Another Example Of Apparently “Random Medical News” Confusing To The Public

In a surprising finding, a meta-analysis of 72 studies involving more than 600,000 study participants by Cambridge University researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine (March 18) has found that total saturated fat is not associated with risk of heart disease. Furthermore, levels of supposedly more beneficial polyunsaturated fats showed no heart health advantages. According to the authors, “Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”

The media has reported these results suggesting that giving up fatty meat, cream, or butter is unlikely to improve health. According to media reports, some observers are calling for a new public health campaign to admit that research has been wrong.

Harvard nutritional epidemiologists Walter Willett, Frank Sacks, and Meir Stampfer have been quick to criticize the findings. In a letter to the editor of the Annals, they claim the analysis of the Cambridge investigators contains multiple errors and omissions and the conclusions are seriously misleading. They advise disregarding the conclusions.

These findings and scientific disagreements add to the conflicting epidemiologic results being provided to the public and brings to mind the cartoon depicting what these realities mean for the average person hearing about them. See cartoon below.