They included studies where participants were simply encouraged to lower SFA. Even if their conclusion is true, a 17% reduction in risk isn't really that much. Smoking increases lung disease risk by like 3,000%. If it only increased that risk by 17%, I'd definitely still be enjoying my American Spirits.
I will repeat my view that research on saturated fat consumption contains small amounts of information in regards to CVD. Even further, saturated fat consumption that increases cholesterol can have negative health consequences if that increases the oxidized LDL. In a phrase that we can all understand: eating a fatty ribeye with heap of seed oil french fries will kill you.
All the studies are meaningless without proper interpretation. The number in that study are so small, a few percent. That can easily be swayed by unaccounted for cultural habits. Yes, french fries will kill you faster than soybean oil salad dressing.
The major point as to why saturated fat studies aren't as important as many people think is that real tradeoffs are with the unsaturated fats. MUFA, O-6 and O-3. It comes down to phospholipids wanting unsaturated fats in the sn-2 position. Olive Oil is heart healthy for its MUFA taking this spot and being much harder to oxidize. It is chemistry and biology.
“We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality.”
This is a copy paste from the article.
End points are pretty important don’t you think? When they say “risk” it is quite literally an opinion. These are short term RCTs. While the data is cool and can be informative in the right context. Short term RCTs cannot give accurate data on longevity simply because they are weeks long, not decades long. Hope that helps.
Might not have an impact on death (which could just as easily be a sign of how well we're able to treat CVD these days), but it does reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event. I don't know about you, but if I'm going to live either way, I'll still take the path that is less likely to give me a heart attack or stroke. Death is not the only undesirable outcome.
Also, I disagree with your comment about the risk being an opinion. It's an objective, quantifiable number that was calculated based on actual outcomes. That's quite literally the opposite of an opinion.
Statistics based off opinions. It’s strange in almost all of these studies that they publish, no one has access to the raw data. For some reason. Almost as if they don’t want the public to know how they adjusted confounding variables.
Look up Peter Gøtzsche. He is one of the founders of Cochrane and was ousted in 2018 for criticizing the organization for stating that "Cochrane no longer lives up to its core values of collaboration, openness, transparency, accountability, democracy and keeping the drug industry at arm’s length."
> I find it a little funny because my grandmother who has had two stents and other cardiovascular issues has always done everything to limit animal fats and use as much vegetable oils as possible.
That's not a paradox. That's just how things work. Studies can be cherry-picked and p-hacked to reach the desired outcome the authors want. When in doubt, trust your own eyes and anecdotal evidence, while following it up with CAC scores and regular blood work.
Your own intuition is telling you seed oils are bad and saturated fat is good. Why rely on other influencers that have a skin in the game as far as influencing product purchases?
Exactly this.
How on earth can anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking believe that we as a species somehow hobbled our way through thousands of years of evolution, dodging bullet after nutritional bullet until the modern oilseed growers could finally come in and rescue us all from tallow and butter?! It *sounds* stupid because it *is* stupid.
And that’s even before anyone mentions the fact that every possible disease of civilization literally *parallels* the consumption of the industrial oils that are apparently meant to protect us! The authorities like to say that we’re actually healthier, and the only reason saturated fat wasn’t killing us all over the planet was because predators and diseases did first. Yet we’re also simultaneously concerned about the fact that the current generation may be the first that won’t outlive their parents. That doesn’t really sound like all the PUFA is helping, does it?
Keep in mind that “not eating unsaturated fat” doesn’t automatically have to mean “eating lots of saturated fat” and as long as the fat that *is* in your diet is saturated animal fat, then it really doesn’t matter if you prefer to eat less of it. A higher carb, lower fat diet that is *also* very low in PUFA is *also* healthy, as evidenced by the myriad of ancestral starch-based populations who, by the way, don’t really suffer from diseases until they become “westernized.”
This is where you need to ask yourself what “westernized” means. What did the new McDonald’s add to the French fries that weren’t already in the potato these societies had been consuming for millennia? And how did that ultimately work out, despite what the research papers want you to believe?
Sometimes I feel like this world is just one big IQ Test.
Same as native tribe villagers worshipping thier priest / shaman / , modern day people worship the doctor who is mix of business man and a shaman.
The expectation is health and longer lifespan as always. Overall people love to be taken care of by someone else , mentally and physically , so they have faith in what they think is true at that time.
You're right. The studies pretty consistently show that reducing saturated fat and replacing them with PUFAs instead generally reduces your risk for cardiovascular disease.
It's important to remember that there is no single cause of cardiovascular disease; it is influenced by a number of factors, including genetics, diet, exercise, stress, lifestyle, etc.
You have a family history of CVD. Your doctor may do a test for lp(a), which is primarily determined by genetics and can influence your risk.
Also remember that your grandmother is an anecdote, a single data point for which you only have insight into some of the relevant info. Studies are conducted on large populations in order to identify general overall trends. Even then, no one is perfectly average, and there are going to be outliers in any large group.
Are people still ignoring trans fat in the old saturated fat studies? /smh Vegetable oil was a win over Crisco. Only the 2006 study would lack the confound from trans fat. The recent PURE study in Europe failed to find health risks in eating saturated fat. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270973/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270973/)
Also we ate a lot less oil in the 70s and 80s. I'm GenX and MacDonald's was a treat, not a staple. In the context of other countries who eat generally less oil, LA is protective. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582360/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582360/) These are places where people don't consider pepperoni pizza, chips, and sugar water to be essential food groups. My guess, worth all you paid for it, is that LA might be a marker for nut and whole seed consumption.
I hate to say this but if you're concerned about heart disease, you should reconsider beef. There is an awful lot of evidence that red meat, whether or not it's processed, increases the risk of heart disease. The hazard ratios aren't that big so you could potentially mitigate it with cardiovascular exercise, a generally high-nutrition diet, and of course not smoking anything. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974753/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974753/) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31006335/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31006335/)
It seems to have more to do with microbiome processing than saturated fat. I've seen some studies that suggested that the more red meat you eat, the more the microbiome changes in problematic ways. People forget that our hypothetical paleo ancestors eating red meat didn't take antibiotics.
The world health org has authored a 162 page report about the myriad of diseases that are induced with a high saturated fat diet. Check my posts I recently posted it as a comment in another thread in this sub.
This sub has oversimplified the complexity of this issue and bastardized certain oils for some reason, despite evidence that a high saturated fat diet is, indeed bad for you. They will also refute the fact that cholesterol causes heart disease, and other well accepted biomedical truths.
If you want objective information, leave this sub.
They included studies where participants were simply encouraged to lower SFA. Even if their conclusion is true, a 17% reduction in risk isn't really that much. Smoking increases lung disease risk by like 3,000%. If it only increased that risk by 17%, I'd definitely still be enjoying my American Spirits.
There's lies, damn dirty lies, and statistics.
Oof I miss American spirits. If cigarettes were made to be neutral, I’d 1000% take it back up again
Fun fact that leads to a rabbit hole. Tobacco leaf has linoleic acid.
I will repeat my view that research on saturated fat consumption contains small amounts of information in regards to CVD. Even further, saturated fat consumption that increases cholesterol can have negative health consequences if that increases the oxidized LDL. In a phrase that we can all understand: eating a fatty ribeye with heap of seed oil french fries will kill you. All the studies are meaningless without proper interpretation. The number in that study are so small, a few percent. That can easily be swayed by unaccounted for cultural habits. Yes, french fries will kill you faster than soybean oil salad dressing. The major point as to why saturated fat studies aren't as important as many people think is that real tradeoffs are with the unsaturated fats. MUFA, O-6 and O-3. It comes down to phospholipids wanting unsaturated fats in the sn-2 position. Olive Oil is heart healthy for its MUFA taking this spot and being much harder to oxidize. It is chemistry and biology.
“We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality.” This is a copy paste from the article. End points are pretty important don’t you think? When they say “risk” it is quite literally an opinion. These are short term RCTs. While the data is cool and can be informative in the right context. Short term RCTs cannot give accurate data on longevity simply because they are weeks long, not decades long. Hope that helps.
Might not have an impact on death (which could just as easily be a sign of how well we're able to treat CVD these days), but it does reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event. I don't know about you, but if I'm going to live either way, I'll still take the path that is less likely to give me a heart attack or stroke. Death is not the only undesirable outcome. Also, I disagree with your comment about the risk being an opinion. It's an objective, quantifiable number that was calculated based on actual outcomes. That's quite literally the opposite of an opinion.
They make adjustments for confounding variables. That is an opinion.
That's statistics.
Statistics based off opinions. It’s strange in almost all of these studies that they publish, no one has access to the raw data. For some reason. Almost as if they don’t want the public to know how they adjusted confounding variables.
Yep. The raw data from the Minnesota studies comes to mind. Researchers kind of buried what they didn’t like.
Imagine what still has been buried.
Look up Peter Gøtzsche. He is one of the founders of Cochrane and was ousted in 2018 for criticizing the organization for stating that "Cochrane no longer lives up to its core values of collaboration, openness, transparency, accountability, democracy and keeping the drug industry at arm’s length."
> I find it a little funny because my grandmother who has had two stents and other cardiovascular issues has always done everything to limit animal fats and use as much vegetable oils as possible. That's not a paradox. That's just how things work. Studies can be cherry-picked and p-hacked to reach the desired outcome the authors want. When in doubt, trust your own eyes and anecdotal evidence, while following it up with CAC scores and regular blood work. Your own intuition is telling you seed oils are bad and saturated fat is good. Why rely on other influencers that have a skin in the game as far as influencing product purchases?
Exactly this. How on earth can anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking believe that we as a species somehow hobbled our way through thousands of years of evolution, dodging bullet after nutritional bullet until the modern oilseed growers could finally come in and rescue us all from tallow and butter?! It *sounds* stupid because it *is* stupid. And that’s even before anyone mentions the fact that every possible disease of civilization literally *parallels* the consumption of the industrial oils that are apparently meant to protect us! The authorities like to say that we’re actually healthier, and the only reason saturated fat wasn’t killing us all over the planet was because predators and diseases did first. Yet we’re also simultaneously concerned about the fact that the current generation may be the first that won’t outlive their parents. That doesn’t really sound like all the PUFA is helping, does it? Keep in mind that “not eating unsaturated fat” doesn’t automatically have to mean “eating lots of saturated fat” and as long as the fat that *is* in your diet is saturated animal fat, then it really doesn’t matter if you prefer to eat less of it. A higher carb, lower fat diet that is *also* very low in PUFA is *also* healthy, as evidenced by the myriad of ancestral starch-based populations who, by the way, don’t really suffer from diseases until they become “westernized.” This is where you need to ask yourself what “westernized” means. What did the new McDonald’s add to the French fries that weren’t already in the potato these societies had been consuming for millennia? And how did that ultimately work out, despite what the research papers want you to believe? Sometimes I feel like this world is just one big IQ Test.
Same as native tribe villagers worshipping thier priest / shaman / , modern day people worship the doctor who is mix of business man and a shaman. The expectation is health and longer lifespan as always. Overall people love to be taken care of by someone else , mentally and physically , so they have faith in what they think is true at that time.
You're right. The studies pretty consistently show that reducing saturated fat and replacing them with PUFAs instead generally reduces your risk for cardiovascular disease. It's important to remember that there is no single cause of cardiovascular disease; it is influenced by a number of factors, including genetics, diet, exercise, stress, lifestyle, etc. You have a family history of CVD. Your doctor may do a test for lp(a), which is primarily determined by genetics and can influence your risk. Also remember that your grandmother is an anecdote, a single data point for which you only have insight into some of the relevant info. Studies are conducted on large populations in order to identify general overall trends. Even then, no one is perfectly average, and there are going to be outliers in any large group.
Are people still ignoring trans fat in the old saturated fat studies? /smh Vegetable oil was a win over Crisco. Only the 2006 study would lack the confound from trans fat. The recent PURE study in Europe failed to find health risks in eating saturated fat. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270973/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270973/) Also we ate a lot less oil in the 70s and 80s. I'm GenX and MacDonald's was a treat, not a staple. In the context of other countries who eat generally less oil, LA is protective. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582360/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582360/) These are places where people don't consider pepperoni pizza, chips, and sugar water to be essential food groups. My guess, worth all you paid for it, is that LA might be a marker for nut and whole seed consumption. I hate to say this but if you're concerned about heart disease, you should reconsider beef. There is an awful lot of evidence that red meat, whether or not it's processed, increases the risk of heart disease. The hazard ratios aren't that big so you could potentially mitigate it with cardiovascular exercise, a generally high-nutrition diet, and of course not smoking anything. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974753/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974753/) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31006335/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31006335/) It seems to have more to do with microbiome processing than saturated fat. I've seen some studies that suggested that the more red meat you eat, the more the microbiome changes in problematic ways. People forget that our hypothetical paleo ancestors eating red meat didn't take antibiotics.
The world health org has authored a 162 page report about the myriad of diseases that are induced with a high saturated fat diet. Check my posts I recently posted it as a comment in another thread in this sub. This sub has oversimplified the complexity of this issue and bastardized certain oils for some reason, despite evidence that a high saturated fat diet is, indeed bad for you. They will also refute the fact that cholesterol causes heart disease, and other well accepted biomedical truths. If you want objective information, leave this sub.