Back Good Calories, Bad Calories
Chapters (40)
  1. Cover Page
  2. Title Page
  3. Dedication
  4. Prologue A Brief History of Banting
  5. Part One
  6. Chapter 1
  7. Chapter 2
  8. Chapter 3
  9. Chapter 4
  10. Part Two
  11. Chapter 5
  12. Chapter 6
  13. Chapter 7
  14. Chapter 8
  15. Chapter 9
  16. Chapter 10
  17. Chapter 11
  18. Chapter 12
  19. Chapter 13
  20. Part Three
  21. Chapter 14
  22. Chapter 15
  23. Chapter 16
  24. Chapter 17
  25. Chapter 18
  26. Chapter 19
  27. Chapter 20
  28. Chapter 21
  29. Chapter 22
  30. Chapter 23
  31. Chapter 24
  32. Epilogue
  33. Notes
  34. Bibliography
  35. Acknowledgments
  36. Illustration Credits
  37. A Note About the Author
  38. Also by Gary Taubes
  39. Footnotes
  40. Copyright

Jolliffe died in 1961, before the results were in. His colleagues, led by George Christakis, began reporting interim results a year later. “Diet Linked to Cut in Heart Attacks,” reported the New York Times in May 1962. “Special Diet Cuts Heart Cases Here,” the Times reported two years later. Christakis was so confident of the prudent-diet benefits, reported Newsweek, that he “urged the government to heed the club results and launch an educational and food-labeling campaign to change U.S. diet habits.”

The actual data, however, were considerably less encouraging. Christakis and his colleagues reported in February 1966 that the diet protected against heart disease. Anti-Coronary Club members who remained on the prudent diet had only one-third the heart disease of the controls. The longer you stayed on the diet, the more you benefited, it was said. But in November 1966, just nine months later, the Anti-Coronary Club investigators published a second article, revealing that twenty-six members of the club had died during the trial, compared with only six of the men whose diet had not been prudent. Eight members of the club died from heart attacks, but none of the controls. This appeared “somewhat unusual,” Christakis and his colleagues acknowledged. They discussed the improvements in heart-disease risk factors (cholesterol, weight, and blood pressure decreased) and the significant reduction in debilitating illness “from new coronary heart disease,” but omitted further discussion of mortality.

This mortality problem was the bane of Keys’s dietary-fat hypothesis, bedeviling every trial that tried to assess the effects of a low-fat diet on death as well as disease. In July 1969, Seymour Dayton, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, reported the results of the largest diet-heart trial to that date. Dayton gave half of nearly 850 veterans residing at a local Veterans Administration hospital a diet in which corn, soybean, safflower, and cottonseed oils replaced the saturated fats in butter, milk, ice cream, and cheeses. The other half, the controls, were served a placebo diet in which the fat quantity and type hadn’t been changed. The first group saw their cholesterol drop 13 percent lower than the controls; only sixty-six died from heart disease during the study, compared with ninety-six of the vets on the placebo diet.*8

Thirty-one of the men eating Dayton’s experimental cholesterol-lowering diet, however, died of cancer, compared with only seventeen of the controls. The risk of death was effectively equal on the two diets. “Was it not possible,” Dayton asked, “that a diet high in unsaturated fat…might have noxious effects when consumed over a period of many years? Such diets are, after all, rarities among the self-selected diets of human population groups.” Because the cholesterol-lowering diet failed to increase longevity, he added, it could not provide a “final answer concerning dietary prevention of heart disease.”