- Two trials found that replacing saturated animal fat with polyunsaturated vegetable fat decreased total mortality.
- Two trials found that replacing saturated animal fat with polyunsaturated vegetable fat increased total mortality.
- Eight trials found that reducing saturated fat had no effect on total mortality.
The second study to "support" the idea that saturated fat increases total mortality was the Finnish mental hospitals trial. In this trial, two mental hospitals in different towns fed their patients different diets and monitored their health. One diet was low in animal fat and high in polyunsaturated vegetable fat, while the other was higher in saturated fat. Patients eating the polyunsaturated diet had a greatly reduced death rate, mostly due to a reduction in heart attacks. The study design was pitiful. They included all patients in their analysis, even those who stayed at the hospital for only one month or who checked in and out repeatedly. Furthermore, they used a "crossover" design where the hospitals switched diets halfway through the study. This was designed to control for location, but it means we don't know whether the increase in deaths after switching to the control diet was due to the saturated fat or the vegetable oil diet that preceded it for 6 years! The only reason I included this poor study in my list is that it's commonly cited as evidence against saturated fat.
The first study to show an increase in deaths from replacing saturated animal fat with polyunsaturated vegetable fat was the tragically named Anti-Coronary Club study. After four years, despite lowering their cholesterol substantially, the intervention group saw more than twice the number of deaths as the control group. Amazingly, rather than emphasizing the increased mortality, the study authors instead focused on the cholesterol reduction. This study was not properly controlled, but if anything, that should have biased it in favor of the intervention group.
The second study to show an increase in deaths from replacing saturated animal fats with polyunsaturated vegetable fats was the Sydney Diet-Heart study. This was one of the larger, longer, better-conducted trials. After five years, the intervention group saw about 50% more deaths than the control group.
I should also mention that one of the studies in the "no effect" category actually saw more than a four-fold increase in deaths after replacing saturated fat with corn oil, but somehow the result didn't achieve statistical significance (the paper states that p= 0.05-0.1, whatever that means). It may have simply been due to the small size of the study.
Overall, the data from controlled trials are clear: replacing animal fat with vegetable oil does not reduce your risk of dying! The same is true of reducing total fat. The main counterpoint to this conclusion is that the trials may have been too short to pick up the effect of saturated fat. However, two years was enough time to detect the effect of fish oil on death in the DART trial, and the trials I'm writing about lasted up to 8 years (not including the Finnish mental hospital trial or the Swedish one). There's also the fact that the greatest consumers of saturated fat in the world eat it for their entire lives and don't seem to suffer from it. Proponents of the theory that saturated fat is unhealthy have the burden of proof on their shoulders, and the data have failed to deliver.
Most trials of this nature are designed with cardiovascular outcomes in mind. Out of the twelve studies mentioned above, nine measured coronary heart disease mortality.
- Two found it was reduced when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated vegetable fat.
- One found that is was increased when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated vegetable fat.
- Six found no effect.
The study to find an increase in cardiovascular deaths was again the unfortunately-named Anti-Coronary Club trial. The Sydney Diet-Heart trial did not report cardiovascular mortality, which was almost certainly increased. Also, the study mentioned above that saw a "non-significant" four-fold increase in deaths on corn oil also saw a similar increase in cardiovascular deaths. I included it in the "no effect" category.
So not only do the best data not support the idea that saturated fat increases the overall risk of death, they don't even support the idea that it causes heart disease! In fact, the body seems to prefer saturated fat to unsaturated fats in the bloodstream. Guess what your liver does with carbohydrate when you eat a low-fat diet? It turns it into saturated fat (palmitic acid) and then pumps it into your bloodstream. We have the enzymes necessary to desaturate palmitic acid, so why does the liver choose to secrete it into the blood in its saturated form? Kitavan lipoproteins contain a lot of palmitic acid, which is not found in their diet. Are their livers trying to kill them? Apparently they aren't succeeding.
Eat the fat on your steaks folks. Just like your great-grandparents did, and everyone who came before.

16 comments:
Great stuff Stephan. Even a coarse accounting basically comes up with a big zero, i.e. weight each study the same, you have 2 for, 2 against, and 8 zippo. Net evidence for SFA-disease hypothesis is zero, especially considering the lack of any evidence for a mechanism connecting SFA to disease development. Add in issues of study design and things tilt further away from the SFA-disease hypothesis.
However, we do have mechanisms for suspecting PUFA (oxidation, production of pro-inflammatory hormones). Some of Peter's recent stuff at Hyperlipid even gives a hypothesis why PUFA lowers LDL (liver protecting the body from oxidative stress).
We should also note that the dogmatists' frequent excuse as to study duration doesn't hold much water. Negative results for SFA effect on mortality often elicit ad hoc hypotheses like "it takes several years for the negative health effects of saturated fat to become apparent." But since there's no evidence for that either, stating such should not change our beliefs.
Stephen, I've been reading through your archives and love your blog. You have shown in studies that people who subscribe to diets with a higher fat content tend to reduce their calorie consumption. You also follow a diet that is heavy in fat. I was raised (probably like most people) to finish their plate. Have you made efforts to stop eating when feeling full even if there is still food left, or did this come naturally to you? Or on the other hand, do you generally finish everything you prepare/serve for yourself and limit that amount? Thanks for your insight.
Dave,
I am definitely on board with the PUFA hypothesis, actually I think it's mostly the linoleic acid. I'll be posting a great study in pigs that Robert Brown sent me recently. Lipid peroxidation in the heart was far lower in pigs fed modest but balanced levels of LA and ALA, than in pigs fed either modest LA and low ALA, or high LA and modest ALA. Nitrosylation damage tracked with LA. So the right amount of n-3 actually has a strong antioxidant effect (at least in pigs).
Hi Dan,
High-fat diets reduce calorie intake in people who are overweight, and possibly in non-overweight people as well.
I don't think it's so much due to increasing fat as it is due to decreasing wheat and sugar. I believe those both promote excessive eating.
I do eat a lot of fat, but I don't think it's inherently better or worse than eating less fat. I just feel better and prefer the taste of high-fat food. I do think that many Americans could benefit from a high-fat diet (especially those who are overweight), but it's mostly because of the toxic carbohydrate foods we tend to eat like wheat and sugar.
I eat as much as I want. I am a member in good standing of the Clean Plate Club. I believe that once your hormones are back in line, your body will naturally adjust your caloric intake to a healthy level. I believe that's why caloric intake decreases on high-fat and "paleo" diets.
What about burning calories to stay warm? Are fats preferred over carbs for this purpose? I recall a Poul Anderson science fiction novel some years back where the hero asks for butter in order to adapt from a tropical to northern climate.
Been following some of your advice lately and noticed being more comfortable outside in the chill. Might be simply adjusting to the change of seasons, but...
CSM,
I know what you mean. I'm not sure if it's the high fat per se or maybe reducing wheat and sugar that does it, but I've noticed the same thing. Last winter, I never turned the heat on in my room. It typically ranged between 40 and 55 F. I couldn't have done that the year before.
I've also been swimming in cold water (50 F). I'm not sure I could have done that a year ago either.
Re: high fat nutrition and resistance to cold temperature
Absolutely there is a connection! I have the same experience as Stephan regarding swimming in cold water. There was also an interesting paper by a university of Ottawa showing that in the aftermath of hypocaloric diet (low caloric=burning one's body fat), during the recovery phase (=high carbohydrate) thermogenesis decreases by 30% for months.
There are plenty of reports of people feeling always cold when following the popular low fat high vegetable diets.
Stan (Heretic)
There is a lot of reason to believe that saturated fat extends life and PUFA oils shorten it. Also, there is a difference between fat from ruminants and fat from pigs or chickens, which are usually high in PUFAs, even when fed a low-PUFA diet. Ruminants can add hydrogen to the fat in their diet, whereas other animals can't. Jan K's emphasis on pork is misguided, I think. Pork fat is 3-6x more unsaturated than beef and butter. Chicken and turkey are 2x as unsaturated as pork, duck, and goose. So eat pork, duck, and goose over chicken and turkey (as Jan K suggests). But focus on beef, lamb, suet, pork leaf fat, coconut oil, butter, marrow, fatty liver, and macadamia oil.
Replacing grains with tubers would be a significant improvement in most people's diets. Without skin, potatoes are low in fiber (1.5% by weight), low in PUFAs (1% of calories or less), and contain higher levels of Vitamins B and C.
Most of these studies are meaningless as they only look at mortality from single cause, instead of all-cause. I think the lack of PUFAs in Kitava's diet protects them against smoking. If they ate PUFAs, they would have higher rates of smoking releated diseases, just like industrial, Westernized countries do. PUFAs make the damage even worse from being exposed to sunlight, pollution, chemicals, etc. The less PUFAs eaten, the more immune people would be to such poisoning.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/51/3/441.pdf
Stephan,
First of all, thanks for a great blog, I really appreciate what your doing here.
Second, speaking of high fat diets, I noticed that you sometimes cite to the Hyperlipid blog with approval. What do you think of his position on fruits and veggies being something to avoid? I look forward to your opinion on this issue.
-Todd (fellow Seattleite)
Hi Todd,
Nice to hear from you. I do like Peter's blog. Here's my current position on vegetables and fruit:
Some hunter-gatherer and healthy non-industrial societies ate them regularly, many don't. Hunter-gatherers typically went for the most calorie-dense food available, like animal foods and starchy tubers. So vegetables are not absolutely necessary for health.
They are a good source of minerals and certain vitamins, but plant vitamins are not absolutely necessary, as a traditional Inuit or Masai would have told you.
I think vegetables can be part of a healthy diet, but it may be couterproductive to eat them immoderately. I certainly don't believe they're the panacea some people would have us believe they are.
Is there a list of all the 12 studies floating around somewhere?
Links to abstracts or something like that?
Hi Quelle,
I haven't posted them because it would be a big pain to include all the links. I recognize it would be a good idea. I may do it at some point.
Just type those studies here in the comment section.
Against:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4124909
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5834916
For:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5953429
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/727035
No effect:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2166702
etc...
Your posts are wonderful, but clearly pitched to your fellow students or medical practitioners, who should certainly be made aware of the true facts. But a more accessible report aimed at the layman would be very valuable indeed. The new information coming in about the benefits of coconut oil, etc, need to be sorted out for the consumer (c.f. "Dr Fife's Healthy Ways Newsletter"). Though I would dearly love to point readers to a central source for this sort of data, there doesn't appear to be one.
archimedes
Stephan
It seems The Cochrane The Cochrane Collaboration which is a more respected body of opinion has reviewed this topic.
Their conclusion from an analysis of 27 studies rather than the 12 of your source, is radically different than what you claim and proves you and Anthony Colo wrong.
See here:
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002137.html
What do you think of THAT.
Razwell,
OK, first of all, the Cochrane paper found no significant effect on mortality of modifying dietary fat, so that pretty much ends the discussion right there. If your goal is to avoid dying, it's not the method of choice.
Second, they cast their net more broadly. My post was on saturated fat, not any kind of fat modification like the Cochrane paper. But my post also restricted itself to studies that were specifically designed to look at saturated fat and mortality, not dinky studies that had mortality as a secondary outcome like the Cochrane study included.
Furthermore, they excluded results from the Sydney diet-heart study for some reason. That was a large, well-conducted study that found an increase in mortality when participants switched from animal fat to vegetable oils. If they had included that study, it would have changed the result. I'm sure they were happy to exclude it.
The bottom line is that if you look at the totality of the large, well-conducted studies, there isn't even a hint of evidence that saturated fat is behind CHD or anything else. And that fits in perfectly with the fact that a number of cultures that eat extreme amounts of saturated fat don't have elevated CHD risk.
So anyway, if you want to avoid saturated fat, be my guest, but you're wasting your effort. Let us know how it works out for you buddy.
Post a Comment