Great nutrition article, Saturated fat: your friend against heart disease?

ApeXaviour

I was browsing the nutrition part of the Men's Health website, I came across some fantastic and well written articles. They're some of the first broad media articles I've seen that challenge the long held (poorly backed) dogma on the saturated fat/heart hypothesis. There was also some other similar articles of interest on the site I thought people might find interesting reading.


What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?
For decades, Americans have been told that saturated fat clogs arteries and causes heart disease. But there's just one problem: No one's ever proved it

Stop Blaming Saturated Fat
"The research is clear: Carbohydrates, not fats, are the foe in America's battle against heart disease and obesity." -By: Adam Campbell & Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D.

The Cure for Diabetes
"My first line of treatment is to have patients remove carbohydrates from their diets," explains Dr. Vernon, a petite, energetic mother of two who also serves as the president of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. "This is often all it takes to reverse their symptoms, so that they no longer require medication."


Control Your Cravings
Trouble is, fast-rising blood sugar triggers your pancreas to release a flood of insulin, a hormone that not only lowers blood sugar but also signals your body to store fat. And in about half of us, insulin tends to "overshoot," which sends blood sugar crashing. "This reinforces the binge, because it makes you crave sugar and starch again," says Berkowitz.

EileenG

Preaching to the choir here, I've been telling people this for year. But thanks for putting it out there.

ApeXaviour

Aye, I know

First time I've personally seen these ideas consistently plugged in the mainstream media though. Usually such publications are too afraid or ignorant to veer much from that fallacy that is the food pyramid.

joseph brand

I read an article in a paper years ago, stating around 10 points about how fat is good for you.

I think one of them was about how it is used in joints in the body.

anyone know any more?

EileenG

Fat is absolutely essential for good health. That's why there is an RDA for fat, and it's higher than the RDA for protein and way higher than carbs (which is pretty much zero).

For a female, it's essential for fertility. Lack of it will cause anovular infertility, difficulty carrying a pregnancy to term, difficulty breastfeeding, increase the chance of rickets in the breastfed baby. PCOS is the leading cause of infertility (plus hairy face and chest, spots and weight gain) and the best treatment is a high fat, low carb diet. Saturated fat is directly proportional to bone density. Bones can't utilize calcium without Vit D and fat, so all that added calcium in cereals is a waste.

For men, saturated fat is directly proportional to testosterone levels and to muscle growth.

Oh, interesting snippet: when they bothered to look at the plaque that clogs up arteries, they found it was make up of 70% polyunsatured fat.

jam_mac_jam

I have only read the first article and its actually quite scary that we have been advised of something so wrong for so long. Very interesting

EileenG

I think the medical experts painted themselves into a corner. Once they came out so strongly behind "Fat is bad", they found it hard to admit that maybe they'd made a mistake.

I find it hilarious the way they keep saying things like "You should eat nuts, and red meat, and eggs, and flaxseeds, and full fat dairy and dark chocolate .... AS PART OF YOUR LOW FAT DIET"

cozmik

Food Safety Authority of Ireland Trans Fatty Acid Survey (2007)

The FSAI has published results of a survey of 100 pre-packaged food products to determine their fat content and fatty acid composition, including trans-fatty acids.

Executive Summary


Fats are essential for health and are made up of fatty acids, however, certain forms of fat are less healthy than other forms of fat. Generally, the saturated fats are less healthy than the monounsaturated fats or polyunsaturated fats.

Of public health concern is the high level of saturated fats identified in products surveyed. Levels of saturated fat in products were high with 34% of all products containing ≥ 50% saturated fat (as a percentage of total fat). In products declaring HO as an ingredient 51% contained ≥ 50% saturated fat (as a percentage of total fat).

levels of saturated fats in many products are high and public concerns over the health effects of trans-fats have become the focus of much debate. There is no doubt that the trans-fat content of foods needs to be reduced and maintained as low as possible. However, creative solutions to reformulation are needed by the food industry. This should not include the replacement of trans-fats with saturated fats, even in the short term, because this is not a sustainable solution for the improvement of dietary health.

http://www.fsai.ie/surveillance/food_safety/other/trans_fatty_survey_retail07.pdf

ApeXaviour

Yes, it is funny how in spite of all the new evidence, they still clutch to the old unproven dogma.

Typical of such government advisory boards. The US dept. of Agriculture telling you that most of your calories should come from rice/bread/pasta :rolleyes:

How Strange

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Yes, it is funny how in spite of all the new evidence, they still clutch to the old unproven dogma.

Typical of such government advisory boards. The US dept. of Agriculture telling you that most of your calories should come from rice/bread/pasta :rolleyes:

I wonder will that change soon considering the shortage of rice and the rise in the cost of wheat which makes the ordinary persons 'staple' diet very expensive.

I read those articles and to me it made sense. We are certainly over dependent on starchy, high carbohydrate foods. I gave up wheat a few years ago and without any other efforts in sports etc my bodyshape changed. Since then I've been convinced of the bad effects of wheat not just from an intolerance pov but with regards to weight aswell.

cozmik

I think it's a great idea to reduce intake of simple carbs, and to pay attention to the glycemic index, but to eat all the cholesterol in the traditional low-carb diet is really insane. Now some people handle cholesterol better than others, but really you'd do yourself a great favour by taking everything Men's Health Magazine says with a tiny grain of salt.

ApeXaviour

cozmik wrote: »

but to eat all the cholesterol in the traditional low-carb diet is really insane.

Why is it insane? By "traditional low-carb diet" you mean for example something like Eileen and myself have described? Just as opposed to that lay misconception of the Atkins diet, that it's all fried cheese with cheese.

Transform

cozmik wrote: »

I think it's a great idea to reduce intake of simple carbs, and to pay attention to the glycemic index, but to eat all the cholesterol in the traditional low-carb diet is really insane. Now some people handle cholesterol better than others, but really you'd do yourself a great favour by taking everything Men's Health Magazine says with a tiny grain of salt.

There is absolutely no evidence that lowering your cholesterol levels will make you live any longer so please do your research.

EileenG

I saw an interesting study which compared a group of older adults who did weight training on a high and low cholesterol diet. They ate the same cals, and did the same training and at the end of it, the low cholesterol group had made small strength gains and no muscle gains. The high cholesterol group were all in the pink of health and had all made excellent strength gains and signficiant muscle gain.

And nothing to do with Men's Health.

Contrary to what you'd think from listening to the mass media, cholesterol is not some evil substance that will destroy your heart, it's an absolutely essential part of almost every cell in your body, particularly your brain.

hunter164

Sorry about this but I'm a bit too lazy to read all those articles.

So am I right in thinking saturated fats are actually good?

Thanks,
Martin

EileenG

Yes, it really is.

Think about it. Humans have spent most of our history hunting and killing animals, and we always look for the fattest one, not the leanest one. We also ate any eggs we found. Not a single bottle of benecol or tub of flora in sight, but we still managed to thrive without a sign of heart disease.

And just as a reminder, breastmilk, which is the gold standard of what (small) humans require, is mostly saturated fat.

cozmik

hunter164 wrote: »

So am I right in thinking saturated fats are actually good?

Thanks,
Martin

If you don't mind me asking since you haven't read the articles what is it that has you thinking saturated fats are actually good?

hunter164

The responses from other people.

cozmik

Well there's tons of misinformation posted on the net my friend and while posters may sound authoritative to you they may have a commercial, political or more sinister agenda. Be discriminating. I know it sounds obvious but don't believe everything you read on the net.

cheers

cozmik

Faith

cozmik wrote: »

Well there's tons of misinformation posted on the net my friend and while posters may sound authoritative to you they may have a commercial, political or more sinister agenda. Be discriminating. I know it sounds obvious but don't believe everything you read on the net.

cheers

cozmik

Exactly. Many posters here follow extreme or very strict diets that you're not aware of. ApeXaviour is a strict low-carb eater, for example. While a high saturated fat diet may be okay in certain cases, it most certainly should be treated with caution. While the idea behind this thread is that there's no solid proof high saturated fats are bad for you, there's certainly no proof that they're good for you.

This is just one example. You may see posts promoting high cholesterol diets, low carb, high fat, etc etc etc. They're not suitable for everyone and you should speak to a doctor before starting any new eating plan to make sure it's suitable for you.

Faith

EileenG wrote: »

Yes, it really is.

Think about it. Humans have spent most of our history hunting and killing animals, and we always look for the fattest one, not the leanest one. We also ate any eggs we found. Not a single bottle of benecol or tub of flora in sight, but we still managed to thrive without a sign of heart disease.

And just as a reminder, breastmilk, which is the gold standard of what (small) humans require, is mostly saturated fat.

People also used be a hell of a lot more active too. Please be aware that many people reading this forum do not exercise at all, and are looking for "exercise-free" ways of losing weight or being healthy. It would not be good if a completely sedentary obese person read the one sided responses in this thread and falsely concluded that they will be perfectly healthy if they continue to eat a very high fat diet.

hunter164

I do exercise quite a bit....

jam_mac_jam

Faith wrote: »

Exactly. Many posters here follow extreme or very strict diets that you're not aware of. ApeXaviour is a strict low-carb eater, for example. While a high saturated fat diet may be okay in certain cases, it most certainly should be treated with caution. While the idea behind this thread is that there's no solid proof high saturated fats are bad for you, there's certainly no proof that they're good for you.

This is just one example. You may see posts promoting high cholesterol diets, low carb, high fat, etc etc etc. They're not suitable for everyone and you should speak to a doctor before starting any new eating plan to make sure it's suitable for you.

This is some of the best advise I have heard on this forum.

EileenG

Actually, although I know a LOT of bodybuilders who eat like a high protein/fat diet to cut for contests, there is plenty of research to show that an Atkins type diet works extremely well for middle-aged sedentary people too. And some of that research set out to prove that Atkins was dangerous!

Do your own research before you make up your mind. It's certainly worth asking on the Net for suggestions, but in the end, it's your body and you have to live with the consequences of your decisions.

I spent years on unsuitable diets that my doctor loved until I started doing my own research. I've lost three stone and my health has improved dramatically. Now I don't take anyone's word for anything without doing my own research.

cozmik

EileenG wrote: »

Actually, although I know a LOT of bodybuilders who eat like a high protein/fat diet to cut for contests, there is plenty of research to show that an Atkins type diet works extremely well for middle-aged sedentary people too.

Well there are numerous studies showing that making sensible choices from all of the food groups in the Food Pyramid is an effective way of achieving a healthy weight.

Something low carbers tend to overlook is that insulin will only turn carbs into fat if you consume more calories than your body needs. As long as people watch their portion sizes it won't do any harm to include healthy high carb food in their diet.

EileenG

The interesting thing is that my maintenance calories are different depending on what I am eating. On a carb based diet, maintenance is around 1200 for me, which means I'm generally pretty hungry and have to use a lot of will power to keep my portion sizes small enough that I don't eat too much and gain weight.

On a keto diet, it's around 1500, and I generally don't feel hungry, so it's much easier to eat at maintenance.

ApeXaviour

cozmik wrote: »

Something low carbers tend to overlook

I'd appreciate it if you stopped these kind of ad hominem arguments.

cozmik

Tell you what Ape if you stop whining about the food pyramid I'll keep my misgivings about low carbing out of the discussion.

Sound fair?

Khannie

EileenG wrote: »

Not a single bottle of benecol or tub of flora in sight, but we still managed to thrive without a sign of heart disease.

In fairness, people had very different lifestyles back then, and MUCH shorter life expectancy. Heart disease doesn't /really/ become an issue until people get a bit older.

EileenG wrote: »

On a carb based diet, maintenance is around 1200 for me

What size / weight are you if you don't mind me asking?

At around 62KG and reasonably active, my average maintenance calories number is around the 2600-3000 per day mark. 2200 if I do feck all for the day.

edit; I just wanted to add to this: I've recently tried a higher protein and fat diet (mostly swapping out carbs for fats as I have a pretty decent protein intake as it is) and I've been very very tired the whole time despite getting all my protein and fats from good sources (nuts, healthy oils, lean meat, whey). Today I decided to go with a middle ground of some carbs (all complex so far), some fats (nuts mostly today) and some protein (swapping back out some of the fats for some carbs) and I feel a hell of a lot more energetic. My take on it: Extreme anything is bad.

ApeXaviour

cozmik wrote:

(and) I'll keep my misgivings about low carbing out of the discussion

You misunderstand. Debate is fine, I encourage it, but debate the issue, not the person.

cozmik wrote:

posters may sound authoritative to you they may have a commercial, political or more sinister agenda.

Okay now you're just being absurd.

Faith wrote: »

Exactly. Many posters here follow extreme or very strict diets that you're not aware of. ApeXaviour is a strict low-carb eater, for example.

This is irrelevant. It's ad hominem logical fallacy (I've included a link so you can see what I'm referring to). And to accuse either myself or Eileen of having an agenda. Well, that's just a little strange...

Bear in mind please that "low-carb" is not a religion. Nor is it something inherent we try to justify. We are interested in nutrition. I was a fan of what I'd been spoon fed since birth: the low-fat diet. I became interested in nutrition to try debate a friend of mine who'd "gone mad" I'd thought on a restricted carbohydrate diet. I began doing a lot of reasearch, with a bias of trying to find material to debate against him, reading manys the scientific papers on blood glucose etc. Well, I was shocked and convinced entirely otherwise by what I found. Then I tried it for myself and was amazed. My heartburn went away, my body shape (though not weight) changed, I had more energy, I slept better.

In papers I read, I see time and time again. People attempt to prove the status quo, because that is what they are funded to do. When it doesn't turn up the way they want, the explain it away ambiguously. You have to be discerning.

Do some real reading, be discerning. Try it out (in an informed way, don't just start eating fried cheese), and see for yourself.

Khannie wrote:

My take on it: Extreme anything is bad.

Khannie, were you eating much fruit and veg? I agree that extreme of almost anything is bad, but your usual restricted carbohydrate diet is not extreme. How can it be when most of your calories usually still come from carbohydrates? Personally I try for the ratio of 40:30:30 carb:protein:fat. The difference is, I try to (unless I em... have an off day) get most of that from fruit and vegetables. What's extreme in my estimation, are these cultivated and manufactured extreme high density carbohydrates that rocket people's average insulin level.

cozmik wrote:

Tell you what Ape if you stop whining about the food pyramid

I'm afraid that will have to remain filed away under "pseudo-science" and propaganda.

oblivious

EileenG wrote: »

For men, saturated fat is directly proportional to testosterone levels and to muscle growth.

Just raising a point on this. Its cholesterol that produce hormones such as testosterone, cholesterol is not a fat it has similar properties of fats but is not used in energy production

but a diet high in saturate fats can raise LDL (low density lipo protein) which transports esterfied cholesterol,but has a down side of accumulating in the arteries

HDL (high density lipo protein) which aids in cholesterol removal via the bial duct.

there are two point where saturated has been miss-represented

1) animals (cattle) that have feed on grass an not grain have high level conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a lipid that has shown to reduce/regress heart disease. This is usual present if foods stuff such as butter and meat along with the normal concentration of saturated fats

an the really good point is that Ireland is one of the few countries that let the cattle feed many on grass as a posed to grain.

2) production of saturated fats low unsaturated fats via hydrogenation will produce trans fats which aren't great

Khannie

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Khannie, were you eating much fruit and veg?

Absolutely loads. I love both, so it wasn't a chore for me. I was really surprised by how little energy I had.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I agree that extreme of almost anything is bad, but your usual restricted carbohydrate diet is not extreme. How can it be when most of your calories usually still come from carbohydrates? Personally I try for the ratio of 40:30:30 carb: protein:fat. The difference is, I try to (unless I em... have an off day) get most of that from fruit and vegetables. What's extreme in my estimation, are these cultivated and manufactured extreme high density carbohydrates that rocket people's average insulin level.

I'd get a lot of my carbs from oats. The rest really from fruit and veg. Some glucose in post-workout drinks. That ratio looks ok to me. I'd say I was probably closer to 30:35:35 over the last while. Today probably 45:30:25. I am estimating though.

cozmik

EileenG wrote: »

On a carb based diet, maintenance is around 1200 for me, which means I'm generally pretty hungry

If you choose carbs with a low GI load that shouldn't be a problem. I'm back eating carbs again myself and quite honestly they haven't caused me to get any more hungry than when I was low carbing.

cozmik

Khannie wrote: »

edit; I just wanted to add to this: I've recently tried a higher protein and fat diet (mostly swapping out carbs for fats as I have a pretty decent protein intake as it is) and I've been very very tired the whole time despite getting all my protein and fats from good sources (nuts, healthy oils, lean meat, whey). Today I decided to go with a middle ground of some carbs (all complex so far), some fats (nuts mostly today) and some protein (swapping back out some of the fats for some carbs) and I feel a hell of a lot more energetic. My take on it: Extreme anything is bad.

That sums up my situation to a tee. I've been feeling a lot better since reintroducing carbs.

jam_mac_jam

EileenG wrote: »

Yes, it really is.

Think about it. Humans have spent most of our history hunting and killing animals, and we always look for the fattest one, not the leanest one. We also ate any eggs we found. Not a single bottle of benecol or tub of flora in sight, but we still managed to thrive without a sign of heart disease.

And just as a reminder, breastmilk, which is the gold standard of what (small) humans require, is mostly saturated fat.

that's maybe because we didnt live long enough to get heart disease. Although man has hunted and killed animals they have also farmed and eaten what they found in the form of fruit so that arguement is quite a weak one. The amount of meat eaten would be much less than today also so the comparison is not really valid.

ApeXaviour

I'd say it is rather a strong argument. These diseases begin young, but only chronically affect at old age.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

that's maybe because we didnt live long enough to get heart disease.

If you consider the 20% or so of people in modern hunter gatherer tribes who reach the age of 60, you'll find they are almost completely free of chronic degenerative diseases such as heart-disease, diabetes, alzheimers, cancers etc. Their life-expectancy is about 40 years for other reasons entirely, mostly environmental. This age is generally accepted as the same for our pre-agricultural (but behaviourly modern) ancestors. Whereas from the beginning of the neolithic period until about the 18th century, the average expectation among civilisations rarely exceeded 25 years.*

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Although man has hunted and killed animals they have also farmed and eaten what they found in the form of fruit ... The amount of meat eaten would be much less than today also so the comparison is not really valid.

We foraged fruit, it wasn't farmed. For some peoples, farming began a maximum of 10,000 years ago, we are still genetically hunter gathers. And they usually subsisted on >60% animal derived products.



*Lancaster HO. Expectation of life: a study in the demography, statistics and history of world mortality. New York: Springer Verlag, 1990:25.

jam_mac_jam

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I'd say it is rather a strong argument. These diseases begin young, but only chronically affect at old age.

If you consider the 20% or so of people in modern hunter gatherer tribes who reach the age of 60, you'll find they are almost completely free of chronic degenerative diseases such as heart-disease, diabetes, alzheimers, cancers etc. Their life-expectancy is about 40 years for other reasons entirely, mostly environmental. This age is generally accepted as the same for our pre-agricultural (but behaviourly modern) ancestors. Whereas from the beginning of the neolithic period until about the 18th century, the average expectation among civilisations rarely exceeded 25 years.*

We foraged fruit, it wasn't farmed. For some peoples, farming began a maximum of 10,000 years ago, we are still genetically hunter gathers. And they usually subsisted on >60% animal derived products.





*Lancaster HO. Expectation of life: a study in the demography, statistics and history of world mortality. New York: Springer Verlag, 1990:25.

where did I say that they farmed fruit?