This article from U.S. News demonstrates that many so called experts have too much emotional attachment to the low-fat diet lie to give it up:
They're hardly a green light to go on a junk-food binge, though, researchers caution. For one thing, the women on the diet didn't hit their target; they whittled fat intake just to 29 percent of calories--from about 35 percent--by the end of the sixth year of the study. Moreover, the recommended diet made no distinction between "good" unsaturated fats and "bad"saturated fats and trans fats, whose importance to heart health has been recognized since the data-gathering started. And since all the women in the study were eating fairly healthfully beforehand, it's possible that the small changes in vegetable and grain consumption by the dieting group weren't big enough that any benefits registered. Rather than focus on total fat intake, Stefanick advises, go easy on foods containing saturated fats and trans fats and eat more vegetables and fruits and whole grains.
So despite the largest study of its kind ever done showing no benefit to lowering fat consumption, this Stefanick women is still parroting the same tired low-fat advice that has been proven to be bogus. She can't let the issue rest. Instead she's saying that that study was bad because the women in the study didn't reduce fat intake enough, or they ate they ate too much "bad" fat and not enough "good" fat. These good fat/bad fat theories have never been proven in a large scale study. Doctor Ravnskov has a website devoted to explaining how the low-cholesterol advice is false advice just like the low-fat advice.
Why do these diet myths persist? Because people want to believe that they can somehow control their health by doing the right thing. Doing something difficult, like avoiding tasty food, makes people feel like they are doing something. This feeling of doing something has to be based on self-deprivation.
Unlike the cholesterol myth, there is a lot of evidence that drinking alcohol is healthy and helps to prevent heart attacks. A study showed that men who had one heart attack reduced their chance of a second heart attack by a whopping 50% by drinking wine. Yet the American Heart Association refuses to endorse wine:
The American Heart Association recommends drinking only moderately and advises anyone who does not drink against starting to do so.
Last year the AHA published guidance to doctors advising them not to prescribe red wine as a way to ward off heart attacks.
US doctors have been advised not to tell their patients that drinking red wine is an effective way to ward off heart attacks.
It said the protective benefits of red wine remain uncertain, and that doctors should concentrate on promoting more proven methods to reduce risk.
I'm sure that the "proven" method referred to in the article is reducing cholesterol and fat, and that has surely not been proven. Basically, the AHA has been killing people by recommending courses of action that have been proven to have no effect on health, yet they refuse to recommend drinking wine which has been shown to be a very powerful ward against heart attacks.
Another "proven" method is lowering your weight, but this is also a myth. Remember the study earlier this year that showed that being "overweight" is actually healthier than the recommended weight.
So why doesn't the AHA recommend drinking wine? Because they can't bring it onto themselves to recommend something that people like to do.