40 year old study could have reshaped American diet, was never fully published

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.

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!

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.

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.

Gary Taubes wrote a great book showing how politics marred nutritional science: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...

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.

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

The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health: 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

"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

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.

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.

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

No wonder.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.