38 replies to this topic

[timar]

It has always been absurd to reduce the "French Paradox" to one single causal factor. First of all, there is not so much of a paradox remaining if one considers recent national statistics. There is some evidence that the data from the 1970s on which the French Paradox has initially been postulated may actually have underreported the rates of heart disease. If one looks at recent statistics aquired in accordance to international standards, there is not so much of a paradox remaining, except perhaps for the Mediteranean regions of France. Much of the lower rates of heart disease in those regions can simply be explained by the closer adherance to the Mediteranean diet: Olive oil, fish and more fresh fruits and vegetables. The remaining small discrepancy may be explained by the high consumption of red wine (which is above the avarage consumed even in most other Mediterranean countries) and its polyphenol content, but even this observation doesn't necessarily boil down to resveratrol as an important factor, as the alcohol itself as well as other potent polyphenols much more abundant in red wine (i.e. anthocyanins and oligomeric proanthocyanidins) are likely to be more significant than the very small and highly variable amounts of resveratrol found in red wine. The above-avarage consumption of cheese may be another part of the puzzle, as the detrimental effects from the saturated fat content of traditionally fermented cheese may be completely offset by its content of long-chain menaquinones (vitamin K2). Apologists of LC diets high in saturated fat like to cite the Rotterdam study showing heart-protective effects from cheese (and following their flawed logic saturated fat) consumption, but as usual they are distorting the evidence to fit their preconceptions, as the protective effects of menaquinones shown in this study have been statistically adjusted for the intake of saturated fat. If one looks at the unadjusted results, there is not much of a protective effect remaining for cheese consumption .

Edited by timar, 08 September 2015 - 11:57 AM.

[aza]

I doubt that saturated is as bad as refined carbohydrates.

http://ajcn.nutritio.../91/6/1541.full  Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease

"there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity."

 

http://ajcn.nutritio.../93/4/684.short The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010?

"No clear benefit of substituting carbohydrates for SFAs has been shown, although there might be a benefit if the carbohydrate is unrefined and has a low glycemic index."

 

http://link.springer...6/fulltext.html   Saturated Fatty Acids and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: Modulation by Replacement Nutrients

"replacement of saturated fat by carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates and added sugars, increases levels of triglyceride and small LDL particles and reduces high-density lipoprotein cholesterol"

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20375186 Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index.

"This study suggests that replacing SFAs with carbohydrates with low-GI values is associated with a lower risk of MI, whereas replacing SFAs with carbohydrates with high-GI values is associated with a higher risk of MI."

 

If inflammation from certain saturated fat is what is bothering you, i'd think that its unlikely the effects would be pronounced unless you were drinking the purified fat. As real food like steak tends to have other anti-inflammatory compounds that could modulate the effects. Such as carnosine, glycine, cla, omega 3, taurine, choline.

 

[timar]

You say that you "doubt that saturated is as bad as refined carbohydrates", but none of the studies you referenced support that position.

 

There is some evidence, however, that saturated fat and refined carbohydrates act syergistically to promote an atherogenic lipid profile.

See this recent one and a half hour podcast Rhonda Patrick did with Ron Krauss.

 

 

If inflammation from certain saturated fat is what is bothering you, i'd think that its unlikely the effects would be pronounced unless you were drinking the purified fat. As real food like steak tends to have other anti-inflammatory compounds that could modulate the effects. Such as carnosine, glycine, cla, omega 3, taurine, choline.

 

You consider a steak antiinflammatory? That's a joke, right!?

Edited by timar, 09 September 2015 - 07:43 AM.

[aza]

You consider a steak antiinflammatory? That's a joke, right!?

 

That is not what i was saying, i was using it as an example. There are many different compounds in foods that are inflammatory or anti-inflammatory. It is difficult to take one compound such as saturated fat and judge an entire food on it when it may contain other compounds that reduce the negative effects. For example, if long chain sat fats increase inflammation and other compounds in meat are anti-inflammatory. Would that give a net benefit or a negative?

I think if saturated fat does have a negative effect, it would be small or nonexistent in the context of a whole food diet. Although im not suggesting people should eat crazy high amounts either.

Edited by aza, 09 September 2015 - 09:49 AM.

[timar]

Well, that's why we have nutritional epidemiology, don't we? With the exception of hydrogenated fats, there is hardly any type of food for which the evidence as consistently shows negative effects as for red meat consumption. Sure, beef may contain some antiinflammatory compounds, but the net effect is clearly negative.

 

Moreover, we know not only since the recent Longo paper that large amounts of animal protein stimulate mTOR signaling, initiating a proinflammatory signaling cascade, essentially accelerating the aging process and thus increase the risk for most types of age-related chronic disease. Add to that the variety of AGEs and carcinogens formed in high heat (HCAs and PHAs), the heme iron from red meat, the long-chain saturated fatty acids and the remnants of all the nasty stuff the cattle is fed in CAFOs (which accounts for ~98% of all produced beef and pork) and the epidemiological observations should come as no surprise.

Edited by timar, 09 September 2015 - 11:10 AM.

[aza]

At least a few of those factors are modifiable which could improve its standing, the others call for moderation.

I tend to be skeptical of epidemiological studies, particularly because of issues stemming from food questionnaires and healthy user bias. They are not all against reasonable intakes of red meat either, for example.

http://circ.ahajourn...1/21/2271.short  Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus

"Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus."

Edited by aza, 09 September 2015 - 12:51 PM.

[timar]

If anything, those problems you mentioned (which by the way are well acounted for in most contemporary epidemiology) dilute the statistical power of the study and thus its ability to detect detrimental effects from red meat consumption. It certainly wouldn't make red meat look worse than it is, rather the other way around.

 

But as I've said - it's not the epidemiology alone, but the epidemiology in perfect agreement with thousands of in-vitro, animal, metabolic ward and interventional studies.

[Mind]

 

 

With the exception of hydrogenated fats, there is hardly any type of food for which the evidence as consistently shows negative effects as for red meat consumption.

 

I have always wondered about the poor red meat epidemiology. Could it be because meat and animal products (including animal fats) are all cooked or processed in high heat?

[Mind]

The whole "saturated fat is bad for you" advice was fraudulent from the very beginning. Eliezer Yudkowsky ⏹️ on X: "At the center of the last fifty years of dietary recommendations is a case of plain scientific fraud." / X (twitter.com)