New study: High-fat diet reversed obesity and improved risk factors


Has the advice to reduce natural fats, in order to lower the risk for cardiovascular disease, really been rightful? Or could it be the other way around – that we’d be better off eating more healthy, natural fats?

That’s what a new Norwegian intervention study examined. What were their findings? That a diet with more butter, cream and cold-pressed oils – with fully 73% of energy from fat – resulted in weight loss and improvements in several markers for heart health.

Don’t fear fat. Fat is your friend.


New Review: Dietary Fat Guidelines Have No Evidence Base

The BMJ Criticism of the Dietary Guidelines Will NOT Be Retracted

TIME: Eat Butter. Scientists Labeled Fat the Enemy. Why They Were Wrong.

Videos about saturated fat

Is Saturated Fat Bad? – Answers to Common Questions
The Big Fat Surprise – Nina Teicholz


  1. Oren Pelzman
    The study didnt show major differences between a LCHF and LFHC diets.
  2. Cherise
    They were all counting calories, which is going to affect the results. LCHF tends to do better when people aren't counting calories because it naturally regulates appetite (which is a huge plus to me). I think it is interesting, though, that although they had specific calorie amounts, the low-fat group dropped their calories by 22% and low-carb group dropped it only by 14%. Does this mean that the low-carb group was eating more but still lost the same amount? Or was the low-carb group eating less originally? This probably affected the results some as well.
    Reply: #5
  3. Brenda E.
    I've lost weight plenty of times on low fat diets and was hungry and miserable and eventually gained it all back. Cutting the carbs was easier than I ever would have imagined. I eat less naturally because I'm not hungry all the time. I continue to lose a few pounds a month eating as much as I want. This isn't a diet, it's a revelation!
  4. Brett Graham
    Notice how the study compared LCHF with HCLF, but the HCLF diet wasn't actually low fat. This is a red flag. This usually indicates bias, with the authors setting up a straw man diet to knock down in order to show better results from their favoured diet. This is usually the case with LC diets funded by Atkins and the beef and dairy industries.
    Reply: #6
  5. Valerie
    LCHF naturally reduces appetite? Then why did the low-fat dieters end up eating less?
    Reply: #7
  6. Gentiann
    "30% of energy fat" is a low fat diet....I don't understand your comment about bias in this study.
  7. Cherise
    I don't know. I'm wondering that too. I suspect that the low-carb group was losing more weight, so they upped their calories a bit to try to keep the weight loss the same. I've heard of that happening in other studies, but that is totally just a guess though. I am also biased because I have tried low-fat, counting-calorie diets many times and they were not sustainable for me. Low-carb works for me because I don't have to count calories.
  8. Cherise
    Oh, and I'm guessing they would have wanted the weight loss to be the same because this was a study more about metabolic parameters (i.e. cholesterol and visceral fat) than weight loss.
  9. daneel
    hello!! first of all I like Keto very much. And because of it, I want to ask you about this article in the magazine Nature:

    Its beginning or title:

    NATURE | news
    Fat fuels cancer’s spread in mice
    Dietary needs of these wandering cells could prove to be their Achilles heel.
    Heidi Ledford
    07 December 2016

    I would appreciate your opinion.
    Thanks for your web!!!

    Reply: #10
  10. Apicius
    I already responded to another post concerning this.
    This is a study done on rats...not humans. The summary of the study started with 4 rats, and looking at the progress data, I only see 3 and 2 rats reported. These studies often euthanize their rats, for humane reasons, and then they use data of the non euthanized subjects. This is why the anti-Monsanto GMO soy with roundup herbicide paper was pulled a couple of years ago. The data was really weak. They also use rat breeds that develop tumours...even without giving them any, the bizarre thing that happens is the non-treatment group rats even get euthanized for "humane" reason. How the heck is that fair? This is why the anti-Monsanto study was an epic failure. This study seems to have the same rotten fish smell. Not sure why I see n=4 at the beginning, and then n=3, and then n=2.....suspicious.

    So, how about focusing on science done on humans...wouldn't that be better? Here's a talk by the President and CEO of Memorial Sloan Kettering cancer center
    Called "why we don't all get cancer". He is a huge proponent of reducing the factors that induce cancer....CARBS!!!

    So, who to believe...a well-known cancer center who knows how to heal patients with low carb, or a rat study done on 4 rats (or 3 or 2....not sure what the heck they ended up's suspicious data...)?

  11. daneel
    I didn´t know you have already responded about this, and I´m very grateful for your answer!!!

    In these study I read "overexpression of CD36 in cell lines or PDCs with low metastatic potential greatly increased their potential to metastasise to lymph nodes, with penetrance increasing from less than 20% to 75-80% .....etc..."
    I know we must be cautious ... but the magazine is "Nature", and these and another numbers and percentages in the article seemed to be very significant... so I was worried !

    I´m going to the talk you recommend me, thanks really a lot for your attention, Apicius :) ... and sorry my english...

  12. daneel
    Apicius, sorry can you tell me where is your previous comments about this? thanks...
    Reply: #13
  13. Apicius
    Sorry, I looked for the post. It was someone (I gather an anti LCHF person) who posted the link to an old blog that started more than a year ago. Anti-LCHF trollers tend to do that. They look for old blog entries, and then sneak negative info. Their strategy is to embed counter arguments (no matter how untrue or non validated) so when new members of diet doctor join the site, the new members use search and come up with old blog entries and read the contaminated rubbish. The trollers don't realize that there are regulars on this website (like me) that catch them and help clear up misunderstandings. The trollers are actually hurting themselves...because (a) they end up appearing non credible, and (b) they teach us, both veterans and newbies of LCHF, what the most current counter argument has just been born this month. Strategically speaking, they are not doing themselves a favor at all.

    Nature publication gives the everyday person's news story version (a light read). You need to read the original paper to get to the meat and potatoes of actual study, like in pubmed website or other sources. Keep in mind that newspapers and magazines are generally full of garbage. One day the headline reads "New study says chocolate is good for heart health", and then the following week it says "researchers just discovered chocolate harms your heart". So, you really need to read the paper the magazine refers to to get to the truth. However, those papers are behind paywalls. You can still access partial papers with some of the summary, results, data and graphs. That's where I found the suspicious declining number of rats, and that reminded me of shaky GMO roundup study that had the similar trend.

  14. Ketosue
    I have been on LCHF for 8 months now, am T1 diabetic on an insulin pump. I do count calories and stay under 1400 per day. I've lost 30 lbs but my cholesterol has gone up as well. Both good and bad, but the ratio is higher than acceptable, it has never been this high before. I was advised to reduce animal fats such as butter and bacon. I was eating a hard boiled egg and 2 pieces of bacon each morning. Any advice on why and what fats I should be eating? I'm trying to eat more avacados and coconut oil. MCT oil really gives me problems. Advice for what fats to eat now are welcome.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts