PDA

View Full Version : NO health benefits to dieting, study proves


HSG
8th February 2006, 00:09
<br>Joe Michaels has kindly sent us a shocking <i>New York Times</i> article about a new study that <i>proves,</i> once and for all, that diets have <i>no</i> health benefits at all, and therefore, <i>"that women are being induced to deprive themselves for no reason!"</i>

And that's not just the opinion of the present author. The medical experts quoted in this article make precisely such an admission.

The bulk of the article is quoted below (and the source URL is linked at the bottom of this post). But the story is already spreading throughout all of the major newspapers, so if the <i>Times</i> link doesn't work, the conclusions will also be available from most major news sources.<p>....................<p><blockquote><strong>February 7, 2006

Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease

By Gina Kolata</strong>

The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet keeps women from getting cancer or heart disease has found that <strong>the diet had no effect</strong>.

The $415 million federal study involved nearly 49,000 women aged 50 to 79 who were followed for eight years. In the end, those assigned to a low-fat diet had <strong>the same rates of breast cancer, colon cancer heart attack and stroke as those who ate whatever they pleased</strong>, researchers are reporting today.

"These are three totally negative studies," said Dr. David Freedman, a statistician at the University of California at Berkeley, who is not connected with the study but has written books on clinical trial design and analysis. And, he said, the results should be taken seriously for what they are — a rigorous attempt that failed to confirm a popular hypothesis that a low-fat diet can prevent three major diseases in women.

And <strong>the studies were so large and so expensive that they are "the Rolls Royce of studies,"</strong> said Dr. Michael Thun, who directs epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society. As such, he said, they are likely to be the final word.

"We usually have only one shot at a very large scale trial on a particular issue," Dr. Thun said.

The studies were part of the Women's Health Initiative of the National Institutes of Health, the same program that showed that hormone therapy after menopause can have more risks than benefits. In this case, the diet studies addressed a tricky problem. For decades, many scientists have been saying, and many members of the public have been believing, that what you eat — the composition of the diet — determines how likely you are to get a chronic disease. But it has been hard to prove. Studies of dietary fiber and colon cancer <strong>failed to find that fiber was protective</strong>. Studies of vitamins thought to protect against cancer failed to show an effect.

Gradually, many cancer researchers began questioning the dietary fat-cancer hypothesis, but it has retained a hold on the public imagination.

"Nothing fascinates the American public so much as the notion that what you eat rather than how much you eat affects your health," said Dr. Peter Libby, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School.

But the new studies, reported in the Feb. 8 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that women who were randomly assigned to follow a low-fat diet ate significantly less fat over the next eight years. But <strong>they had just as much breast and colon cancer and just as much heart disease.</strong>

And, <strong>confounding many popular notions about fat in the diet, the different diets did not make much difference in anyone's weight. The common belief that carbohydrates in the diet lead to higher insulin levels, higher blood glucose levels and more diabetes was also not confirmed. There was no such effect among the women eating low-fat diets.</strong>

As for heart disease risk factors, the only one affected was LDL cholesterol, which increases heart disease risk. The levels were slightly higher in women eating the higher fat diet, but not enough to make a noticeable difference in their risk of heart disease.

The studies follow a smaller one, reported last year, on low-fat diets for women who had breast cancer. That study hinted that eating less fat might help prevent a recurrence. But the current study, asking if a low-fat diet could protect women from breast cancer in the first place, had findings that fell short of statistical significance, meaning they could have occurred by chance. In essence, <strong>there was no solid evidence that a low-fat diet helped in prevention.</strong>

"These studies are revolutionary," said Dr. Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University, who has spent a lifetime studying the effects of diets on weight and health. <strong>"They should put a stop to this era of thinking that we have all the information we need to change the whole national diet and make everybody healthy."</strong> . . .

The results, the study investigators agreed, <strong>do not justify recommending low-fat diets to the public to reduce their heart disease and cancer risk.</strong>

As for the cancer society, Dr. Thun said, with these results that he describes as "completely null over the eight-year follow-up for both cancers and heart disease," his group has <strong>no plans to suggest that low-fat diets are going to protect against cancer.</strong> . . .

But the overall lesson, said Dr. Freedman, is clear.

"A lot of observational data show diet matters, but those studies have big flaws and that's why we have to do experiments," he said <strong>"We, the scientific community, tend to go off the deep end giving dietary advice based on pretty flimsy evidence."</strong></blockquote><p>....................<p>The conclusions are absolutely shocking, and overturn every single medical myth that has been used to inflict starvation on women today.

The study proves that low-fat diets have <i>no effect</i> on heart disease. <i>No effect</i> on cancer rates.

It shows that eating carbohydrates does <i>not</i> cause diabetes.

It even shows that high-fat diets do not appreciably affect weight (!).

And, as the article notes, the tremendous scale of this study means that its results are irrefutable.

Think of the implications: for years, diet pushers and anti-plus propagandists have been brainwashing women into depriving themselves of the food that they have desperately longed to eat (and, in the process, into destroying their looks), all in the name of "health" reasons--all of which have now been proven <i>false.</i>

At least the study quotes some doctors admitting that there is now no reason whatsoever to try to manipulate women's eating habits.

And it underscores that, from now on, any companies or medical practitioners who try to promote dieting are doing so only for thin-supremacist <i>prejudice</i>--not for any medical reasons whatsoever.

The moral of the story, for women living today?

"Live life deliciously," as the saying goes. Eat well, and be beautiful. Eat whatever you want--and as much as you want--for starving benefits you naught, while indulgence is beauty's virtue.

(This was common knowledge throughout human history. It was forgotten for nearly a century, but now, at last, this timeless truth is being rediscovered--along with timeless beauty itself.)

Palma Vecchio (c.1480-1528), <i>Diana and Callisto</i>:<p><center><img src="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/pinacotheca/pv/pv08.jpg"></center><p>- <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/health/07cnd-fat.html?ei=5070&en=185edba585ef4995&ex=1139979600&emc=eta1&pagewanted=print" target="_blank">Article: ''Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease''</a>

Kaitlynn
8th February 2006, 03:12
"We, the scientific community, tend to go off the deep end giving dietary advice based on pretty flimsy evidence."
How amazing to finally have a medical professional admitting this! And what an eye-opening article. Finally, conclusive medical proof of something that so many people have realized on their own.

This is what happens when diet research is NOT funded by the billion-dollar weight-loss industry: The truth finally comes out.

So, since dieting yields no health benefits, and people end up living the same amount of time whether they deprive themselves of food or not, why would anyone do this to themselves? The choice is clear: you can either live your life miserable and perpetually hungry, or satisfied and happy.

The arguments for weight loss just got reduced to nil- unless someone actually likes that skeletor look........

MelanieW
9th February 2006, 02:48
The moral of the story, for women living today?

"Live life deliciously," as the saying goes. Eat well, and be beautiful. Eat whatever you want--and as much as you want--for starving benefits you naught, while indulgence is beauty's virtue.
SO true. I love how the media is collectively scratching its heads today, not knowing what kind of spin to put on this story. What can they say? Everything they have been reporting for years, all the justification for their curve-o-phobic bias, has been proven wrong.

Some of the articles have had a tone of resignation. I liked the opening of one from The Independent, a Britsh newspaper:

. . . . . . . . . .

Forget all you ever knew about diets

An eight-year scientific study in America has concluded that you might as well eat a bacon sandwich as a low-fat yoghurt if you want to stay healthy.

David Usborne reports

Published: 09 February 2006

Medical researchers in the United States who set out to demonstrate that a low-fat diet will reduce the risks of cancer and heart attacks were struggling yesterday to hide their disappointment. The results from their eight-year, government-funded study are in - and they show no such thing.

While this may be good news for lovers of butter and fans of bacon sandwiches for breakfast, it will surely befuddle the millions of health-conscious consumers around the globe who for years have skipped from one low-fat fad to the next in search of the perfect recipe for health, longevity and, of course, a tauter tummy. Just started the F2 diet? Don't bother. Freezer filled with low-fat yoghurt? Run for some Häagen-Daz.

. . . . . . . . . .


By the way, ging back to the slogan "Live life deliciously", I just discovered a fragrance by Donna Karan that has the tag line "Be delicious":

http://www.duon.de/i/parfum/DonnaKaran/BeDelicious/BeDelicious.jpg

The campaigns are great, with slogans like "Take a bit out of life":

http://jenene.org/design/lp_work/bedelicious/images/bedelicious_02.jpg

But wow, if there was ever a time when a company SHOULD have used a plussize model instead of a harsh-featured waif, this is it. If they had used a really delicious-looking model like Barbara Brickner with these slogans, the ads would have had a MUCH greater impact.

Plus, as this study proves, "being delicious" by enjoying rich desserts is no less healthy than eating appleS, so a poster with more decadent foods would have been even more exciting.

Still, like campaigns such as "Sexy girls have dessert" and "Live life deliciously", it is nice to see another indulgence-oriented promotion. If only the imagery backed it up.....

Emily
12th February 2006, 17:18
Here's another excellent article about this revelation that places it in the context of the many weight-control myths that have recently been debunked:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184409,00.html

The writer pulls no punches, expressing the frustration that I think a lot of women feel about the brainwashing that they've endured concerning food and weight:


"The unfortunate fact is that, when it comes to diet and health, we’ve been misinformed, ripped off and unnecessarily medicated by junk scientists, behavior-control nannies and unscrupulous marketers in the government, public health community and the food and pharmaceutical industries. And, of course, let’s not forget the media that seldom miss opportunities to pump health scares and scams."


The tone of the piece is a little testy, but I share the feeling -- not only because of the sheer scale of the diet deception, but the fact that so much money has been spent on related research, all of which is now proven false, and all of which could instead have been devoted to the really pressing crises facing humanity -- educational, environmental, etc. As the article points out:


"scientific study has never supported the dietary propaganda thrust upon us during the past three decades."


The writer also makes an important point when he suggests how diet-propaganda lies have caused many women to diminish their quality of life. As the article puts it:


"Think about [this study] the next time you turn down the scrumptious banana-pecan French toast with a side of sausage in favor of choking down some tasteless low-fat cereal with skim milk."


As others have asked, why would any woman now wish to diminish both her beauty, and her quality of life, in order to starve herself -- and for no health benefits at all?