39 replies to this topic

[health_nutty]

Most of us here seem to agree that omega 6 fats should be minimized because they are very easily oxidized and lower good cholesterol. However what is so great about saturated fat? What are the studies for and against saturated fat so I can read them for myself? At the moment I'm keeping my saturated fat fairly low and getting most of my fat from olive oil. I tried to do some research but I am finding it difficult to sift through all the blogs and commentary.

[Mind]

Here is one of many Imminst discussions that links to some studies.

I don't think too many people here argue that SFAs are a "super food", just that they are not the most super-evil-disastrous-poisonous-disease-promoting-unhealthy nutrient ever eaten. I know you think I exagerate, but to this day I am amazed at how many nutritionists, health nuts, doctors, what-not, shriek in horror at the mention of SFAs.

[Jay]

Since saturated fat (and monounsaturated fat) has been a principal part of the human diet for millions of years, I think the presumption should be that saturated fat is good. Same for starch. Same for fruits and vegetables. Since you have to eat something, I would assume that these are superfoods until proven otherwise. Personally, I believe that it makes the most sense to base a diet on paleo principals unless there is very convincing evidence (both epidemiological and mechanistic) to make adjustments.

Read some of the "paleo blogs" (e.g., wholehealthsource, nephropal, heartscanblog) if you want a lot of very good (IMO) discussion of saturated fat.

Here's a study I like showing saturated fat is associated with regression of coronary artery disease. I like it because it suggests that one of the principal mechanistic justifications (atherosclerosis) for the presumed danger of saturated fat is deeply flawed.

Putting aside mechanistic arguments (as they can go both ways), saturated fat hasn't been proven to be associated with bad health outcomes, despite a lot of interest in doing so.

Edited by Jay, 05 January 2010 - 08:37 PM.

[oehaut]

Here's my very humble opinion on this issue.

A few years ago I avoid SFAs and cholesterol like the plague. Then, a summer, i've read The Great Cholesterol Con from Anthony Colpo and Good Calorie Bad Calorie from Gary Taubes. My believes were greatly challenge. At first I was not ready to believe that SFAs might not be that bad, but as more time passed, and as I learned further, it was becoming quite clear that the issue was at least not as clear cut as we are told.

Now, lately i've been posting quite a few papers relating SFAs and health, and kismet has been there to make sure I don't stop thinking (which is a very great thing) Most study compared SFA with n-6. From these studies, we quite can say that replacing SFAs with n-6 do nothing good. Not much studies have compared SFA to MFA tho, and the ones that did found that mono seems to do better.

Now, it's important to realise that SFAs are blamed because they raise cholesterol and having high cholesterol certainly isn't sign of anything good. But their effect is not that acute, and other dietary factors influence cholesterol level. High-carbs diet, for an example, lower HDL. Is it any better to swtich SFAs for carbs as we are told?

For a good reflexion on this, i'd propose you this paper : Saturated fats: what dietary intake?

It seems like SFA could promote insulin resistance, but it's not yet clear. A cannot find the review paper I had post in another thread, but most of the studies so far had not found it to be the case, but the author was calling for greater quality study before giving an answer.

In any case, if you ever read GCBC, you'll find that there are a lot of political surronding health recommandation. If you don't feel like reading the whole book, you might start with this article from him The Soft Science of Dietary Fat

Since 2000, there are been four review, to my knowledge, published that did not find any significant link between SFAs and CHD. There are more and more evidence accumulating that show that they are not so bad. (I've post all of these reviews in different threads on the forum)

The study post by Jay, in which a higher SFAs content actually reversed atherosclerosis in post-menauposal women is, to say the least, interesting.

Now, as Mind said, it's not about SFAs being super great for health. It's more about SFAs not being super bad for health. I don't think people should eat 50% of their calorie from SFAs, as Peter at Hyperlipid does. But I think that telling someone to eat vegetable oil instead of butter on the basis of the SFAs argument is not supported by the evidence. And again, as Mind says, it's crazy how SFAs are just next to poison in most people mind.

But as kismet remind me, since monounsaturated just seems to do better in every markers, it's just make sens to make mono the priority.

So... don't binge SFAs, but don't avoid them like the plague either.

[TheFountain]

no, high carb diets do not lower good cholesterol. High, REFINED CARB and HYDROGENATED FAT diets do this in conjunction. It is amazing how people continue to distinguish between different kinds of fats but refuse to distinguish between different types of carbs. What's the mental block? Am I missing something?

[health_nutty]

Anyone have the full article on this?
http://jama.ama-assn...act/294/19/2455
------------------------------

Effects of Protein, Monounsaturated Fat, and Carbohydrate Intake on Blood Pressure and Serum Lipids

Results of the OmniHeart Randomized Trial

Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH; Frank M. Sacks, MD; Vincent J. Carey, PhD; Eva Obarzanek, PhD; Janis F. Swain, MS, RD; Edgar R. Miller III, MD, PhD; Paul R. Conlin, MD; Thomas P. Erlinger, MD, MPH; Bernard A. Rosner, PhD; Nancy M. Laranjo; Jeanne Charleston, RN; Phyllis McCarron, MS, RD; Louise M. Bishop, RD; for the OmniHeart Collaborative Research Group

JAMA. 2005;294:2455-2464.

Context Reduced intake of saturated fat is widely recommended for prevention of cardiovascular disease. The type of macronutrient that should replace saturated fat remains uncertain.

Objective To compare the effects of 3 healthful diets, each with reduced saturated fat intake, on blood pressure and serum lipids.

Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, 3-period, crossover feeding study (April 2003 to June 2005) conducted in Baltimore, Md, and Boston, Mass. Participants were 164 adults with prehypertension or stage 1 hypertension. Each feeding period lasted 6 weeks and body weight was kept constant.

Interventions A diet rich in carbohydrates; a diet rich in protein, about half from plant sources; and a diet rich in unsaturated fat, predominantly monounsaturated fat.

Main Outcome Measures Systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Results Blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and estimated coronary heart disease risk were lower on each diet compared with baseline. Compared with the carbohydrate diet, the protein diet further decreased mean systolic blood pressure by 1.4 mm Hg (P = .002) and by 3.5 mm Hg (P = .006) among those with hypertension and decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 3.3 mg/dL (0.09 mmol/L; P = .01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 1.3 mg/dL (0.03 mmol/L; P = .02), and triglycerides by 15.7 mg/dL (0.18 mmol/L; P<.001). Compared with the carbohydrate diet, the unsaturated fat diet decreased systolic blood pressure by 1.3 mm Hg (P = .005) and by 2.9 mm Hg among those with hypertension (P = .02), had no significant effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 1.1 mg/dL (0.03 mmol/L; P = .03), and lowered triglycerides by 9.6 mg/dL (0.11 mmol/L; P = .02). Compared with the carbohydrate diet, estimated 10-year coronary heart disease risk was lower and similar on the protein and unsaturated fat diets.

Conclusion In the setting of a healthful diet, partial substitution of carbohydrate with either protein or monounsaturated fat can further lower blood pressure, improve lipid levels, and reduce estimated cardiovascular risk.

[health_nutty]

Anyone have more info on this one? It looks interesting:

Monounsaturated fat and vascular function
John C. Stanley
He is an independent nutrition consultant and a lecturer in biochemistry at Trinity College and St Hugh' s College, Oxford, UK. He can be contacted at: Lincoln Edge Nutrition, The Cottage, Sleaford Road, Wellingore, Lincoln, LN5 0HR, UK; tel: +44-1522-810131
email: John C. Stanley (john.stanley@trinity.ox.ac.uk)

Abstract
Dietary intervention trials are cause effect studies with the disadvantage of measuring disease risk factor endpoints as opposed to disease endpoints. One approach towards overcoming this disadvantage is to use a measure of vascular function as an endpoint. There are two dietary strategies for lowering the intake of saturated fat. One is to replace the saturated fat with monounsaturated fat and the other is to replace it with carbohydrate. It is difficult to decide from the results of intervention trials with disease risk factor endpoints, which of these strategies is better for health. After allowance has been made for defects in design, measurements of vascular function suggest that replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated fat is better for the cardiovascular system.

[oehaut]

no, high carb diets do not lower good cholesterol. High, REFINED CARB and HYDROGENATED FAT diets do this in conjunction. It is amazing how people continue to distinguish between different kinds of fats but refuse to distinguish between different types of carbs. What's the mental block? Am I missing something?

Well, the few papers i've seen showing this effect did not distinguish the two (refined from unrefined), so you might be right. Do you have a paper that looked at a high-carb low-glycemic, unrefined, on HDL?

I think we should let go these ''good'' and ''bad'' appelation of cholesterol. Without LDL, you'll be long dead, since your cell would not be getting their load of vital cholesterol. What is bad is the modification that LDL go trought (like oxidation) that makes it possible to accumulate in plaque. I think it's wrong to say that LDL himself is bad.

BTW, Healthy nut, the full pdf article is available on your link.

Edited by oehaut, 05 January 2010 - 10:30 PM.

[Jay]

It makes perfect sense that mono is somewhat healthy, as animal fat has a ton of mono in it, and I believe we've been getting a significant percentage of our fat from animals for a great long time. But, why assume eating it without its saturated fat accompaniment is the answer? Olive oil has antioxidants and other polyphenols that may explain its effect on vasodilation. See this and this. I think Kismet asked a while ago if anybody was aware of any studies on pure oleic acid. I would be very interested in such a study too, and until I see it, I'm not going to assume that the good mechanistic and epidemiological data for olive oil means anything other than (i) olive oil has beneficial polyphenols (like many things in my diet/regimen) and (ii) people who eat a lot of olive oil eat less n-6 PUFAs, less trans fat, and less sugar.

Edited by Jay, 05 January 2010 - 10:25 PM.

[niner]

health_nutty, you gotta see this: http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry373552

That thread has a link to a new review of "every lipid study ever done", and it contains an extensive and well considered analysis of the lipid questions. My take-home is that SFA is not evil, but it's not a superfood either. It's just there; a way to get calories and a component of a lot of tasty food. Trans fat is evil. PUFA is pretty clearly evil. Omega 3's are your friend, and MUFA is your friend.

[health_nutty]

health_nutty, you gotta see this: http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry373552

That thread has a link to a new review of "every lipid study ever done", and it contains an extensive and well considered analysis of the lipid questions. My take-home is that SFA is not evil, but it's not a superfood either. It's just there; a way to get calories and a component of a lot of tasty food. Trans fat is evil. PUFA is pretty clearly evil. Omega 3's are your friend, and MUFA is your friend.

Thanks all, I have some interesting reading to do tonight.

[oehaut]

health_nutty, you gotta see this: http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry373552

That thread has a link to a new review of "every lipid study ever done", and it contains an extensive and well considered analysis of the lipid questions. My take-home is that SFA is not evil, but it's not a superfood either. It's just there; a way to get calories and a component of a lot of tasty food. Trans fat is evil. PUFA is pretty clearly evil. Omega 3's are your friend, and MUFA is your friend.

Thanks all, I have some interesting reading to do tonight.

Just hoping you can catch this tpp, here's the review on type of fat and insulin sensitivity

And here are the four review i'm talking about :

A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease

Dietary fat intake and prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review

Dietary fat quality and coronary heart disease prevention: a unified theory based on evolutionary, historical, global, and modern perspectives

Dietary Fat and Coronary Heart Disease: Summary of Evidence from Prospective Cohort and Randomised Controlled Trials

Is it legal to attach paper on the forum? I can attach the full paper if we have the right to do so and if you can not get them.

[DukeNukem]

Here's the problem: So-called "heart healthy" vegetable oils lower LDL, while sat fat raises cholesterol. Now then, most docs and nutritionists falsely believe that lowered LDL is a good thing. In fact, LDL alone is nearly meaningless, in the same way as knowing the combined score of a football game...who the hell won???

What matters is NOT total LDL, but the composition of the LDL. Generally, the various small-particle LDLs are the unhealthy bad guys, and the large-particle LDLs are the healthy good guys. Saturated fat, if anything, only raises large-particle LDL. (As an aside, while statins DO lower total LDL, they ONLY LOWER THE GOOD-GUY LARGE-PARTICLE LDL!!!)

Additionally, sat fat DOES raise HDL. Dumbass doctors, though, just see the total cholesterol number go up, and panic that all hell is breaking loose, cut-the-hell back on sat fats for god's sake!!!

Note that grains also lower LDL, BUT again, not the bad type of LDL. In fact, mounting evidence and practical application (refer to the Heartscan blog) shows that gluten grains raise the bad LDL, whether whole grain or processed, doesn't matter. Grains = good for developing heart disease.

In effect, low HDL should be considered as a deficiency in sat fat. Everyone I know who has ramped up their sat fat intake has seen their HDL skyrocket.

Fun little blog post on this topic:
http://comfort-eater...arbed-wire.html

Edited by DukeNukem, 05 January 2010 - 11:14 PM.

[Jay]

Just so you know, the study I posted above that AMAZINGLY shows that saturated fat is associated with regression of atherosclerosis has been termed an "American paradox" by this lipophobic paper that tries to argue that the easily quantified saturated fat is a proxy for something else in the diet. Add that to the list of paradoxes (french, Israeli, etc) that must exist to explain the fact that saturated fat reverses cardiovascular disease.

Edited by Jay, 05 January 2010 - 11:40 PM.

[TheFountain]

Here's the problem: So-called "heart healthy" vegetable oils lower LDL, while sat fat raises cholesterol. Now then, most docs and nutritionists falsely believe that lowered LDL is a good thing. In fact, LDL alone is nearly meaningless, in the same way as knowing the combined score of a football game...who the hell won???

What matters is NOT total LDL, but the composition of the LDL. Generally, the various small-particle LDLs are the unhealthy bad guys, and the large-particle LDLs are the healthy good guys. Saturated fat, if anything, only raises large-particle LDL. (As an aside, while statins DO lower total LDL, they ONLY LOWER THE GOOD-GUY LARGE-PARTICLE LDL!!!)

Additionally, sat fat DOES raise HDL. Dumbass doctors, though, just see the total cholesterol number go up, and panic that all hell is breaking loose, cut-the-hell back on sat fats for god's sake!!!

Note that grains also lower LDL, BUT again, not the bad type of LDL. In fact, mounting evidence and practical application (refer to the Heartscan blog) shows that gluten grains raise the bad LDL, whether whole grain or processed, doesn't matter. Grains = good for developing heart disease.

In effect, low HDL should be considered as a deficiency in sat fat. Everyone I know who has ramped up their sat fat intake has seen their HDL skyrocket.

Fun little blog post on this topic:
http://comfort-eater...arbed-wire.html

Blogs don't mean anything. Nor does 'practical application' show that unprocessed carbs raise the bad type of cholesterol.

Okay everyone, pay close attention to your own hypocrisy. Why is it alright for posts like this by Duke to pass off as something you can trust? Essentially all he did was state an opinion on top of reference to someone elses opinion (blog). But when other people point out actual studies relating to healthy vegan diets or perhaps anecdotes on raw food diets and the energy surplus they provide you all whine like a bunch of babies who had your steak dinner pissed on. Please explain why it is okay for one side of the argument(paleo) to approach things this way but not the other (raw foodist/vegan)?

[Jay]

Fountain, I agree that Duke did not present any hard evidence. He is, however, presenting arguments for what I believe is the right answer.

[health_nutty]

Just so you know, the study I posted above that AMAZINGLY shows that saturated fat is associated with regression of atherosclerosis has been termed an "American paradox" by this lipophobic paper that tries to argue that the easily quantified saturated fat is a proxy for something else in the diet. Add that to the list of paradoxes (french, Israeli, etc) that must exist to explain the fact that saturated fat reverses cardiovascular disease.

I'm reading it now, very interesting article indeed.

The first thing I noticed is the study implied that earlier research on MEN showed a correlation between saturated fat and increased CHD. So a diet higher in saturated may only apply to post-menapausal women? What earlier study's where they refering to?

"Although CHD is the leading cause of death among both men and women, prior studies have historically focused on relations between risk factors and CHD in men. Our findings are not consistent with the hypothesis—based largely on observations in men—that saturated fat intake increases atherosclerotic progression in postmenopausal women but instead suggest that saturated fat intake may reduce such progression, especially when monounsaturated fat intake is low or carbohydrate intake is high. Our findings also suggest that carbohydrate intake may increase atherosclerotic progression, especially when refined carbohydrates replace saturated or monounsaturated fats. Confirmation of these findings in other studies and examination of potential mechanisms and alternative explanations are warranted."

Edited by health_nutty, 05 January 2010 - 11:58 PM.

[TheFountain]

Fountain, I agree that Duke did not present any hard evidence. He is, however, presenting arguments for what I believe is the right answer.

I could do the same thing. The problem is there is a mental block regarding the evidence people like myself present. Every single time I post a study on vegetarian diets, whether it is studies showing they lower IGF-1 or studies showing they are otherwise healthier than meat based diets I get these condescending 'study is bad for X=Y reasons' reply from Paleo advocates. It is complete horse shit and they are ignoring studies on the basis of they arrogantly conclude they have the ability to see how shitty those studies are. Well, I could say the same EXACT thing about high fat studies. Why is one side more right than the other? I have seen no definitive answer to this question. No one can answer it.

[Jay]

I discount your arguments because they are consistently emotional and lack convincing reasoning. For example, in another thread, I asked about for evidence of the ill-effects of exogenous AGEs on healthy (i.e., non-diabetic) people and you posted a study that didn't provide such evidence. I pointed that out and you had a childish outburst. The reason I was asking is because I believe the relevant question is whether we have an innate ability to eliminate the AGEs we eat. We know that diabetics accumulate AGEs but that may simply be because their elimination systems are overwhealmed on account of consistently high blood sugar which yields too many endogenous AGEs.

[TheFountain]

I discount your arguments because they are consistently emotional and lack convincing reasoning. For example, in another thread, I asked about for evidence of the ill-effects of exogenous AGEs on healthy (i.e., non-diabetic) people and you posted a study that didn't provide such evidence. I pointed that out and you had a childish outburst. The reason I was asking is because I believe the relevant question is whether we have an innate ability to eliminate the AGEs we eat. We know that diabetics accumulate AGEs but that may simply be because their elimination systems are overwhealmed on account of consistently high blood sugar which yields too many endogenous AGEs.

The problem is your criterion for 'evidence' has to be constant or it doesn't mean jack shit. You and many other's like you are always changing your criterion of evidence to suit filling in your own gaps of knowledge. You will accept superficial or anecdotal paleo diet evidence or some opinionated bloggers theories but you will scoff at anecdotes and theories regarding raw food or vegetarian diets. Is that not a double standard? It is a known fact that glycation is caused by food consumption, more or less. Diet contributes to glycation response more than anything. It is also a known fact that there is a relationship between glycation and diabetes and other diseases. Are you really trying to dispute this? Clearly raw food diets are very very low in glycation producing effects. Now stop pretending that 90% of what paleo people on this site are saying is not based on anecdotes and opinion.

[niner]

You will accept superficial or anecdotal paleo diet evidence or some opinionated bloggers theories but you will scoff at anecdotes and theories regarding raw food or vegetarian diets. Is that not a double standard?

No, it is not a double standard when the blogger has a PhD in a relevant field and the anecdotes about raw food/veg diets come from someone who has never taken a biology or chemistry course. I don't think you are accounting for all the criticism that we throw at the paleo guys.

It is a known fact that glycation is caused by food consumption, more or less. Diet contributes to glycation response more than anything. It is also a known fact that there is a relationship between glycation and diabetes and other diseases. Are you really trying to dispute this? Clearly raw food diets are very very low in glycation producing effects.

You are mixing endogenous and exogenous AGEs in a confusing fashion here. Endogenous glycation is not caused by food consumption, it is caused by sugars in the blood, primarily glucose and fructose. Fructose is a lot worse than glucose in this regard. To blame this on "food" is too broad. It should be blamed on sources of fructose and glucose in the diet.

Raw food diets are low in exogenous AGEs, and that is good. That is probably their primary benefit. They may or may not be low in fructose and glucose. To the extent that they are low in these substances, they will be low in production of endogenous AGEs.

[JLL]

Clearly raw food diets are very very low in glycation producing effects

Really? How about a raw food diet consisting of, say, figs and dates?

[DukeNukem]

You will accept superficial or anecdotal paleo diet evidence or some opinionated bloggers theories but you will scoff at anecdotes and theories regarding raw food or vegetarian diets. Is that not a double standard?

No, it is not a double standard when the blogger has a PhD in a relevant field and the anecdotes about raw food/veg diets come from someone who has never taken a biology or chemistry course. I don't think you are accounting for all the criticism that we throw at the paleo guys.

I was about to make this same point: Practically all the bloggers I follow are PhDs, who are doing their own research and reaching their own conclusions. For example, a partial list:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/
http://high-fat-nutr...n.blogspot.com/
http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/
http://coolinginflam...n.blogspot.com/
http://www.paleonu.com/
http://comfort-eater...t.blogspot.com/
http://nephropal.blogspot.com/
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

[TheFountain]

Clearly raw food diets are very very low in glycation producing effects

Really? How about a raw food diet consisting of, say, figs and dates?

how about one consisting of whale blubber?

[JLL]

Clearly raw food diets are very very low in glycation producing effects

Really? How about a raw food diet consisting of, say, figs and dates?

how about one consisting of whale blubber?

That would depend on the degree of unsaturation on the fatty acids.

[Jay]

For those that don't follow the "paleo blogs," check out this new meta analysis in the AJCN finding that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. Read it here. This should be a big deal for those among us that place great deal of value on the consensus opinion. This review is the consensus moving and, oops, saturated fat is no longer bad.

[oehaut]

For those that don't follow the "paleo blogs," check out this new meta analysis in the AJCN finding that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. Read it here. This should be a big deal for those among us that place great deal of value on the consensus opinion. This review is the consensus moving and, oops, saturated fat is no longer bad.

I can't wait to read the full paper to see what the author have to say.

More and more evidences seem to be accumulating...

Thanks for this nice catch!

Edited by oehaut, 14 January 2010 - 08:40 PM.

[DukeNukem]

For those that don't follow the "paleo blogs," check out this new meta analysis in the AJCN finding that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. Read it here. This should be a big deal for those among us that place great deal of value on the consensus opinion. This review is the consensus moving and, oops, saturated fat is no longer bad.

Really glad to see more and more evidence (and re-evaluation of previous evidence) showing that saturated fat is not associated with heart disease, or any negative conditions.

It just makes zero sense that saturated fat would be a negative health concern. Finally, science is catching up with common sense.

What I'm waiting for now is for the pendulum to swing in the other direction, and for more and more studies that indicate humans are healthier when we consume saturated fat. In other words, saturated fat is not a neutral fat--it's a healthy fat. In fact, low HDL (<40) should be considered as a deficiency in saturated fat intake.

Give nutritional science 20 years, and this will be accepted wisdom.

[Jay]

For those that don't follow the "paleo blogs," check out this new meta analysis in the AJCN finding that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. Read it here. This should be a big deal for those among us that place great deal of value on the consensus opinion. This review is the consensus moving and, oops, saturated fat is no longer bad.

Really glad to see more and more evidence (and re-evaluation of previous evidence) showing that saturated fat is not associated with heart disease, or any negative conditions.

It just makes zero sense that saturated fat would be a negative health concern. Finally, science is catching up with common sense.

What I'm waiting for now is for the pendulum to swing in the other direction, and for more and more studies that indicate humans are healthier when we consume saturated fat. In other words, saturated fat is not a neutral fat--it's a healthy fat. In fact, low HDL (<40) should be considered as a deficiency in saturated fat intake.

Give nutritional science 20 years, and this will be accepted wisdom.

I fully agree with you

[stephen_b]

My HDL used to be 24 mg/dL before increasing saturated fat and lowering carbs. Last October it was 51 mg/dL. It will be interesting to see what it is since I've been systematically increasing saturated fat of late.