Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    jc3737 posted:
    This study does not undercut the McDougall/Fuhrman type diets but it does raise some issues about the role of fat in the diet.This goes against all logic but it's the results these researchers got.
    heretk responded:
    It does undercut McDougall! His theory is based on "fat is bad" and "starch is healthy" mantra. He is simply wrong. That paper and many other just prove that.


    "Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression."
    jc3737 replied to heretk's response:
    Another possible explanation....those who eat less fat have to make up the difference in calories from another source....I'm guessing that source is often wheat,sugar,processed carbs....thats not only possibe but very,very likely....most people who eat less fat make up the difference in junk

    that would not undercut the McDougall/Fuhrman type diets.

    From personal experience... granted that wheat may be a suspect carb but I dont think the same applies to potatoes,beans,and vegetables.

    What this study shows is that junk carbs are worse than fat but it does not show that fat is harmless or healthy.
    solpwr replied to heretk's response:
    No causal link is established here. There are many risk factors, especially for women. Fat "loads the gun", but is not necessarily the "trigger" mechanism.

    McDougall has it right. The Adventist Study 2 at Loma Linda will prove it.
    anon615 replied to heretk's response:
    Then Esselstyn must be a liar and the people in his study got sicker and sicker over the last twenty years with arteries shutting down from not enough sat fat.

    Asians on traditional low sat fat diets high in carbs must be dropping like flies from heart disease.

    There must be a conspiracy to keep McDougall's patients and live in program attendees from publicizing the fact that their health has gone from bad to worse on his diet and the heart attack rate among these people must be plaguing them.

    Heart disease takes years to develop and while it is entirely possible that someone eating sat fats and very low carb remains healthy with clean arteries, I have yet to see a study following a group of heart patients over several years whose blocked arteries have shown reversal and who have remained incident free on such a high sat fat low carb diet.

    P.S. While Esselstyn reports no heart events over several years in patients who had surgeries and stents and who follow his diet, he does report somewhere that there was reversal in some arteries, no progression in others--but he did find progression in some arteries in some people.
    anon615 replied to anon615's response:
    ok. what happened to my paragraphs? Are they being rationed?


    Spotlight: Member Stories

    My name is Ashley, I'm 20 years old. (5'6, 159 lbs). My interest in nutrition/living healthier started when at the age of 53 my father passed ...More

    Helpful Tips

    Zeal for Life
    I couldn't find my old post so I'm not sure what happened to it. I have back problems, panic issues and anxiety disorder since childhood. ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    5 of 5 found this helpful

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.