
40 year old study could have reshaped American diet, was never fully published - garycomtois
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/this-study-40-years-ago-could-have-reshaped-the-american-diet-but-it-was-never-fully-published/
======
narrator
The context of the early 70s was that "The Limits To Growth" and "The
Population Bomb" had just been published and there was a real concern in the
air that the world was going to run out of food quickly unless something
drastic was done. I think this created a strong confirmation bias that favored
any scientific validation of vegetarianism as good news. Saturated fat being
the main component of meats that is not in vegetables, and carbohydrates being
the main components of vegetables that are not in meats, the confirmation bias
was decidedly pro-carbohydrates, anti-saturated fats.

IMHO, whenever you get people saying "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the science
said <x> because it would help with <some other thing that is hard to figure
out>" you get one of these situations.

~~~
epalmer
Thanks for this. This seems very plausable. I'm now eating low carb and
shuning most vetegable oils. I do use Olive Oil and eat more fish. I use just
a little coconut oil. Lost ~28 lbs and have not been sick at all since going
ketonic. Still have to lose more weight. I do eat red meat and chicken,
turkey. Cheese is a favorite and my bias is I don't want to have to give up
cheese.

~~~
codyb
I remember reading that cheese (and dairy products) are actually relatively
addictive, apparently because of casein. Here's a link, but it's not the
original study just an article about it. I'm sure a google search for "casein
yale food addiction study" might turn up better results.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/food-
drink/chee...](http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/food-drink/cheese-
triggers-the-same-part-of-brain-as-hard-drugs-study-finds-a6707011.html)

~~~
bcheung
That's correct. Cheese has a really high concentration of the casein protein
which breaks down into casomorphins in the gut which then act like an opioid.
Cheese is also very high in advanced glycation end products (AGEs) which are
known to cause aging.

~~~
epalmer
Great, I will be an old addict to cheese.

------
jrapdx3
The subject of the article says as much about the politics of science as it is
a comment on the science itself. To the extent the findings have been ignored,
or perhaps even shunned, is not at all unique. Many important advances in
medicine had a notoriously difficult time being accepted, as an example, the
idea that bacterial infection was the cause of stomach ulcers had been around
for decades before gaining traction.

I think the substance of the science discussed revolves around the composition
of dietary fat. As the article notes, the recommendation for increasing the
proportion of "polyunsaturated" oils is likely a major factor. Indeed, common
vegetable oils contain a high proportion of linoleic acid, the "base" omega-6
dietary source. It has been shown in numerous studies that the omega-6 (N-6)
to omega-3 (N-3) ratio is important since these essential fats are linked to
immune system functioning.

N-6 fatty acids are associated with pro-inflammatory factors, N-3 primarily
leads to anti-inflammatory products. In the archaic/traditional diet, N-6 and
N-3 were present in roughly equal proportion, but with marked increase in
vegetable oil consumption, N-6 to N-3 becomes "imbalanced", e.g., 10:1.

Inflammatory processes are well-known to play a role in cardiovascular
disease, so it's not hard to see how increased N-6 fatty acid intake is a
contributor. However this info has not been a secret in the fields of obesity
and metabolic disease treatment and research, where the impact of dietary fat
intake has been discussed and published for more than 20 years.

Since the mid-90's I've recommended sharply reducing polyunsaturated vegetable
oil intake as part of "lifestyle" changes supporting optimum health,
particularly for patients with predisposition to metabolic disease. FWIW I've
followed my own advice for at least as long, the results have impressed my
internist who jokes that I've become quite an uninteresting case.

(Don't have references at hand. If anyone wants I'll post them.)

Edit: grammar!

~~~
seizethecheese
Thanks for the insightful comment. What would be a good substitute oil for
cooking?

~~~
eveningcoffee
I am not a dietary scientist, but we are using either coconut fat or grape see
oil for cooking.

The main reason is that these are supposed to produce less cancerogenic
compounds after high temperature treatment* and they also do not leave any
strong specific taste.

Both do not contain significant amount of omega-3 fatty acids, but the cooking
oil probably also should not be your main source of fatty acids anyway
(usually we wipe the products clean after cooking).

Perhaps somebody else could give better insight into it.

* I actually have not researched this deeply, but these oils do have relatively high smoke point [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point)

~~~
arturnt
Avocado Oil is the de-facto high heat cooking oil with a good fat profile
(mostly monounsaturated fats).

------
jeremyw
The article stops short of highlighting the most explosive detail. The study’s
investigators suppressed these data just as one of them, Ancel Keys, was
consolidating political power and unifying opinion around his cholesterol
hypothesis. And when, twenty years later, the contradictory results were
published, they lied about the conclusions.

There has always been suspicion of knowing cherry-picking. But the evidence of
fraud, by the central figure of saturated fat phobia, is much clearer now.

~~~
OldSchoolJohnny
Yup, ironically Ancel Keyes is probably responsible for a huge number of
deaths, the road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

------
gobbo
This article leaves out or does not stress enough some important information:
_How long was the experiment conducted for? _How many people have been
monitored after the experiment? _Did the people go back to the previous diet,
once the experiment was over?

To the first question, one can find hidden in the article: "Willett faulted
the experiment because many of the patients were on the special diets for
relatively brief periods - many were being released from the mental
institutions. But about a quarter of the patients remained on the diet for a
year or longer".

If people stayed on this diet for a year or so max of their 65+ years of life,
this data seems utterly non-relevant to support either thesis. It is
fundamental to know if the people (and how many) continued with the new diet
for a sizable portion of their life. In any case the results should at least
not include people that have been on the diet for just a couple of months.

It is hard to believe that a diet of low fat for just a random year in
somebody's life (~1.5% of life span) would make a big difference against the
remaining 98% of life spent eating fat. The question whether a low fat diet is
better than a high fat one is very intriguing, but this data, as presented in
the article, seem inconclusive.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>It is hard to believe that a diet of low fat for just a random year in
somebody's life (~1.5% of life span) would make a big difference against the
remaining 98% of life spent eating fat. //

It's not inconceivable though: I've friends who have lactose intolerance who
once they have stayed off lactose for a while can then consume it relatively
normally so long as they maintain a relatively low dose.

It seems possible that the body could "clean" itself during a period of low
fat dieting sufficient that it can handle a normal Western diet for the rest
of a normal Western life-span? If a mechanism for fat storing that was
detrimental was related to one's age when the fat was deposited that might
also explain how a short period of dieting would be beneficial over a
lifetime.

Most everything [I've read] in dietary science seems inconclusive.

------
asangha
Gary Taubes wrote a great book showing how politics marred nutritional
science: [http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-
Scienc...](http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-
Science/dp/1400033462)

------
jinushaun
To me, the problem is not scientific studies, but mainstream reporting of
scientific studies that turn into popular fads and trends. Science doesn't
deal in absolutes, but society does. This is true for dietary fat, autism,
gluten, paleo, salt, etc.

~~~
pc2g4d
I think you give "science" too much credit. "Structure of Scientific
Revolutions" and all that. In an abstract sense, yes, everything in science is
subject to criticism and reevaluation. But in a human sense, entire fields are
dominated for decades by strong personalities whose theories aren't
necessarily stronger but have greater social support. I present to you Noam
Chomsky re: linguistics as a prime example.

Surely I oversimplify, but I think it's important to acknowledge the human
factor in what passes as scientific consensus in a field at any given time.

~~~
nxzero
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" which has been cited over
3000 times covers this topic:
[http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

------
fauria
In line with this submission, two posts linking to an article on The Guardin
about sugar hit the front page of HN lately:

 _The Sugar Conspiracy_ :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941)

 _The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health_ :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11471806](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11471806)

It revolves around a lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig (UCSF) that was also posted
on HN six years ago. I found it amazing:

 _Sugar: The Bitter Truth (UCSF lecture)_ :
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980)

------
Kinnard
"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of
people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in
an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to
minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation
of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and
by isolating themselves from outside influences."[1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

------
andreirailean
Mental patients didn't have a say on their diet 40 years ago. This experiment
says a lot about the level of care for the wellbeing of those who are locked
up and are not given a choice (supposedly for their own benefit). I wonder if
these kinds of experiments are still being done at mental institutions and
elsewhere people are treated like Guinea pigs.

~~~
sevensor
This was my first thought as well. You couldn't possibly do a study like this
today, or at least I hope not, because the issues around informed consent are
too thorny when it comes to mental patients.

------
stephengillie
The nearly-unbelievable rigor of astrophysics and particle physics grants too
much credibility to dietary and nutrition studies. Until a satisfactory level
of rigor is established, these efforts will remain equal in validity to any
other nutrition advertisement.

Calling it "science" is harmful.

------
gwern
> The lead investigators of the trial, noted scientists Ancel Keys and Ivan
> Frantz, are deceased.

No wonder.

~~~
gjm11
I'm not sure what point (if any) gwern is making here but, e.g., Ancel Keys
died in 2004 at the age of 100. So, indeed, no wonder he's deceased: he would
have had to be staggeringly old to still be alive now.

[EDITED to add:] On the face of it, the most obvious reading of gwern's
comment is (it seems to me) something like "ha ha, of course they're dead,
because they had stupid theories about diet and health so we should expect
them to have died by now". If that _is_ what gwern meant, then I think he was
being unreasonable. (But I'm _not at all_ sure it is.)

~~~
zach
I totally read it as "oh, no wonder it 'was never fully published' before now,
since the lead investigators were the infamous Ancel Keys and a now-deceased
collaborator."

~~~
gnoway
Well also, as pointed out elsewhere, Keys championed reduction in saturated
fats, etc. to prevent heart disease. If the results of a trial he conducted
disputed that idea, that might have harmed his reputation.

~~~
eveningcoffee
It almost feels like a claim that it is safe to put lead into gasoline.

------
mhkool
Dr Mark Hyman, an MD who practises functional medicine, recently launched
abook titled 'Eat Fat Get Thin'. Today I received an email from him titled
'The results are in...' :

Dear Marcus,

Before I launch any program, I test it. Not just on my patients, which I have
done for decades (in fact on over 20,000 patients), but on people all over the
country following the program at home. We had over 1,000 people do the Eat
Fat, Get Thin beta program and the results and stories were amazing. Here are
the average results from the first group to go through the program:

    
    
        Weight Loss: 7.1 pounds (some lost up to 46 pounds)
    
        Waist Reduction:  1.9 inches (some lost up to 13 inches)
    
        Hip Reduction: 1.7 inches (some lost up to 16 inches)
    
        Blood Pressure Reduction: systolic (top number) 9 points, diastolic (bottom number) 4.5 points
    
        Blood Sugar Reduction: 23 points
    

Participants also reported an _astounding_ 69% drop in ALL symptoms from all
diseases. If you’re ready to lose extra pounds… have more energy… and start
feeling amazing click here to join the Eat Fat, Get Thin Challenge.

I am following the work of Dr Hyman for a long time and already knew that a
diet with _good fats_ is healthy, but the result of 69% drop of symtoms of all
diseases is astonishing and makes you think: the bad foods make you sick and
the good foods make you healthy.

------
agumonkey
Very reminiscent of the dismissal of Yudkin's sugar theory.

------
codexjourneys
The worst part is that for 20 years (until about 10-15 years ago), anyone
stating that maybe saturated fat wasn't so bad was demonized and called anti-
science. There seemed to be very little opportunity for reasoned discussion or
actual comparison of results in the wild. Demonization of the opposing
viewpoint, instead of reasoned discussion and further inquiry, IS the
definition of anti-science.

~~~
hga
It's still happening to this day: [http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-
agriculture/2016/0...](http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-
agriculture/2016/03/teicholz-disinvited-from-food-policy-panel-stabenow-
grassley-let-usda-fda-review-syngenta-merger-fda-to-release-food-safety-tests-
on-cucumbers-213410)

But I suppose more as a rearguard action, you're correct that it's not as bad
as it once was.

------
bcheung
The book "Death by Food Pyramid" goes into great length about the history of
how the food pyramid came to be and the story of how it got corrupted.

------
erikb
This headline sounds really interesting. But if you think about it more you
find that this is true for a lot of papers. I guess there are quite a few
papers that never make it to being published, because it's hard work and the
competition is tough. And each one of these might have had an impact if it had
succeeded in getting published.

------
fsloth
I had the understanding that individual genetics control response to dietary
fats. I never see individual genetics referred to with these diet instructions
and studies - which makes me very vary of them. Am I completely wrong (i.e.
did my 23 and me test give unscientific advice)?

------
enibundo
Is it this difficult to know what to eat Americans? Just don't eat processed
food and don't abuse with only one type of food ffs.

~~~
thaumasiotes
This is a case where I'm inclined not to blame the Americans. The modal human
eats a more or less traditional diet that coevolved with them over a very long
period. Unsurprisingly, Japanese in Japan do pretty well on their diet, Greeks
in Greece do pretty well (though not as well) on theirs, and so forth.
Japanese in the US show pathologies like obesity at elevated levels compared
to the ones in Japan. The American diet is a pretty recent phenomenon and
hasn't settled.

The quest for the one perfect diet which is optimally healthy for everyone in
the world, though, is obviously misguided.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Japanese in the US show pathologies like obesity at elevated levels compared
to the ones in Japan. The American diet is a pretty recent phenomenon and
hasn't settled. //

Are countries with a higher degree of capitalism in general or a greater
profit motive in their food production more likely to have diet that leads to
poor outcomes?

~~~
thaumasiotes
You know, Japan itself is ranked 22nd in the Heritage index of economic
freedom ("degree of capitalism") for 2016.

And a raw country-to-country comparison of health outcomes will be badly
confounded by the effect of race. Japanese in the US perform worse on health
metrics than Japanese in Japan. They still do better than whites in the US.

------
jsuich
I know the lead publisher. These guys are the real deal and are doing
seriously sincere and in depth work.

------
lisper
Similar political dynamics are playing themselves out today with respect to
Ebola and septic shock:

[http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/the-cure-for-
ebola.html](http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/12/the-cure-for-ebola.html)

~~~
InclinedPlane
See also:

Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919 Pharmacology,
Pathology, and Historic Evidence:

[http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/9/1405.full](http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/9/1405.full)

------
bkovacev
American diet in the 70s was not what the American diet is today.

------
Tycho
We don't need scientific studies to figure out what to eat. Just look at what
has worked for millennia and avoid newfangled processed food.

~~~
dragonwriter
Systematic evaluation of what has worked for millennia is science. If you mean
just gathering unstructured anecdotes of uncertain provenance about the past
and using them to construct just-so stories as guides, well, that's not
particularly likely to be more useful than just randomly guessing what you
should eat, though it's pretty close to how many diet fads get created.

~~~
Tycho
All these dietary fads seemed to emerge around the same time as nutritional
science.

------
iandanforth
Article does not contain the word "sugar." Article invalid.

~~~
lukas099
The article isn't about sugar at all. It's about a study of effects of
different types of fats.

------
garyclarke27
Continuued promotion of the false premise that, eating saturated fat and
cholesterol is unhealthy,has literally killed and caused misery to hundreds of
millions. ie Those responsible are mass murderers. Butter was demonised, yet
grass fed butter is far healthier than any oil, including olive oil. Ghee has
the highest smoke point, many vegetable oils turn to poison when heated
because they are unsaturated ie far less stable, they also spoil very easily.
I make ghee by gently boiling Rachel's organic butter for 30 minutes, then
filtering through cheese cloth, it tastes great and smells lovely and nutty,
unlike shop bought ghee which smells off to me.

