Butter consumption too much, or am worrying over nothing?

Quantum Baloney

Hi folks,

Recently had some friends express disbelief and concern over the fact that I'm eating a pound or more of butter every week. I'm normal weight for my height, about ten stone. I've been eating this much butter for years, although I've probably been ratcheting it up a bit over the last eighteen months and especially since COVID started. I put butter on my bread like other people put cheese on and I always use butter when I am cooking. Am I right in thinking that so long as my body is overperforming and my weight is fine that there is no problem here and that I am probably getting essential nutrients and fats from the kerrygold?

Quantum Baloney

Folks?

igCorcaigh

Have you had your cholesterol levels measured?

farmerval

Butter is definitely an absolute dissenter for most of the population.

I was diagnosed type 2 diabetic last year. I lost a good load of weight the conventional diet way and then hit a full stop. At that stage I went low carb for a while. Like you there was horror from friends and family that I was using butter all the time, using duck fat to fry food in etc.

For a short time I was checking my blood glucose level constantly. Two things from that, fat had little effect on blood glucose. Carbs had a massive effect. Actually fat with carbs helped reduce the harm full effects of butter.

You should be getting your bloods checked annually for cholesterol and if you are a male your PSA levels and other s**t that your medic advises. If there's a problem that's where it will show.

SouthWesterly

We are a family of 4. We use 1lb of butter a week.

anacc

A lot of people believe that butter and other saturated fats are bad for you, but that’s not necessarily true.
https://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/features/truth-about-saturated-fats

The issue I would see with eating so much fat is the calorie intake, but as long as you’re a healthy weight then that doesn’t matter. If you’re concerned about cholesterol though you should get checked by your GP. I eat copious amounts of butter and fatty meat and have never had a cholesterol problem, and I get a medical checkup yearly.

Also one thing to remember about saturated fats is that it’s a very natural food that humans have been eating throughout our evolutionary history. If saturated fats were lethal to us as some would have you believe then evolution would have done its job and killed us off as a species.

igCorcaigh

anacc wrote: »

A lot of people believe that butter and other saturated fats are bad for you, but that’s not necessarily true.
https://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/features/truth-about-saturated-fats

The issue I would see with eating so much fat is the calorie intake, but as long as you’re a healthy weight then that doesn’t matter. If you’re concerned about cholesterol though you should get checked by your GP. I eat copious amounts of butter and fatty meat and have never had a cholesterol problem, and I get a medical checkup yearly.

Also one thing to remember about saturated fats is that it’s a very natural food that humans have been eating throughout our evolutionary history. If saturated fats were lethal to us as some would have you believe then evolution would have done its job and killed us off as a species.

Speculative.

The advice is still to minimise sat fat intake.

That advice might change, but it hasn't so far.

A cholesterol test and a discussion with a GP is the way to go.

Anyway, your evolutionary argument doesn't work because of the age factor.

j@utis

Evolutionary argument is quite strong because if you were lucky to survive the childhood you're probably lived quite long life.

We're family of 3, we eat a pound of butter per week. Fat is best to consume with protein and little carbs I believe, that's the way it comes in the nature - fatty foods aren't carbs rich. My diet is about 40-45% fat, I eat what tastes good to me and keeps me satisfied, I don't specifically aim for that number. My last blood work was perfect.
The only problem with fat is that it's calorie dense and doesn't carry a lot of nutrients with it. You have to really ramp up your non-starchy veg intake to reach vitamins and minerals goals, if you're diet is "fatty", [like mine].

Cill94

anacc wrote: »

A lot of people believe that butter and other saturated fats are bad for you, but that’s not necessarily true.
https://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/features/truth-about-saturated-fats

The issue I would see with eating so much fat is the calorie intake, but as long as you’re a healthy weight then that doesn’t matter. If you’re concerned about cholesterol though you should get checked by your GP. I eat copious amounts of butter and fatty meat and have never had a cholesterol problem, and I get a medical checkup yearly.

Also one thing to remember about saturated fats is that it’s a very natural food that humans have been eating throughout our evolutionary history. If saturated fats were lethal to us as some would have you believe then evolution would have done its job and killed us off as a species.

Just because a single fry won't kill you on the spot doesn't mean that chronically high sat. fat intake over a lifteime won't impact your health outcomes. There is a strong enough correlation between it and heart disease that it warrants limiting your intake.

Also in the early days of humanity, you were doing very well to make it into your 30s, so that argument doesn't really hold water.

Cill94

j@utis wrote: »

Evolutionary argument is quite strong because if you were lucky to survive the childhood you're probably lived quite long life.

Life expectancy for a man in Ireland at the turn of the last century (1900) was just 49 years old.

igCorcaigh

j@utis wrote: »

Evolutionary argument is quite strong because if you were lucky to survive the childhood you're probably lived quite long life.

Yeah, but your genes have already been passed on. That's why older people are more prone to chronic health issues.

igCorcaigh

Cill94 wrote: »

Life expectancy for a man in Ireland at the turn of the last century (1900) was just 49 years old.

That is the mean, which is low due to child mortality?

Cill94

igCorcaigh wrote: »

That is the mean, which is low due to child mortality?

Definitely a factor but people who survived childhood also died earlier than they do now.

Alf Veedersane

igCorcaigh wrote: »

That is the mean, which is low due to child mortality?

No, life expectancy at birth was 49 in 1900. It's not the mean so wouldn't be skewed by infant mortality.

Quantum Baloney

Forgot to check back on this thread. Thanks for the advice/info. Some food for thought. I'm still on a pound of butter a week, also eating pasta, lots of vegetables, lots of salmon and tuna. The only thing I want to cut down on is my chocolate and candy consumption.

Deseras

If it makes you happy
Eat more