|
Beware
of 'headline diets'
February 16, 2006
Suzanne Havala Hobbs
Don’t
take your dietary advice from newspaper headlines.
That’s the take-away lesson from last week when the
news media learned of results of the Women’s Health
Initiative study that concluded a low-fat diet did not lower
the risk of coronary artery disease or cancer.
The headline on The New York Times’s lead story of the
day was “Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study
Finds.” The Washington Post’s front-page headline
read “Low-Fat Diet’s Benefits Rejected.”
For nutritionists and anyone else who has been paying close
attention to evolving nutrition science for the past decade,
the study described in these stories served as confirmation
for what we’ve been saying for years – even back
in the mid-90s when these study data were being collected.
But it was big news to the people who write the news, and
that coverage may have caused some readers to draw the wrong
conclusion.
Here’s what I mean.
The Women’s Health Initiative study examined data collected
between 1993 and 1998 from about 50,000 women ages 50 to 79,
some of whom lowered their total fat intakes to moderate levels
and others who continued to eat a higher-fat, standard American
diet.
The study encompassed the period of time in which the low-fat
craze was riding its peak. Many of you can probably remember
those days. I wrote a grocery shopping guide in 1994 and recall
customers who put their names on waiting lists for Snack Well
fat-free cookies. Some grocery aisles were solid walls of
green Snack Well cookie boxes and Healthy Choice low-fat frozen
entrees.
A lot of consumers got the wrong message back then, that eating
a healthy diet was as simple as cutting out the fat. That
perception was fueled by the food industry and the huge new
market for fat-free products.
And though the message was often drowned out by the advertising
noise, most nutritionists and leading health organizations
were encouraging folks to eat less fat in the context of a
total diet rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
Here’s a passage from that shopping guide I wrote during
the time the WHI study data were being collected:
“Focusing on one characteristic of the diet, such as
fat, is diversionary – it distracts us from more comprehensive
changes that need to be made in order to produce significant
health benefits. What’s the bottom line here? The fat
content of your diet is important, but don’t lose sight
of the big picture. Fat isn’t the only characteristic
that needs attention.”
A similar conclusion could be draw from the WHI study, in
which some participants reduced their total intakes of fat
but ate only slightly less bad fat – saturated fat and
trans fat – than those eating a standard American diet.
It’s not so much the total fat that’s important.
Rather, it’s the type of fat you eat that affects health
risk. Recent research findings bear that out.
The focus now is on reducing trans fat and saturated fat and
replacing bad fats with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated
sources, such as olive and canola oils. Don’t let last
week’s headlines dissuade you from that goal.
What hasn’t changed?
You still need to keep fat in perspective. Reduce your intake
of bad fat – saturated and trans fat – but do
it in the context of the total diet. That means eating less
bad fat but also replacing refined grains with whole grains,
reducing added sugars and salt, and eating many more servings
of fruits and vegetables.
You would have found that same advice deep into most of last
week’s news stories. But it didn’t fit into the
headlines.
|
