Two Landmark Studies That Still Negatively Impact Our Health

Two landmark research studies stand out for the deep and lasting negative impact they have had on health: one related to understanding nutrition, the other to menopause.

Do you believe fat is evil and that cholesterol is the enemy? Were you aware of the benefits of hormone replacement therapy for menopause – or did you avoid it completely?

As we look back, two research studies stand out for the massive and lasting negative impact they have had on the health of every person in the U.S. (and elsewhere).

The first study mistakenly labeled fat as a major health risk, especially for cardiovascular diseases, leading to decades of low-fat and high-sugar products that have resulted in the overweight and obesity crisis.

The second study mistakenly labeled estrogen and hormone replacement therapy as a risk for breast cancer, which led to a generation of women not receiving the treatment and a generation of doctors who never learned about the procedure.

These two studies continue to impact decision-making today and affect the health of many, so let’s cut to the chase. Here’s what current research tells us:

• Healthy fats are essential; stop buying low-fat, no-fat, and lean foods. Reduce refined carbohydrate and sugar intake sharply in both foods and beverages. Watch over-consumption of vegetable seed oils. Limit purchasing of ultra-processed convenience and fast foods.

• Hormone therapy, especially with bioidentical hormones, is safe and extremely effective for most women, particularly when treatment is individualized and started at the appropriate time. Furthermore, these replacement hormones lay the foundation for a longer life, a healthier heart, stronger bones and muscles, better mental health, and clearer brains.

Seven Countries Study (1956): Ancel Keys

Ancel Keys was obsessed with fat and disease. In the early 1950s, he developed what is known as the Lipid-Heart Hypothesis, which asserted that high intakes of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol lead to atherosclerosis (the build-up of plaque in the walls of arteries) – and that consuming less fat and cholesterol would reduce the risk of heart disease.

After President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack while in office, there was a clamor for what caused this unusual event. Keys was quick to lead the charge.

Ancel Keys was the first researcher to examine the relationships among diet, lifestyle, risk factors, and rates of coronary heart disease and stroke.

The Seven Countries Study, which had several flaws and inconsistencies, resulted in demonizing fat for causing heart disease. Years later, researchers reviewing his work discovered that sugar actually has a much higher correlation to heart disease than fat. Unfortunately, Keys not only inflated the value of his own work but also personally and professionally attacked any other scientist who questioned his results or who offered competing interpretations.

To further push his agenda, Keys published a book, Eat Well and Stay Well, which stressed the dangers of fat in affecting people’s hearts, arteries, and blood cholesterol levels.

The problem? His work became the dominant paradigm in nutritional science and public health policy for decades, shaping dietary guidelines worldwide – even though the work has never been replicated.

Governments went down a rabbit hole of demonizing healthy fats (such as butter from grassfed cows), and companies started producing margarine and other unhealthy fats, including toxic seed (“vegetable”) oils. Food marketers also jumped on “low-fat” and “no-fat” versions of their products, which often replaced fats with additional sugar and other chemical additives.

While researchers continue to debate aspects of cardiovascular disease, most experts now recognize that dietary patterns, metabolic health, inflammation, physical activity, and other lifestyle factors play a much bigger role than the original fat-versus-heart disease model suggested – and that fat actually plays an essential role in health, as does cholesterol.

For an interesting read about how our views are finally changing about healthy fats, check out: Records Found in Dusty Basement Undermine Decades of Dietary Advice.

Hormone Therapy Trial (2002): Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)

This study was well-intentioned, and many experts and researchers still refer back to it – but not to the original results, which created so much fear that women quit their hormones, medical schools stopped teaching hormone replacement, a whole generation of women suffered needlessly, and the FDA placed a “black box warning” (meaning the medication can cause severe harm).

The WHI is a large, government-funded research project launched by the National Institutes of Health in the 1990s to study major health issues in postmenopausal women; research related to hormone therapy was halted when preliminary results showed increased risk of breast cancer, blood clots, stroke, and heart disease.

While the intentions were good, here are the reported flaws:

• Misinterpretation of Data: The study's findings were not wrong, but the interpretation and application of those findings were deeply flawed.

• Age of Participants: The average age of women enrolled was 63, which was well beyond the typical age of menopause onset, as well as perimenopause.

• One-Size-Fits-All Approach: The study used a single type and dose of oral synthetic hormone therapy, which is not suitable for all women. (Today, most women use bioidentical hormones.)

• Media Misrepresentation: The study's findings were misinterpreted in the media, leading to widespread fear about hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

The WHI raised legitimate questions that warranted further investigation, but subsequent research has provided a more nuanced understanding of hormone therapy's risks and benefits.

What we know today about HRT (also known simply as HT) is that estrogen is essential to every part of a woman’s body, and that HRT containing estrogen and progesterone (or estrogen alone as indicated for postmenopausal women without a uterus) can restore these declining hormones and help with hot flashes, night sweats, sleep disturbances, bone loss, vascular and heart health, thinning hair, joint/muscle pain, irritability, anxiety, and mild depressive symptoms.

For an interesting read and analysis of the study and HRT, check out: The WHI Study: How Misinterpretation of Hormone Therapy Data Hurt Women’s Health.

Final Thoughts About Maintaining Your Health

Because we are all unique, no one technique will work for every person, so the most important reminder from this article should be to remember that you must be your own health advocate.

Please always do your research before buying into trends, gimmicks, and questionable research.

Read my article, The Importance of Becoming Your Own Wellness Advocate.

Additional Nutritional Resources

• PURE Study Challenges the Definition of a Healthy Diet: But Key Questions Remain

• Discover the Benefits of Healthy Fats in Your Diet

• Carbohydrate Intake and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

• Fat, Sugar, Whole Grains and Heart Disease: 50 Years of Confusion

• Dairy Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Multi-level Analysis with Inflammatory Biomarker Mediation

• Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

• Is Saturated Fat Bad? Benefits and Risks of Saturated Fat

• Saturated Fat: Part of a Healthy Diet

Additional Menopause Resources

• Reconsidering Hormone Replacement Therapy: Current Insights on Utilisation in Premenopausal and Menopausal Women: An Overview

• The ABCs Of Hormone Therapy

• 13 Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Benefits for Menopause

• The "Queen of Menopause" Answers Common Questions About "The Change"

• After Decades of Misunderstanding, Menopause is Finally Having Its Moment

• Hormones for Menopause Are Safe, Study Finds. Here's What Changed

• The Truth About Hormone Therapy