Saturated Fat Does not Cause Heart Disease According to the JACC

saydiver

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
57
Saturated Fat does not Cause Heart Disease According to the ACC

Great news for those of us eating Keto.

From the Journal of the American College of Cardiology...

Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/...I8q1mKNAJjofPgUHWu8I64gHr4vajo-GMiSfc5CvC4FJ8

For more info see Dr. Ken Berry's video:

 
Last edited:
OFGS. Nutrition “scientists” make market timers look good, who make fortune tellers look good.
 
Hmm, I'll see if my cardiologist has seen this study. I've got a visit coming up in August.

I do notice that most of the consultants receive funding from the Dairy and Beef industries, but I'm sure that doesn't mean anything.
 
Science is a process, not a product.
 
The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.

OK, so the evidence doesn't support "further" limiting intake. The abstract doesn't say how much the study participants had been limiting saturated fat. Maybe their intake was already very low and lower than that isn't helpful. I need more detail from the study.

This reminds me of another thread about an article that supposedly said that eggs were bad:

The article I read yesterday was about it being bad to add more eggs to an egg eater's diet, not that eating any number of eggs is unhealthy.

"People who eat an added three or four eggs a week or 300 milligrams of dietary cholesterol per day, have a higher risk of both heart disease and early death compared with those who eat fewer eggs...each additional half an egg consumed per day was associated with a 1.1% higher risk of cardiovascular disease and 1.9% higher risk of early death due to any cause...higher consumption than average of either cholesterol or eggs is related to an increase in cardiovascular disease incidents like stroke and early death"

But the headline Three or more eggs a week increase your risk of heart disease and early death, study says is misleading unless I missed something in the article.
 
This is great, that further clarification is coming. Even though the medical comprehension of lipids has been sketchy at times, it has generally been beneficial, somehow still being helpful to cardiac patients.

I base my statement upon my family experience: In the 1970's my dad was apparently in some of the early cholesterol studies, as at the time it was all fat was bad, the hdl versus ldl difference was not clear, IIRC. He was directed to not eat eggs, nuts, cheese etc, and many of the things that now are known for the 'good' fat. Even though there was much wrong in the medical understanding of fats then, it did save his life. His parents both died in their 50's of heart attacks and he lived until 85. [And true to the genes, I had a heart attack at 51, but modern medicine saved me.]
 
Science is a process, not a product.

So, at what point should we believe them? Moving the goal posts as usual.
Latest studies show....

Back in the late 60's there was a TV show called The Time Tunnel. One of the main characters in this show was the older scientist in the lab coat who supposedly designed and built the Time Tunnel. An unintentional running gag that my entire family noticed was that every single time the lights went out, something started smoking or exploding or their latest attempt to bring back the time travelers failed, the Army General would invariably ask: WHAT'S WRONG PROFESSOR?! And every single time, The Professor would invariably reply with: I DON'T KNOW! Nowadays of course he would say: I don't know! But don't eat eggs and wear a mask!
 
Last edited:
Please be careful when discussing the pros and cons of dietary fat intake. Debates on religious topics are frowned upon in this forum. :LOL:
 
So, at what point should we believe them? Moving the goal posts as usual.
Latest studies show....

It's your choice. I didn't move anything, science has always been a process. We can choose to investigate and gather more information, or throw up our hands and give up. I prefer more data.
 
Hmm, I'll see if my cardiologist has seen this study. I've got a visit coming up in August.

I do notice that most of the consultants receive funding from the Dairy and Beef industries, but I'm sure that doesn't mean anything.

The consultants didn't do the studies. They were done in the 60s and hidden from the public.

Links to three of the studies:

Research:
SATURATED FATS AND HEALTH: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-based Recommendations: JACC State-of -the-Art Review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874

SIDNEY DIET HEART STUDY: https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707
---8 year long randomized controlled trial in humans in 1967

MINNESOTA CORONARY EXPERIMENT: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/353/bmj.i1246.full.pdf
---5 year long randomized controlled trial in humans in 1969

CORN OIL IN TREATMENT OF ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2166702/pdf/brmedj02398-0041.pdf
---2 year long randomized controlled trial in humans in 1965
 
Hmm, I'll see if my cardiologist has seen this study. I've got a visit coming up in August..


My experience - It takes a long, long time for many (not all) doctors to change their views on things like this. They were taught in med. school that saturated fat causes heart disease, and despite a whole lot of studies since then that pretty much disprove that, they continue to dispense the same advice as always. And it doesn't help that the drug industry makes billions on drugs like statins, so the drug companies are not about to stop bombarding doctors with their latest drugs to help counteract all that bad saturated fat.

I hope your cardiologist is one who has kept up with the latest science.
 
It's your choice. I didn't move anything, science has always been a process. We can choose to investigate and gather more information, or throw up our hands and give up. I prefer more data.
Now you're talking about an entirely different subject. I did not say or imply any of that. And you didn't move anything science itself survives on that.... just like ... eh I can't say it here. That other bunch.

Either they swear to it and be held liable when it turns out to not be true because its just a process. Or come clean and admit up front and drop the pretense of knowledge and authority that they simply do not have, and say "That's all we can say for now. Don't quote us."
 
Please be careful when discussing the pros and cons of dietary fat intake. Debates on religious topics are frowned upon in this forum. :LOL:

Just in case anyone didn't get it the first time, the point I was trying to make is that this subject does NOT have two sides to it. It has seven or eight. And we do ask everyone to be respectful of those with whom they disagree.
 
Just in case anyone didn't get it the first time, the point I was trying to make is that this subject does NOT have two sides to it. It has seven or eight. And we do ask everyone to be respectful of those with whom they disagree.

Exactly. And there are studies to "prove" all of those 7 or 8 opinions. I think I might pass on this discussion as nobody is going to persuade others to change their mind - so what's the point? Kind of like putting your political beliefs on Facebook, thinking others will concede to your point of view.
 
Now you're talking about an entirely different subject. I did not say or imply any of that. And you didn't move anything science itself survives on that.... just like ... eh I can't say it here. That other bunch.

Either they swear to it and be held liable when it turns out to not be true because its just a process. Or come clean and admit up front and drop the pretense of knowledge and authority that they simply do not have, and say "That's all we can say for now. Don't quote us."

Wow.
 
Last edited:
I figure that if I wait long enough, everything I eat will be approved.

When red wine was approved I stopped watching any more results in that category.
 
Exactly. And there are studies to "prove" all of those 7 or 8 opinions. I think I might pass on this discussion as nobody is going to persuade others to change their mind - so what's the point? Kind of like putting your political beliefs on Facebook, thinking others will concede to your point of view.
+1

I have no dog in the fight. Recently, March 10, I adjusted my diet to reduce saturated fat. It was mostly in junk, aa a result I have dropped 14 pounds during this time. Really not dieting just not eating crap.
 
+1

I have no dog in the fight. Recently, March 10, I adjusted my diet to reduce saturated fat. It was mostly in junk, aa a result I have dropped 14 pounds during this time. Really not dieting just not eating crap.

Stopping eating crap is by far the most important first step.
 
I figure that if I wait long enough, everything I eat will be approved.

When red wine was approved I stopped watching any more results in that category.

I'm waiting on ice cream to be approved, especially Chocolate and Cookies & Cream.;)
 
I'm waiting on ice cream to be approved, especially Chocolate and Cookies & Cream.;)

All that sugar! It might take another generation lol!
Sadly true but it isn't that one can't have an ice cream cone once in awhile, it's eating the whole quart at a sitting, three times a week, at bedtime, where the problem lies! :D
 
Back
Top Bottom