Evidence from prospective cohort studies does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zoë Harcombe, Julien S. Baker, Bruce Davies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)
134 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. Our 2016 systematic review examined the epidemiological evidence available to the dietary committees at the time; we found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of epidemiological evidence currently available relating to dietary fat guidelines.Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, were undertaken.Results Across 7 studies, involving 89 801 participants (94% male), there were 2024 deaths from CHD during the mean follow-up of 11.9±5.6 years. The death rate from CHD was 2.25%. Eight data sets were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis; all excluded participants with previous heart disease. Risk ratios (RRs) from meta-analysis were not statistically significant for CHD deaths and total or saturated fat consumption. The RR from meta-analysis for total fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.04 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.10). The RR from meta-analysis for saturated fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.08 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.25).Conclusions Epidemiological evidence to date found no significant difference in CHD mortality and total fat or saturated fat intake and thus does not support the present dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.
Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume51
Issue number24
Early online date3 Oct 2016
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 3 Oct 2016

Fingerprint

Nutrition Policy
Dietary Fats
Coronary Disease
Meta-Analysis
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Fats
Odds Ratio
Mortality
Heart Diseases
Cholesterol
Guidelines

Cite this

@article{9e789cd3e56c46e991d3bd0cc489be46,
title = "Evidence from prospective cohort studies does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objectives National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. Our 2016 systematic review examined the epidemiological evidence available to the dietary committees at the time; we found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of epidemiological evidence currently available relating to dietary fat guidelines.Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, were undertaken.Results Across 7 studies, involving 89 801 participants (94{\%} male), there were 2024 deaths from CHD during the mean follow-up of 11.9±5.6 years. The death rate from CHD was 2.25{\%}. Eight data sets were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis; all excluded participants with previous heart disease. Risk ratios (RRs) from meta-analysis were not statistically significant for CHD deaths and total or saturated fat consumption. The RR from meta-analysis for total fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.04 (95{\%} CI 0.98 to 1.10). The RR from meta-analysis for saturated fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.08 (95{\%} CI 0.94 to 1.25).Conclusions Epidemiological evidence to date found no significant difference in CHD mortality and total fat or saturated fat intake and thus does not support the present dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.",
author = "Zo{\"e} Harcombe and Baker, {Julien S.} and Bruce Davies",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1136/bjsports-2016-096550",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
journal = "British Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0306-3674",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "24",

}

Evidence from prospective cohort studies does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Harcombe, Zoë; Baker, Julien S.; Davies, Bruce.

In: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 51, No. 24, 03.10.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence from prospective cohort studies does not support current dietary fat guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Harcombe, Zoë

AU - Baker, Julien S.

AU - Davies, Bruce

PY - 2016/10/3

Y1 - 2016/10/3

N2 - Objectives National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. Our 2016 systematic review examined the epidemiological evidence available to the dietary committees at the time; we found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of epidemiological evidence currently available relating to dietary fat guidelines.Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, were undertaken.Results Across 7 studies, involving 89 801 participants (94% male), there were 2024 deaths from CHD during the mean follow-up of 11.9±5.6 years. The death rate from CHD was 2.25%. Eight data sets were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis; all excluded participants with previous heart disease. Risk ratios (RRs) from meta-analysis were not statistically significant for CHD deaths and total or saturated fat consumption. The RR from meta-analysis for total fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.04 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.10). The RR from meta-analysis for saturated fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.08 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.25).Conclusions Epidemiological evidence to date found no significant difference in CHD mortality and total fat or saturated fat intake and thus does not support the present dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.

AB - Objectives National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. Our 2016 systematic review examined the epidemiological evidence available to the dietary committees at the time; we found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of epidemiological evidence currently available relating to dietary fat guidelines.Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, were undertaken.Results Across 7 studies, involving 89 801 participants (94% male), there were 2024 deaths from CHD during the mean follow-up of 11.9±5.6 years. The death rate from CHD was 2.25%. Eight data sets were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis; all excluded participants with previous heart disease. Risk ratios (RRs) from meta-analysis were not statistically significant for CHD deaths and total or saturated fat consumption. The RR from meta-analysis for total fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.04 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.10). The RR from meta-analysis for saturated fat intake and CHD deaths was 1.08 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.25).Conclusions Epidemiological evidence to date found no significant difference in CHD mortality and total fat or saturated fat intake and thus does not support the present dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.

U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096550

DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096550

M3 - Article

VL - 51

JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0306-3674

IS - 24

ER -