by the way, was unnecessarily difficult to find): http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... What a sensationalist and wrong headline. All it says is that "Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality." So whether you have low or high fat in your diet, you could fill a good portion of that total caloric intake with protein instead of carbohydrates and that would still satisfy the claims that you can mitigate against "Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality". They also don't define what "low" means in "low-fat" to define at what threshold would "kill you" (eyes roll). Doctors generally recommend 20-35% already[1] so I'm not sure how any of this is groundbreaking. [1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/reducing-fat-intake https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/reducing-fat-...
- buu700 9y ago
  whether you have low or high fat in your diet, you could fill a good portion of that total caloric intake with protein instead of carbohydrates and that would still satisfy the claims that you can mitigate against "Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality" This doesn't contadict any of your points here, but: my understanding is that excess dietary protein is broken down into glucose via gluconeogenesis, in which case I suspect that the high-protein and high-carbohydrate diets wouldn't have significantly different results.
  - acconrad 9y ago
    Not exactly. Protein has a higher thermic effect in that it requires more energy from the body to break it down into amino acids. So say you fill both your glycogen and your amino acid requirements, given just proteins and carbs, while both will be converted to glucose, the metabolic effect required by the body to process protein will be higher than the carbohydrate.
- jimrandomh 9y ago
  Thank you for finding the link to the actual study. Can we have this edited to point to it, rather than the Telegraph's clickbaity reblog of it? From the study: > "Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001)" This is the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, and I believe it is deceptive to quote the non-result on CVD in particular, rather than the positive result on all-cause mortality.
mrfusion 9y ago
I'm still confused if apoe4s should do a low fat diet? I've seen it recommended but with all the damage carbs can do I'm thinking high fat is still the way to go?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Carbs get a bad rap these days, but provided most of your carbohydrates are complex, you really shouldn't be concerned. The trouble is with the lack of satiety response for foods high in simple sugars without mitigating factors (fruit juices, table sucrose, table syrups, and to a lesser extent honey). In addition, people differ genetically and this can affect optimal intake. For instance, I do well on a diet with lots of starchy carbohydrates, so my diet is based primarily on bread, steamed grain (rice, wheat, quinoa) and green vegetables (bok choy, spinach, broccoli), but I try to limit simple sugars. There are fads of forsaking entire categories of macronutrient because this is the simplest thing to explain after counting calories.
russtrotter 9y ago
seems like articles like this are always read as justification for KFC, butter, cheese and burgers rather than "hey maybe eating all those nuts and avocados is a good idea???"
- cgh 9y ago
  There is nothing wrong with butter and cheese, unless you happen to be fat and are trying to eat fewer calories. The main thing to avoid in burgers are the buns.
  - jacamat 9y ago
    Even if you are fat there’s nothing wrong with butter and cheese. Especially if you are fat, IMO.
    - cgh 9y ago
      Correct, I was being a bit tongue in cheek.
pavement 9y ago
early death So... what exactly does that mean? Before 50? Under 65? Any age lower than normal? Anything earlier than expected? Especially if injured or ill, for any reason? Otherwise healthy? ...risk ...heart attack I don't know what these vague qualitative assessments indicate. Link between "risk" of heart attack and "low-fat" diet?
heatish 9y ago
Am I missing something or is there not a single link to the study in this article? Didn't see it anywhere on mobile. After the title there isn't really any info about dietary fats but instead will read about how basically all this study may have found is that those doing "low fat diets" might end up eating really crappy carbs. I can't find the link to the study though so maybe they found something else.. I don't think people eating crappy carbs and drinking soda could really be considered "dieters" they seem more like "unhealthy eaters who happen to be eating low fat". From the article: "Those doing so tended to eat far too much stodgy food like bread, pasta and rice, the experts said, while missing out on vital nutrients. Participants eating the highest levels of carbohydrates – particularly refined sugars found in fizzy drinks and processed meals – faced a 28 per cent higher risk of early death." Also their suggestion goes on to say a good balance is 35% of calories from fat which I would say is still fairly 'low-fat' of a diet IMO but I guess that's pretty subjective and I'm not a dietician.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Very regrettably, most newspapers still do not link to the original journal article when discussing academic work. Even places like the NY Times started doing this routinely only a few years ago, more than a decade after it become trivially easy to do technically.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    It's not just academic studies, journalists very frequently don't cite their sources for many factual claims. Their editors and them knowing what or whom it is is way too often enough for them. It rubs me the wrong way. It feels a lot like: "We know better and can tell you what to think. We don't need to show our work." That said, it has been getting better, especially for the tech savy younger generation with Twitter links (:P), but their editors are probably trying to keep the number of hyperlinks relatively low.
  - GunlogAlm 9y ago
    That's why I like the BBC; they link to the study the article is discussing, and have always done so.
sebleon 9y ago
Sigh... this article presents a false dichotomy: you either eat a high fat diet, or you mostly eat refined carbs. Based on dozens of nutritionists I've talked to, focusing on macronutrients as the primary metric is not great. Personally, I look at these things before macros: is it plant-based, is it whole (not refined/processed).
- hammock 9y ago
  Your body has minimum protein (and types of protein, AKA essential aminos) and fat (and types of fat, essential fatty acids) requirements, or you will die. And that is not a clickbait headline. So hitting those macros are vital even if you are focusing on whole foods
  - justin66 9y ago
    > Your body has minimum protein (and types of protein, AKA essential aminos) and fat (and types of fat, essential fatty acids) requirements, or you will die. And that is not a clickbait headline. Yeah it is. Well, it would be, if people ever talked about amino acids in headlines. People die of malnutrition, but good luck finding a population where people dying because they missed out on a specific amino acid is even remotely commonplace. Seriously, to whom does that happen?
    - hammock 9y ago
      https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html Also, http://m.med-health.net/protein-deficiency-diseases.html http://m.med-health.net/protein-deficiency-diseases.html
      - justin66 9y ago
        These are extraordinary examples that amount to clickbait.
        9y ago
jacamat 9y ago
Don't know why people think fat is bad in the first place. But then again I have been keto for ~2 years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tkdkop 9y ago
This isn't the most reputable source, but there are a lot of good points in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g
ProAm 9y ago
Everything can eventually kill you all studies show.
JoshMnem 9y ago
This article is an example of one reason why AMP is bad. I'm on a laptop and still seeing the AMP (restricted) version. I just saw a blank screen and it took about 4 seconds for any content to appear. The publisher was prevented from displaying their full website to me, because someone linked to the AMP version.
l5870uoo9y 9y ago
Whenever I ask who we should send to colonize Mars, I humorously propose Bedouins since they are use to living in the harsh desert climate. Joke aside, inside our cultural realm the most sustainable group seems to be the "family in 50s". I take the same approach to dieting, eating a normal portion of variated traditional food will give you all the nutrients you need. Naturally not arguing that you should reject scientific studies.
quoquoquo 9y ago
as a consumer I don't know what to believe. It seems like every other day some counter study is released. I gave up and just decided to eat whatever the fuck I want.
- pnw_hazor 9y ago
  It is not too complicated. Eliminate or significantly reduce, bread, potatoes, rice, skim milk, sugary stuff, and cereals from your diet and you will be healthier. At our household we just got rid of bread and starch/carb sides and serve more vegetables to make up for it.
  - quoquoquo 9y ago
    I switched my Western diet to strictly vegetarian Korean dishes a decade ago and feel so much better. Basically, what I learned is that Western diet is designed to kill you. There's just no way all that carb and sugar is healthy.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      And yet people in the blue zones eat quite a bit of carbs. Sardinians eat noodles, people on Okinawa eat rice...
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    more vegetables, legumes, and beans to make up for it.
- devmunchies 9y ago
  Thats exactly what many in the food industry intended. It is the same plan as the tobacco industry, as seen in the famous "Doubt is our product" memo: http://www.kevinhabits.com/doubt-is-our-product-fascinating-memo-on-the-tobacco-industrys-pr-strategy/ http://www.kevinhabits.com/doubt-is-our-product-fascinating-...
yawz 9y ago
Stick to getting 1/3 of your calories from each one of 3 main groups: carbs, proteins and fat. And while you're at it, stick to good carbs and good fat.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Its funny how the telegraph finds this particular science backed study OK to print and not critique, but balks at many Science backed studies on Climate Change. Its as if they apply politics to certain things that are not, and should not be political
notdonspaulding 9y ago
PSA: Death is coming. You are going to die. Your parents are going to die. Your kids are going to die. Everyone you know is going to die. Are there things which you can do to reduce your risk of dying earlier than the average person born at the same time as you? Sure. Are there things which you can do to definitely prolong your life? No. Death is a statistics game and 1 out of every 1 people will die at some point in their life. I don't begrudge anyone their interest in dietary/health news, but articles like this get tossed about as justifications for making huge swings in your diet or telling others to do the same. Whenever I see things like this, it strikes me the same as an article like "The next iphone will use transparent, flexible, waterproof plastic". Like engineering, your diet involves making tradeoffs about the food you input into your body, optimizing for a desired result (in terms of longevity of life, physical capability while alive, enjoyment of food you are eating, scarcity of resources, environmental impact, cruelty to animals - perceived or otherwise, etc.). Also like engineering, there are hard constraints which hem in the possible solution space. Pick your desired result, and make the tradeoffs you want, just don't forget the hard constraint that death is coming, my friends. Anecdotally, this might be more on-my-mind than usual because my 66-year-old uncle, who eats fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, and jogs every day, collapsed this weekend from a heart attack and is now in the hospital in a coma. I would have said the above regardless, but it's a rather poignant reminder for me at the moment.
- efefefe 9y ago
  Oh no. Not this. Yes - we're all going to die. Let's not turn this thread into a justification on why it's fruitless to exercise and / or eat cleaner. Individuals do so for a chance at prolonging their life, not a guaranteed extension.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  senescence researchers want to have a word with you :p
  - foxyv 9y ago
    Then they got hit by a truck ^_^
mnm1 9y ago
I think the real news here is that the NHS, FDA, and all other government agencies cannot be trusted. They lie to make money for corporations. Following their recommendations is just stupid. That'd be a good thing for parents to teach their children.
CryoLogic 9y ago
You don't need carbs to survive. You do need both fats and proteins (for production of hormones and tissues). You can get glucose through glucogenesis of fats AND proteins not just carbs.
andmalc 9y ago
Another article covering the same story, minus the scary headline: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-researchers-fat-carbohydrates-the-lancet-1.4266130 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-researchers-fat-carbo...

85 points by thomyorkie 9y ago

fhood 9y ago

Oh good, I was getting worried that my quesadilla and cereal diet was unhealthy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

userbinator 9y ago

Not too much and not too little, seems to be the way to go. But, given the amount of previous research about harmful effects of fat, it's hard to tell whether this is just an outlier. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if "High-fat diet could kill you, major study shows" has appeared in headlines more than once. "Loosening the restriction on total fat and saturated fat and imposing limits on carbohydrates when high to reduce intake to moderate levels would be optimal." Emphasis mine. What...?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
> But, given the amount of previous research about harmful effects of fat Dietary fat has been shown to be healthy over and over again. There's nothing controversial about saying dietary fat is good for you; it is established science at this point. I believe what the quote was trying to say about saturated fat is that they feel it is less dangerous than carbohydrates and sugars, and while the UK food industry has been busy trying to reduce the amount of saturated fat, they've sometimes been replacing them with sugar/carbohydrate ingredients which could be even worse for your health. It is frankly disappointing that even thirty years later, many people still believe that dietary fat is unhealthy.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  Hmm? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/saturated-fat-regardless-of-type-found-linked-with-increased-heart-disease-risk/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/satu...
  - UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
    There's a difference between dietary and saturated fat.
    - justin66 9y ago
      Saturated fat is specific, "dietary fat" isn't.
  - keymone 9y ago
    fwiw: https://www.xperthealth.org.uk/Home/News/ArtMID/454/ArticleID/63/X-PERT-response-to-new-Saturated-Fat-research-in-the-BMJ https://www.xperthealth.org.uk/Home/News/ArtMID/454/ArticleI... The usual pattern of research is for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be performed to confirm or deny trends identified in observational studies. In the case of SFAs however, there have already been a number of RCTs performed; and even a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pooling their outcomes (e.g. 6-11). This raises the immediate question, why are observational studies still being produced on the subject? It is notable that the evidence from these RCT’s and meta-analyses does not support the conclusions of the Harvard Group’s observational data. For example, a recent Cochrane review (the gold-standard of evidence) found that there was no statistical difference in all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality in participants with higher SFA intake (12).
  - eisrep 9y ago
    I would take the results of this with a grain of salt. Linking saturated fats and coronary heart disease is not as simple as we'd like it to be. The first reference this article lists in particular has many reasons to stay skeptical[1]. [1] http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796/rr-4 http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796/rr-4
stryan 9y ago
I'm assuming "when high" refers to carbohydrate intake. Though really, the sentence works regardless /s.
rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
It's way too easy to binge on carbs and it's really really hard to eat too much fat. I've guzzled 6 packs of beer and eaten entire pizzas in a sitting more times than I care to admit. (Also because I lost count after the first dozen times or so). Now that I'm on a low-carb high-fat diet, I find myself eating until I'm full, and at that point I simply have too much fat and protein in my stomach for my body to even want any more food, so I stop. Then I wake up the next morning to find yet another half-pound of body fat has mysteriously vanished and my clothes fit better.
- cgh 9y ago
  I switched to a roughly 40/30/30 split of carbs/protein/fat (including lots of saturated fat and at least 120g of protein/day) a couple of years ago. I have never been so lean and my athletic performance has improved hugely. Saturated fat is my friend.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bmcusick 9y ago

Sigh. I mean, they're right, but they're also still missing the concept of "What kind of fat?". Different kinds of fats effect you differently. This has been known for a long time. One my favorite blog posts summarizing some research on this point, on Butter vs Margarine, is 8 years old now, and it still hasn't penetrated the mainstream. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/10/butter-vs-margarine-showdown.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/10/butter-vs-marg...

xzel 9y ago
You sure thats not mainstream? NYC banned trans fats starting in July 2007. I learned about them in middle or high school 10-15 years ago.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
vanderZwan 9y ago
> It's worth mentioning that this study was conducted from the late 1960s until the late 1980s. Artificial trans fat labeling laws were still decades away in the U.S., and margarine contained more trans fat than it does today. Currently, margarine can contain up to 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving and still be labeled "0 g trans fat" in the U.S. The high trans fat content of the older margarines probably had something to do with the result of this study.
swsieber 9y ago
Golden quote from the comments there: Re: [comment] touting margarine as a healthier choice. One thing I've learned is that looking at intermediary effects of food - for instance, lowering LDL cholesterol - is not a good indicator that something is good for you or prevents heart disease. If you look only at intermediary effects, you might miss some other effects of the food/substance that are harmful. (Cancer lowers cholesterol, but no one advocates getting it.) I feel like that touches upon one of the problems in diet studies pretty well.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

clort 9y ago

I keep thinking that diet, and fitness in general, is a complex thing to keep track of. I'm reminded that the wealthy, who can afford a personal trainer or physician to give advice for a significant proportion of the time would be better able to manage this, and I wonder when it will be that our own personal digital assistants will be able to help more of us do that. Problem is of course, privacy.. if Ltd create a PDA which monitors you, then it is Ltd who are doing that for their own purposes. If the PDA is owned by the people who use it, that is better.. but thats unlikely to happen I fear.

xj9 9y ago
the privacy problem is solved by free software and self-hosted/self-contained solutions. of course, there is a potential revenue problem, but there's always hosting, support, and other angles you can take to make monies.
- dhimes 9y ago
  Or, y'know, they could charge money for it and not sell the private stuff because they are making money. Comply with HIPAA etc. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-reg...
adrianN 9y ago
I keep seeing the argument that only the wealthy can afford a healthy diet. I just don't buy it. At least in western countries, anybody can do it, it's not that hard. Getting the basics right is just a google search away. Buying reasonably healthy food is not that expensive, and preparation doesn't take long. I know that because I prepare my food myself and it doesn't take me more than two or three hours per week. Oats and nuts, maybe some fruit for breakfast. Lentils, potatoes, or rice; frozen veggies and some protein for lunch. Sandwiches or eggs with some veggies for dinner. It might not be perfect, but it's certainly not terribly unhealthy.
- ashark 9y ago
  It gets more difficult when you're cooking for/dining with your family and not everyone's on board with sandwich and egg dinners all the time. Kids, yeah, they'll eat what you give them (sooner or later) but a spouse/SO is another matter. Not impossible, but harder. Exercise, diet, just so much easier when you're single. Stupid-easy. And before kids, especially the exercise part.

frogpelt 9y ago

Did they consider that people who are unhealthy are more likely to be told to avoid fat? There may be some selection bias.

bitL 9y ago

Last time I've been to US, in Cambridge, MA, it was next to impossible to buy a decent non-low fat yoghurt. It was like observing shelves full of junk food everywhere. Sigh.

ashark 9y ago
Same in the grocery stores in the US midwest. If you're lucky, the available options are 80% non-fat (loaded with sugar), 15% low-fat (most sugary, but not all), and 5% full fat. In smaller stores there's no full-fat option at all, typically. The non-fat ones are the "healthy" single-serving cups advertised in commercials with skinny women eating them in really nice kitchens just before they go running, or whatever. Probiotics, yoghurt's supposed to be healthy I think, blah blah. They're fat-free sugary dessert cups. Candy.
zeep 9y ago
yes really hard to buy a fullfat yogurt... I try to buy them for my children and all they have is lowfat & nofat.
JPKab 9y ago
The low-fat myth is still going strong, especially when it comes to consumer products. My wife has a very hard time fining yogurt with normal fat content. We've settled on a product made with whole milk by Stonyfield that is available in most grocery stores in Colorado.

acconrad 9y ago

Here's a link to the study (which, by the way, was unnecessarily difficult to find): http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... What a sensationalist and wrong headline. All it says is that "Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality." So whether you have low or high fat in your diet, you could fill a good portion of that total caloric intake with protein instead of carbohydrates and that would still satisfy the claims that you can mitigate against "Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality". They also don't define what "low" means in "low-fat" to define at what threshold would "kill you" (eyes roll). Doctors generally recommend 20-35% already[1] so I'm not sure how any of this is groundbreaking. [1] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/reducing-fat-intake https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/reducing-fat-...

buu700 9y ago
whether you have low or high fat in your diet, you could fill a good portion of that total caloric intake with protein instead of carbohydrates and that would still satisfy the claims that you can mitigate against "Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality" This doesn't contadict any of your points here, but: my understanding is that excess dietary protein is broken down into glucose via gluconeogenesis, in which case I suspect that the high-protein and high-carbohydrate diets wouldn't have significantly different results.
- acconrad 9y ago
  Not exactly. Protein has a higher thermic effect in that it requires more energy from the body to break it down into amino acids. So say you fill both your glycogen and your amino acid requirements, given just proteins and carbs, while both will be converted to glucose, the metabolic effect required by the body to process protein will be higher than the carbohydrate.
jimrandomh 9y ago
Thank you for finding the link to the actual study. Can we have this edited to point to it, rather than the Telegraph's clickbaity reblog of it? From the study: > "Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001)" This is the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, and I believe it is deceptive to quote the non-result on CVD in particular, rather than the positive result on all-cause mortality.

mrfusion 9y ago

I'm still confused if apoe4s should do a low fat diet? I've seen it recommended but with all the damage carbs can do I'm thinking high fat is still the way to go?

microcolonel 9y ago
Carbs get a bad rap these days, but provided most of your carbohydrates are complex, you really shouldn't be concerned. The trouble is with the lack of satiety response for foods high in simple sugars without mitigating factors (fruit juices, table sucrose, table syrups, and to a lesser extent honey). In addition, people differ genetically and this can affect optimal intake. For instance, I do well on a diet with lots of starchy carbohydrates, so my diet is based primarily on bread, steamed grain (rice, wheat, quinoa) and green vegetables (bok choy, spinach, broccoli), but I try to limit simple sugars. There are fads of forsaking entire categories of macronutrient because this is the simplest thing to explain after counting calories.

russtrotter 9y ago

seems like articles like this are always read as justification for KFC, butter, cheese and burgers rather than "hey maybe eating all those nuts and avocados is a good idea???"

cgh 9y ago
There is nothing wrong with butter and cheese, unless you happen to be fat and are trying to eat fewer calories. The main thing to avoid in burgers are the buns.
- jacamat 9y ago
  Even if you are fat there’s nothing wrong with butter and cheese. Especially if you are fat, IMO.
  - cgh 9y ago
    Correct, I was being a bit tongue in cheek.

pavement 9y ago

early death So... what exactly does that mean? Before 50? Under 65? Any age lower than normal? Anything earlier than expected? Especially if injured or ill, for any reason? Otherwise healthy? ...risk ...heart attack I don't know what these vague qualitative assessments indicate. Link between "risk" of heart attack and "low-fat" diet?

heatish 9y ago

Am I missing something or is there not a single link to the study in this article? Didn't see it anywhere on mobile. After the title there isn't really any info about dietary fats but instead will read about how basically all this study may have found is that those doing "low fat diets" might end up eating really crappy carbs. I can't find the link to the study though so maybe they found something else.. I don't think people eating crappy carbs and drinking soda could really be considered "dieters" they seem more like "unhealthy eaters who happen to be eating low fat". From the article: "Those doing so tended to eat far too much stodgy food like bread, pasta and rice, the experts said, while missing out on vital nutrients. Participants eating the highest levels of carbohydrates – particularly refined sugars found in fizzy drinks and processed meals – faced a 28 per cent higher risk of early death." Also their suggestion goes on to say a good balance is 35% of calories from fat which I would say is still fairly 'low-fat' of a diet IMO but I guess that's pretty subjective and I'm not a dietician.

jessriedel 9y ago
Very regrettably, most newspapers still do not link to the original journal article when discussing academic work. Even places like the NY Times started doing this routinely only a few years ago, more than a decade after it become trivially easy to do technically.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  It's not just academic studies, journalists very frequently don't cite their sources for many factual claims. Their editors and them knowing what or whom it is is way too often enough for them. It rubs me the wrong way. It feels a lot like: "We know better and can tell you what to think. We don't need to show our work." That said, it has been getting better, especially for the tech savy younger generation with Twitter links (:P), but their editors are probably trying to keep the number of hyperlinks relatively low.
- GunlogAlm 9y ago
  That's why I like the BBC; they link to the study the article is discussing, and have always done so.

sebleon 9y ago

Sigh... this article presents a false dichotomy: you either eat a high fat diet, or you mostly eat refined carbs. Based on dozens of nutritionists I've talked to, focusing on macronutrients as the primary metric is not great. Personally, I look at these things before macros: is it plant-based, is it whole (not refined/processed).

hammock 9y ago
Your body has minimum protein (and types of protein, AKA essential aminos) and fat (and types of fat, essential fatty acids) requirements, or you will die. And that is not a clickbait headline. So hitting those macros are vital even if you are focusing on whole foods
- justin66 9y ago
  > Your body has minimum protein (and types of protein, AKA essential aminos) and fat (and types of fat, essential fatty acids) requirements, or you will die. And that is not a clickbait headline. Yeah it is. Well, it would be, if people ever talked about amino acids in headlines. People die of malnutrition, but good luck finding a population where people dying because they missed out on a specific amino acid is even remotely commonplace. Seriously, to whom does that happen?
  - hammock 9y ago
    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html Also, http://m.med-health.net/protein-deficiency-diseases.html http://m.med-health.net/protein-deficiency-diseases.html
    - justin66 9y ago
      These are extraordinary examples that amount to clickbait.
      - 9y ago

jacamat 9y ago

Don't know why people think fat is bad in the first place. But then again I have been keto for ~2 years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tkdkop 9y ago

This isn't the most reputable source, but there are a lot of good points in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLtQLDptI1g

ProAm 9y ago

Everything can eventually kill you all studies show.

JoshMnem 9y ago

This article is an example of one reason why AMP is bad. I'm on a laptop and still seeing the AMP (restricted) version. I just saw a blank screen and it took about 4 seconds for any content to appear. The publisher was prevented from displaying their full website to me, because someone linked to the AMP version.

l5870uoo9y 9y ago

Whenever I ask who we should send to colonize Mars, I humorously propose Bedouins since they are use to living in the harsh desert climate. Joke aside, inside our cultural realm the most sustainable group seems to be the "family in 50s". I take the same approach to dieting, eating a normal portion of variated traditional food will give you all the nutrients you need. Naturally not arguing that you should reject scientific studies.

quoquoquo 9y ago

as a consumer I don't know what to believe. It seems like every other day some counter study is released. I gave up and just decided to eat whatever the fuck I want.

pnw_hazor 9y ago
It is not too complicated. Eliminate or significantly reduce, bread, potatoes, rice, skim milk, sugary stuff, and cereals from your diet and you will be healthier. At our household we just got rid of bread and starch/carb sides and serve more vegetables to make up for it.
- quoquoquo 9y ago
  I switched my Western diet to strictly vegetarian Korean dishes a decade ago and feel so much better. Basically, what I learned is that Western diet is designed to kill you. There's just no way all that carb and sugar is healthy.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    And yet people in the blue zones eat quite a bit of carbs. Sardinians eat noodles, people on Okinawa eat rice...
- devmunchies 9y ago
  more vegetables, legumes, and beans to make up for it.
devmunchies 9y ago
Thats exactly what many in the food industry intended. It is the same plan as the tobacco industry, as seen in the famous "Doubt is our product" memo: http://www.kevinhabits.com/doubt-is-our-product-fascinating-memo-on-the-tobacco-industrys-pr-strategy/ http://www.kevinhabits.com/doubt-is-our-product-fascinating-...

yawz 9y ago

Stick to getting 1/3 of your calories from each one of 3 main groups: carbs, proteins and fat. And while you're at it, stick to good carbs and good fat.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

Its funny how the telegraph finds this particular science backed study OK to print and not critique, but balks at many Science backed studies on Climate Change. Its as if they apply politics to certain things that are not, and should not be political

notdonspaulding 9y ago

PSA: Death is coming. You are going to die. Your parents are going to die. Your kids are going to die. Everyone you know is going to die. Are there things which you can do to reduce your risk of dying earlier than the average person born at the same time as you? Sure. Are there things which you can do to definitely prolong your life? No. Death is a statistics game and 1 out of every 1 people will die at some point in their life. I don't begrudge anyone their interest in dietary/health news, but articles like this get tossed about as justifications for making huge swings in your diet or telling others to do the same. Whenever I see things like this, it strikes me the same as an article like "The next iphone will use transparent, flexible, waterproof plastic". Like engineering, your diet involves making tradeoffs about the food you input into your body, optimizing for a desired result (in terms of longevity of life, physical capability while alive, enjoyment of food you are eating, scarcity of resources, environmental impact, cruelty to animals - perceived or otherwise, etc.). Also like engineering, there are hard constraints which hem in the possible solution space. Pick your desired result, and make the tradeoffs you want, just don't forget the hard constraint that death is coming, my friends. Anecdotally, this might be more on-my-mind than usual because my 66-year-old uncle, who eats fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, and jogs every day, collapsed this weekend from a heart attack and is now in the hospital in a coma. I would have said the above regardless, but it's a rather poignant reminder for me at the moment.

efefefe 9y ago
Oh no. Not this. Yes - we're all going to die. Let's not turn this thread into a justification on why it's fruitless to exercise and / or eat cleaner. Individuals do so for a chance at prolonging their life, not a guaranteed extension.
agumonkey 9y ago
senescence researchers want to have a word with you :p
- foxyv 9y ago
  Then they got hit by a truck ^_^

mnm1 9y ago

I think the real news here is that the NHS, FDA, and all other government agencies cannot be trusted. They lie to make money for corporations. Following their recommendations is just stupid. That'd be a good thing for parents to teach their children.

CryoLogic 9y ago

You don't need carbs to survive. You do need both fats and proteins (for production of hormones and tissues). You can get glucose through glucogenesis of fats AND proteins not just carbs.

andmalc 9y ago

Another article covering the same story, minus the scary headline: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-researchers-fat-carbohydrates-the-lancet-1.4266130 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canadian-researchers-fat-carbo...