It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The End of the Low-Fat Era

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:32 AM

Eating Lean Doesn't Cut Risk

In the largest such study, a low-fat diet failed to lower rates of cancer or heart disease in women.

Overturning three decades of conventional wisdom, a new study of low-fat diets shows that eating less fat does not significantly reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke, breast cancer or colorectal cancer, researchers report today.

Results on weight loss from the same study, published last month, also show that reducing fats without reducing calories does not lead to significant weight loss.

The $415-million study, which tracked about 50,000 women for as many as 13 years, is by far the largest ever to address the role of fats in health and, though it hints at some potential benefits, largely closes the book on a highly publicized chapter of dietary history.

Am I reading this right???? Nearly a half-billion dollar study???

Does that mean the taste of food can now return to normal?

What a colossal scam.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 10:17 AM

What a colossal scam.

So the fact that they tracked 50,000 women for 13 years and then found current diet trends don't help cut risks isn't worth the cost of the study to you? I think it's most beneficial. This is directing nutritional science into new avenues. Research costs money, it always will. Suck it up. It was probably mostly grants from corporations and private groups, anyways. Not your cash.


posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 02:59 PM
Heck i've known this for a loong time, but no-one believed me, it's like self-flaggelation, people by and large believe that only things that hurt actually help.. well, the problem is that industrial food sucks no matter how you put it - calories abundant but no micronutrients, and our 'RDAs' are a joke, simple as that.

see among others:

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Long Lance]

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 03:20 PM

I was unclear, then.... I was referring to the whole low fat scam.

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 07:01 PM
Ah, yes, that makes sense loam. hehe, sorry!

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:11 PM
thats a lot of investment in a study, but you can bet theyll have changed their tune a few years down the line.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:16 PM
Well, I'm staying as low-fat as I can. Mainly because another 1/2 billion dollar study in another year will say something different. But it also makes sense. If something has fat that takes a skillet heated to over 200 degrees to melt that fat, and then I put it into my 98.6 degree body - it's going to go back to its pre-heated state. That's a fact that has made sense to me since LONG before the "low-fat" craze.

I'll just keep eating like I've aint going to do no damage.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:22 PM
Well I have been on all kind of diets during my life time, but as you get older is no cure for that.

Your body just slow down.

Fat is a necessary part of human diet but like everything else is what kind of fats and from what food sources you get it.

The same with carbos they are not harmful as long as they are not from the manufacture and refine sources that most Americans are so fond of.

Like everything else food is needed but what kind, how often and how careful you are of choosing the right food is up to you and you alone.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:42 PM
I agree. Stop eating the processed crap & get out & move. Heck, no one moves anymore. We sit in cars all day, take the closest parking space, & take the elevators. Were'nt our bodies made to move? I'm in the alternative health field & I can't get some of my clients to increase the H2O. Water, a simple thing like drinking a little more. We always want the easy way. I fear the easy way is what's killing us.

new topics

top topics


log in