37 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Clearly you missed the point of my post.

The amount of profit is irrelevant -- it's how you make the profit.

[James Cain]

Are you talking about consuming oxidized cholesterol? The first negative result that I heard about dietary oxycholesterol came only a few months ago. It prompted me to start boiling eggs rather than frying them. I didn't think the theory was well established.

From what I understand in vivo oxidation is far more detrimental than dietary intake of oxidized cholesterol, but I think this is statistical biased since there is a rather low intake of dietary oxidized cholesterol contributing to vascular diseases compared to in vivo oxidation.

I used to consider boiling my eggs too, but I think the film that contains the yolk is sufficient to avoid air exposure during the cooking process. Plus I like runny yolks, so I don't think it's too big of a deal for me.

[James Cain]

There are a lot of forces at play that prevent the mainstream from learning the truth about saturated fat. A big first step would be convincing everybody who cares enough to read the studies.


In the meantime, I keep hearing people plug monounsaturated fat and I wonder why they are so enamored with it. I like Stephan's (from wholehealthsourceblog) thesis that proper nutrition involves (i) balancing and limited PUFA consumption, (ii) restricting fructose consumption, and (iii) getting enough fat soluble vitamins. From this persepctive, any epidemiological study that finds mono is superior to SFA or PUFA may simply be measuring the confoudning associations between high mono consumers (weathy and/or europeans people) and people that more closely fit the model of good nutrition. So, what else is there? Rat studies that show insulin resistance on high SFA diets? Should be easy enough to show that in people to? Can anybody point me to a study? And then there is the study that I posted a few weeks ago showing SFA leads to regression of atherscerosis in PEOPLE. Mono didn't do that, only SFA. What's the explanantion? So, why is monounsaturated fat better than saturated fat again?

Excellent post. I fully agree and will add that

1) SFA are more stable and are highly resistant to oxidation. This is why they are not found to be a direct cause of any disease process owing to oxidation, and which is why they have a protective effect when incorporated into cellular membranes. SFA may thus be protective of vascular diseases, and is definitely protective of liver and kidney function.

2) SFA evidence is mixed regarding insulin sensitivity and action. There is plenty of cell culture data to suggest a direct inhibitory action on insulin signalling, but epidemiological and interventional evidence that says otherwise. I do know that most of the research base for this conclusion comes from diets high in both sugar and saturated fat, or will use typically hydrogenated oils or single fat source (EFA deficient) at that, or the diets are hypercaloric.

3) As stated in the quote above, you'll be hard pressed to find a mechanism for SFA being "unhealthy."


I'm not saying everyone should start gulping down saturated fat, but it's not the evil that conventional wisdom would like you to believe. Stephen's Whole Health Source (among a multitude of bloggers with similar thoughts) have it right on with dietary advice. "Science based medicine" (as the skeptics would say) is a necessary component that is missing from traditional dietary recommendations.

[James Cain]

Forgot to add that

4) SFA intake increases both HDL and LDL, but it increases HDL 2 and 3 and leads to the larger, less dense LDL, and reduces Lp(a). So not only do the Total/HDL and HDL/LDL ratios improve, lipoprotein subclass profiles improve as well.

[mike250]

Oh jesus christ what is with this thread. Do you really think that profits are the problem here? Would we have any kind of modern medicine if it there weren't profits to be had?

I know that this response that I am posting is not addressing the original content of the thread, but the question has been raised and I will address it.

We are not just talking about profits here. We are talking about mega profits.

Marcia Angell, M.D., who was the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New Englan Journal of Medicine, wrote that in 2001 that the prominent drug companies listed in the Fortune 500 had an average net profit (after taxes) of 18.5%. Other Fortune 500 companies averaged 3.3%. The only industry that came even close to the pharmaceutical industry was commercial banking, with profits of 13.5%.

In 2002, the top ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 earned $35.9 billion in profits. These profits were larger than all of the other 490 Fortune 500 companies combined.

Damn those pharmaceutical companies

Edited by mike250, 27 January 2010 - 01:52 AM.

[RickSantos]

There are exactly 18 randomized clinical dietary intervention studies ( 3 of which are also double blinded) to date on the saturated fat/CAD issue .


None of them showed any reduction in CAD mortality, or total mortality that can be attributed to saturated fat restriction.

[oehaut]

There are exactly 18 randomized clinical dietary intervention studies ( 3 of which are also double blinded) to date on the saturated fat/CAD issue .


None of them showed any reduction in CAD mortality, or total mortality that can be attributed to saturated fat restriction.

We know this already.

The question that remains is : is there anything that, if replacing SFAs, will lower CHD risk? If SFAs are neutral, is there anything we can replace it with that is beneficial? Many data points to PUFAs has being able to do this, there does not seem to be data on non-refined carbs, and mono also seem neutral.

Replacing SFAs with refined carbs and trans-fat is clearly deleterious. But what if you use either MUFAS, PUFAs, or non-refined grains?

Edited by oehaut, 28 January 2010 - 07:58 PM.

[RickSantos]

There are exactly 18 randomized clinical dietary intervention studies ( 3 of which are also double blinded) to date on the saturated fat/CAD issue .


None of them showed any reduction in CAD mortality, or total mortality that can be attributed to saturated fat restriction.

We know this already.

The question that remains is : is there anything that, if replacing SFAs, will lower CHD risk? If SFAs are neutral, is there anything we can replace it with that is beneficial? Many data points to PUFAs has being able to do this, there does not seem to be data on non-refined carbs, and mono also seem neutral.

Replacing SFAs with refined carbs and trans-fat is clearly deleterious. But what if you use either MUFAS, PUFAs, or non-refined grains?

Saturated fat is probably even beneficial, not just neutral. You are right about PUFA's, but it is the TYPE of PUFA.

PUFA's from polyunsaturated vegetable oils are a very , very bad thing.



The solution is PUFA's from whale blubber. The Greenland Inuits . I hope they sell whale blubber oil

Edited by RickSantos, 14 February 2010 - 04:29 PM.