Fat Chance

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Cutting back on fat per se does not protect against cancer and heart disease, at least in the short run. That conclusion comes from the latest results from the ongoing Women's Health Initiative, which has followed nearly 49,000 women aged 50 to 79 for the past eight years. One group reduced fat consumption 8 to 10 percent over the duration of the trial compared with a control group. Overall, the two groups had statistically indistinguishable rates of colon cancer and heart disease and just a marginal reduction in breast cancer risk of 9 percent, although chance could have accounted for that outcome. Researchers report the findings in three studies published February 8 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Continued follow-up might yet bump the marginal findings into the statistically significant range, says Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, lead author of the breast cancer study.

JR Minkel was a news reporter for Scientific American.

More by JR Minkel
Scientific American Magazine Vol 294 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Fat Chance” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 294 No. 4 (), p. 32
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0406-32c

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe