The Hidden Truth Behind Ancel Keys’ Famous Fat Graph


How was it possible for Big Sugar to make people believe for decades, that fat was dangerous and sugar was fine? By paying researchers to manipulate data, as revealed this week.

For a while, in the middle of the last century, there was a scientific struggle. Was fat or sugar to blame for cardiovascular disease? Ancel Keys was the champion of the first theory, Professor John Yudkin of the other. Keys won, not least by using cherry-picked statistics.

The left graph above was famously used sixty years ago by Keys, to support his idea that fat intake was responsible for heart disease. But as the right graph shows, the same data could just as easily have implicated sugar. Countries eating higher amounts of fat were simultaneously eating more sugar. It was just a question of what you were looking for.

Since that time, we’ve spent half a century mistakenly fearing natural fat, and instead eating more carbs – with a resulting epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Now it’s time to see the truth:

Sugar was the link. Yudkin was right.


NYT: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat


Low Carb for Beginners

Top videos about sugar

  • Sugar Coated
  • Are all carbohydrates equally bad?
  • The problem with sugar
  • Is sugar toxic?


  1. Brett Graham
    Ancel Keyes did not cherry pick his data. If he did he could have cherry picked 6 different countries to better support his hypothesis. He even explained the reason for his choices; he chose the countries with the most reliable data.
    As to the graph on the right, it's data from 1969, not from 1953. And by the way, why are we waving this graph around like its some kind of victory for fat? Look at the data points; fat correlates better than sugar for CVD. So correlation doesn't equal causation except when it satisfies your biases?
  2. Richard Nikoley
    Wow. So cherry picked bias is bad if it's fat, but good if it's carbohydrate?
    Replies: #3, #5
  3. Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, MD Team Diet Doctor
    No. Cherry picking is always risky. Furthermore, I don't recommend basing diet advice on ecological studies of country data at all. :)

    Fortunately we have dozens of high-quality RCT studies these days:

  4. Paul Meyer
    Exactly my thought on ecological (observational studies).
  5. Apicius
    Seriously, Nikoley? There's a reason your blog is no longer on this site.
  6. Brian Throop
    The sad fact is Keys is responsible for countless deaths and misery for pushing invalid data.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts