Saturated Fat up, stroke down..!

[bmcgonig]

The Lancet is a serious journal from what I know so this kinda shocked me

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...6736(17)32252-3/fulltext#.WagzcnvumMs.twitter



High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.

 

[Fermion]

I am just going to summarize here with....BACON! (and not the thread ending kind!)

 

[aja8888]

Without paying $31.50 for the whole article, what should we be eating?

 

[euro]

Without paying $31.50 for the whole article, what should we be eating?

More fats, less carbs.

 

[aja8888]

More fats, less carbs.

I thought we knew that already after 23 threads here on the same subject in the last few years.

 

[bmcgonig]

I thought we knew that already after 23 threads here on the same subject in the last few years.

Not really. This I have never seen before:

"whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. "

Its not a zero correlation, it's a negative correlation.

 

[Amethyst]

At this point, I'm just waiting for the inevitable pivot to "Sugar is good for you, eat more sugary things."

 

[Chuckanut]

I thought we knew that already after 23 threads here on the same subject in the last few years.

We do.

Yet a few weeks ago when talking with a nutritionist at a BBQ I was told to skip butter and choose a certain 'spread' that is high in poly-unsaturated fat, limit my consumption of eggs, cut down all fats and especially reduce saturated fat, eat lots of whole grain products (pasta, bread, cereals, etc.) and lots more veggies.

At least eating more veggies won't hurt me.

The stores are still loaded with sugary low yogurt, cookies brownie mix and other such products. I have a container of low-fat cheese 'wedges' somebody gave to me. Ugh. My neighbor makes cookies loaded with sugar but she uses whole wheat flour so they are 'healthy'. But, she cut down the nuts in them since nuts have a lot of fat. And don't get me started on the low-fat, dairy-free, vegan bran muffins at the local coffee shop. Only a generous spreading of butter makes them edible.

The old eating guidelines were drilled into us for 30 years. It will take a lot of time to get rid of them.

 

[aja8888]

We do.

Yet a few weeks ago when talking with a nutritionist at a BBQ I was told to skip butter and choose a certain 'spread' that is high in poly-unsaturated fat, limit my consumption of eggs, cut down all fats and especially reduce saturated fat, eat lots of whole grain products (pasta, bread, cereals, etc.) and lots more veggies.

At least eating more veggies won't hurt me.

The stores are still loaded with sugary low yogurt, cookies brownie mix and other such products. I have a container of low-fat cheese 'wedges' somebody gave to me. Ugh. My neighbor makes cookies loaded with sugar but she uses whole wheat flour so they are 'healthy'. But, she cut down the nuts in them since nuts have a lot of fat. And don't get me started on the low-fat, dairy-free, vegan bran muffins at the local coffee shop. Only a generous spreading of butter makes them edible.

The old eating guidelines were drilled into us for 30 years. It will take a lot of time to get rid of them.

What was a nutritionist doing at a BBQ?? And I thought eggs were good for us now. Are we having another reversal in that line of thinking?

I have to agree with your words on the stores and sugar.

 

[razztazz]

Not really. This I have never seen before:

"whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. "

Its not a zero correlation, it's a negative correlation.

I have actually read that before. Like years ago. It's not really "new" but this study might be considered more refined data. But they throw that stuff into the memory hole.

OCD vis a vis heart attacks and not mentioning anything else makes more money.

 

[CoolChange]

Simple Carbs

At this point, I'm just waiting for the inevitable pivot to "Sugar is good for you, eat more sugary things."

One hypothesis, which I do not believe contradicts other well-established research on the longevity/health befits of low fat, is the subjects of this study had indeed replaced fats with simple carbohydrates (white rice, white bread, sugars, etc.) in the diet.

My thoughts:

• Even if too much fat is bad for you, too many simple carbs may be even worse.

• Just because it is low fat does not mean it is healthy.

• I would say the same about low carb and low protein diets.

• We need much more good research.

 

[SheitlQueen]

More fats, less carbs.

Atkins!

 

[samclem]

I've always thought that reinforcing my arteries with a nice interior lining of plaque could help reduce chances of a catastrophic blowout/stroke. More bacon!

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Some bullet points from the study-

After a median of 7.4 years of follow-up, the study found that:

• Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality, whereas intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality
• Total fat and types of fat were not associated with CVD, myocardial infarction, or CVD mortality
• High carbohydrate intake had the most adverse impact on CVD risk factors, whereas monounsaturated fats seemed to be beneficial and saturated fats were not harmful
• Reducing saturated fats and replacing them with carbohydrates increased CVD risks
• Increased fruit, vegetable, and legume consumption was associated with a lower risk of total mortality and non-CVD mortality. These benefits could be achieved at 3-4 servings per day (375-400 g/day). Additional consumption did not appear to further reduce risks

Why is this Clinically Relevant?

• Findings from this largest cohort study to date do not support the current recommendation to restrict total fat intake to less than 30% of total energy and saturated fat intake to less than 10% of total energy
• Individuals with high carbohydrate intake, above 60% of total energy, would likely benefit from reducing carbohydrate intake and increasing fat and protein
• In low- and middle-income countries, a typical diet may consist of more than 65% of total energy from carbohydrates. Dietary guidelines should refocus on reducing carbohydrates instead of focusing on reducing fats

Results from PURE Multi-National Cohort Study Challenge Current Dietary Guidelines–Particularly on Fat Intake – MHICN

 

[flintnational]

Science writer Gary Taubes got most of this right back in 2008 when he published Good Calories Bad Calories. I had to read this 600+ page book 3 times to get my head around the science that fat is not bad. Several years later, I am 30 lbs lighter. My LDL and blood pressure are both down. My HDL is up.

John Yudkin got it right back in the 70's with his book Pure White and Deadly.

Nutritional studies are hard. You can't lock people up and force feed them for 30 years. But, this is a large (135k participants) observational study that will likely have an impact.

This is a 22 minute video by one of the study's lead authors. He discusses the points listed by Bjorn2bwild.

FN

 

[JoeWras]

I've had to completely turn my world and thinking upside down as I was firmly in the no-fat camp for a long time. But even during the height of no-fat-mania, there was an undercurrent of "maybe this isn't all right" in there with the Mediterranean observations. Oh, and the Inuit diet. They always seemed to have an explanation, though.

This forum introduced me to kefir, which makes a great protein drink base. DW wants to buy the lowfat stuff. NO! Give me the full, real, kefir. It satisfies, tastes good, and ultimately I have less than the fake stuff.

Less. Less. I could never get enough of the simple carbs when I went down that rathole. Always hungry. More Snackwells, please!

 

[socca]

The very best books on the subject of diet provide the reader with the intellectual tools to properly evaluate the quality of a scientific study, since these tools are not supplied by the standard Western education. Before looking at the conclusion of any scientific study, you need to (1) find out who paid for it; and (2) critically evaluate its quality. Most folks are eagerly looking for a 'scientific' rationalization for their hedonism, and they usually find it.

 

[razztazz]

Most folks are eagerly looking for a 'scientific' rationalization for their hedonism,

...or a way to scare people out of their money

 

[Winemaker]

Everything in moderation!

 

[MikeWillRetire]

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants".

 

[MRG]

Did you ever notice there's a RDA for protein and fat but none for carbs?

My body needs two of the three, carbs are optional. Look at the Inuit diet for an extreme example. I don't think too many people in developed countries are in ketosis by accident?

 

[bmcgonig]

The very best books on the subject of diet provide the reader with the intellectual tools to properly evaluate the quality of a scientific study, since these tools are not supplied by the standard Western education. Before looking at the conclusion of any scientific study, you need to (1) find out who paid for it; and (2) critically evaluate its quality. Most folks are eagerly looking for a 'scientific' rationalization for their hedonism, and they usually find it.

Why don't you do that for us?

 

[FlaGator]

Science writer Gary Taubes got most of this right back in 2008 when he published Good Calories Bad Calories. I had to read this 600+ page book 3 times to get my head around the science that fat is not bad. Several years later, I am 30 lbs lighter. My LDL and blood pressure are both down. My HDL is up.

John Yudkin got it right back in the 70's with his book Pure White and Deadly.

Nutritional studies are hard. You can't lock people up and force feed them for 30 years. But, this is a large (135k participants) observational study that will likely have an impact.

This is a 22 minute video by one of the study's lead authors. He discusses the points listed by Bjorn2bwild.

FN

Got on to Gary Taubes work several years ago. Made sense to me, and helped knock off 15-20 pounds and keep it away.

For a more "digestible" version of Taubes' work, listen to the interviews Russ Roberts did with him on econtalk.org:

Taubes on Fat, Sugar and Scientific Discovery | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

Taubes on Why We Get Fat | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

Gary Taubes on the Case Against Sugar | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[flintnational]

Got on to Gary Taubes work several years ago. Made sense to me, and helped knock off 15-20 pounds and keep it away.

For a more "digestible" version of Taubes' work, listen to the interviews Russ Roberts did with him on econtalk.org:

Taubes on Fat, Sugar and Scientific Discovery | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

Taubes on Why We Get Fat | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

Gary Taubes on the Case Against Sugar | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

+1, all are good.

 

[Chuckanut]

This is a 22 minute video by one of the study's lead authors. He discusses the points listed by Bjorn2bwild.

FN

Increasing carbs is "likely damaging"

Increasing fats is "protective"

"too low fats and to high fats are bad"

"no data to reduce the fat content of milk"

"saturated fats is neutral"

So when will those people who had us eating high-transfat margarine, lots more processed carbs, sugary non-fat cookies and muffins, drinking low-fat chocolate milk instead of whole milk, and cutting down on cheese and full fat yogurt going to apologize for misleading us?