Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)
BMJ 2016; 353 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1246 (Published 12 April 2016) Cite this as: BMJ 2016;353:i1246All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Ramsden and colleagues conclusions on replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid are not supported by the data. Contrary to their claims, strong and consistent evidence from both randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies indicate that replacing saturated fat with healthy fats (including n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fats) has favorable effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD).
There were major problems with both the design and interpretation of the data from the MCE. The most severe of these are the duration of the trial and the very high rates of dropout. Only ~25% of the study participants received the study diets for more than a year with an average exposure of ~3 years. The short-term duration of the intervention and unusually high rates of non-compliance called the validity of the study into question.
Second, their data on the degree of atherosclerotic progression confirmed through autopsy was on a very small number (n=149). It is highly unlikely for a 1-year intervention to alter plaque that has been built up for decades. In fact, well-known dietary intervention studies such as the Los Angeles Veterans Administration trial1 and the Finnish Mental Hospital trial2 lasted more than 5 years and found that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats reduced both serum cholesterol and CHD incidence.
Third, the authors found that the excess mortality with the serum cholesterol lowering intervention (“cholesterol paradox”) was primarily confined to patients 65 years and older. Analyses in this sub-sample are plagued by the same issues that we observe with the “obesity paradox3”, where weight loss is often associated with increased mortality in older individuals or hospitalized patients. Also, among those aged ≥65 years, the hazard ratio for death was similar in the intervention group and the control group suggesting that the intervention, per se, had no effect on death.
Fourth, the intervention used in the MCE does not in any way reflect the average American diet. In fact, the level of linoleic acid (13.2%, range: 11.3%-16.5%) in the intervention group is well above the levels consumed by the US population (average 7%).4 It is also important to note that major food sources of linoleic acid such as soybean oil, canola oil, and walnuts also contain substantial amounts of alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 fatty acid.
Fifth, the authors’ meta-analyses looked at CHD mortality, which is not a primary endpoint in many of the trials. The meta-analysis also omitted the Finnish Mental Hospital trial2, an important study with similar levels of linoleic acid intake as the MCE that showed a reduction in both serum cholesterol and cardiovascular events. In fact, a previous meta-analysis, which included the MCE, found significant benefits of replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats on both serum cholesterol and incidence of major cardiovascular events5. The statistical power for analyzing CHD mortality was greatly reduced compared to that for incident CVD events.
Finally, the authors suggest several biological “hypotheses”, including changes to lipoprotein particle oxidation that may have contributed to increased CHD risk in the intervention group. However, this is merely speculative and evidence from randomized clinical trials do not support the role of linoleic acid in increased inflammation.6
In sum, this report is highly misleading and should not alter current dietary recommendations that emphasize healthy sources of fats (including n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and plant-based monounsaturated fat) as a replacement for saturated fat in the context of healthy eating patterns.
REFERENCES
1. Dayton S, Pearce ML, Hashimoto S, Dixon WJ, Tomiyasu U. A Controlled Clinical Trial of a Diet High in Unsaturated Fat in Preventing Complications of Atherosclerosis. Circulation 1969;40(1 SUPPLEMENT II ): II-1:II-63
2. Turpeinen O, Karvonen MJ, Pekkarinen M, Miettinen M, Elosuo R, Paavilainen E. Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Finnish Mental Hospital Study. International journal of epidemiology 1979;8(2):99-118.
3. Tobias DK, Hu FB. Does being overweight really reduce mortality? Obesity (Silver Spring) 2013;21(9):1746-9.
4. US Department of Agriculture. What We Eat in America, NHANES 2011-2012, individuals 2 years and over (excluding breast-fed children), day 1. Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Food Surveys Research Group (Beltsville, MD) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics (Hyattsville, MD).
5. Mozaffarian D, Micha R, Wallace S. Effects on coronary heart disease of increasing polyunsaturated fat in place of saturated fat: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS medicine 2010;7(3):e1000252.
6. Johnson GH, Fritsche K. Effect of dietary linoleic acid on markers of inflammation in healthy persons: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2012;112(7):1029-41, 41 e1-15.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Avery interesting historical dataset. Clearly the diet had no effect on deaths overall with table 6 showing about 105 in the intervention and 95 in the control group with the bulk of the deaths occurring in the over 65 age group (probably in nursing homes rather than psychiatric institutions) . What is most striking is the large fall in cholesterol in the control group ( in whom there is definitely no increased linoleic acid but saturated fat intake may be lower than their free living diet) and the strong relationship between the fall in cholesterol and the death rate with 60% of the deaths occurring in the group with a 80-100mg/dl fall in cholesterol. This suggests the people who died had an illness that caused their cholesterol to fall dramatically prior to death and the same thing is likely to have occurred in the intervention group overwhelming any effect of diet (positive or negative). I think 10 deaths difference between groups is just random noise. If we examine a statin meta analysis in the over 65s (Teng et al 2015) statins reduced nonfatal and total myocardial infarctions and a composite endpoint but total mortality was not different (0.96, 0.88-1.04) despite nearly 26,000 participants. So a study of 2200 people treated for a year or more (we don't know the mean duration of treatment of this group) with a dietary intervention is so underpowered no conclusions are possible.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Re: Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)
This paper by Ramsden et al. adds important sub-group analyses to the original publication of the study findings, in 1989, by study director Ivan Frantz, in Arteriosclerosis (1) Frantz et al reported "no difference between the treatment and control groups were observed for cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or total mortality," Yet the researchers did not publish these findings until 16 years after their study concluded and when asked by science journalist Gary Taubes about the delay, Frantz replied that they were "disappointed" with how the study came out. (2)
This is an extraordinary example of selection bias, by the authors themselves against their own results. Frantz was a strong supporter of the diet-heart hypothesis, and evidently he could not understand his study's null results. Yet Frantz was not alone. As Ramsden et al. report. in their systematic review (also part of this article), there have been other clinical trials, on 10,808 subjects, which, taken together, show "no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality," And these results have also been largely ignored by nutrition experts.
Over the past 5 years, quite a few researchers have gone back to review both the trial and observational data on saturated fats. Indeed, there are now more than a dozen meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the data that challenge the link between saturated fats and heart disease. (3) A number of researchers and journalists (myself included) have written about the reality that the diet-heart hypothesis (replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated vegetable oils) was never supported by the evidence. Yet this reconsideration of the data on saturated fats has not yet been fully considered by our health authorities (4), which still recommend limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of calories.
One other interesting note about the Minnesota Coronary Survey: the control group ate more than 18% of calories as saturated fat, without cardiovascular harm. This proportion of saturated fat is consistent with other similar trials. Thus, when researchers ask whether there is an upper limit on saturated fat intake, or question whether we know if higher intakes of these fat are safe, this trial provides such data and suggests that higher intakes are ,indeed, safe.
Nina Teicholz
Science journalist and Author, The Big Fat Surprise
(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2643423
(2) Taubes, G. iGood Calories, Bad Calories, 2007,
(3) http://www.nutrition-coalition.org/saturated-fats-do-they-cause-heart-di...
(4) Teicholz, N., The BMJ, 2015.
Competing interests: No competing interests