tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post8522313023556342566..comments2024-03-27T23:47:41.656-07:00Comments on Whole Health Source: New Saturated Fat Review Article by Dr. Ronald KraussStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71982121433779695272013-09-09T17:31:33.119-07:002013-09-09T17:31:33.119-07:00This entire argument against saturated fat started...This entire argument against saturated fat started from bad science - one study done in the 60s in the USA concluded that the difference between Japanese and American waistlines was due to one factor only - saturated fat. The grain lobby came in to back that up and gave us the bogus food pyramid we have been using to get fatter for the last 50 years. I have written more about this here:<br />Not only does it show what I have believed all along, it makes sense. Why would foods that we have always consumed - eg meat - suddenly be found to be the root of all evil?<br />It never made sense to me. Furthermore, saturated fat is now found to be GOOD for us. I have done a little research and added it on here:<br />http://www.tony-hakim.com.au/how-bad-is-saturated-fat-really/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07333125010694613775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-73083004221165299112010-09-20T01:42:35.278-07:002010-09-20T01:42:35.278-07:00The health authorities are fully aware of the seri...The health authorities are fully aware of the serious flaws and omissions in this meta-analysis. This study was funded by the National Dairy Council, dairy being the number one source of saturated fat in the U.S. and many other parts of the world. It was also conveniently published just before the USDA lowered the dietary recommendations of saturated fat for the first time in 20 years, from 10% to 7% of total calories. <br /><br />Below is a section from the statement released by the European Heart Network in regards to their opinion of this meta-analysis, titled “European Heart Network position piece: Impact of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease obscured by over‐adjustment in recent meta‐analysis”<br /><br />“However, the meta‐analysis (and an accompanying opinion piece by the same authors (4)) is compromised by a number of serious flaws and omissions.” <br />“The most serious of these flaws is an over‐adjustment for serum cholesterol levels.”<br /> “Adjustment for serum cholesterol levels will inevitably bias the results of the meta-analyses towards finding no association between dietary saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease, but the authors do not mention this limitation in their article.”<br /> “As Jeremiah Stamler asserts in his editorial, what was actually found by the meta-analysis was ‘a statistically non-significant relation of SFA [saturated fat] to CHD... independent of other dietary lipids, serum lipids, and other covariates’. A more appropriate and informative analysis would have included non-adjusted associations between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. An examination of the forest plots provided in the article shows that those cohort studies that did not adjust for serum cholesterol levels were more likely to find a positive association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease, suggesting that a meta-analysis of unadjusted data would likely produce positive results.”<br /><br />The full statement from the European Heart Network can be found below with references to studies that show a positive relationship between saturated fat and heart disease:<br />http://www.sydan.fi/lehtiarkisto/sydan_210/artikkelit/fi_FI/elainrasvat/_files/83538765767049682/default/EHN%20position%20piece%20-%20sats%20meta%20analysis.pdf<br /><br />Below is a published study showing reversal of severe heart disease backed up with angiogram evidence.<br />http://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htmt_warri0rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10516107517329221947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-33128687059247243832010-06-02T10:51:10.784-07:002010-06-02T10:51:10.784-07:00"They have not been exonerated from contribut..."They have not been exonerated from contributing to or causing coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis."<br /><br />"Those bastards, I knew it!"<br /><br />Hahahaha<br /><br />IMO it's not too surprising that Ron Krauss was involved, he is a very competent researcher though he badly needs a translator from scientificese to English<br /><br />http://trinkwasser.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/small-dense-krauss-revisited/<br /><br />esoecially look back to Peter's posts on Hyperlipid<br /><br />A couple I think I missed out<br /><br />http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/3/411<br /><br />http://www.jci.org/articles/view/6572/version/1<br /><br />The real revelation was to see Frank Hu "coming out" from the shadow of Walt Willett at last.<br /><br />I'm similarly optimistic that Simin Liu, who so nearly seems to have grasped things in the past but turned away at the last moment in favour of dogma, will also come onsideAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-65912353640090581932010-01-24T13:53:02.006-08:002010-01-24T13:53:02.006-08:00Thanks TedThanks TedRobert Andrew Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05181027811602620374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71270863298870195582010-01-21T13:57:12.546-08:002010-01-21T13:57:12.546-08:00Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evalua...<a href="http://metabolismsociety.org/App_Themes/Images/AboutFat/Siri-Tarino%20SAFA%20CVD%20Risk.pdf" rel="nofollow">Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association<br />of saturated fat</a><br />Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss<br /><br />Link goes to a full text PDF thanks to <br />http://metabolismsociety.orgTedHutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140097526458431747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-28697759911696751612010-01-20T08:15:59.201-08:002010-01-20T08:15:59.201-08:00I don’t have much more to say. This blog started w...I don’t have much more to say. This blog started with rave reviews of the Krauss meta-analysis. Comments like: “WE WIN!”, “That is amazing.” and “The abstract of this important and wonderful meta-study…” I didn’t think those comments were accurate so I called into question the real value of the study. Hopefully readers now have a better understanding of the issues and I will now rest. I thank contributors as I too have learned from the discussion. Catch you next time.skepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-59974024377917571772010-01-20T07:54:46.937-08:002010-01-20T07:54:46.937-08:00@Robert Andrew Brown
Actually, even stearic acid ...@Robert Andrew Brown<br /><br />Actually, even stearic acid should be considered as healthy by someone as skepticaldoc since they are hypocholesterolemic<br /><br />@skepticaldoc<br /><br />you ask for studies where SFAs are healthy. As far as I know, there is not much, but there is that one<br /><br />Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary<br />atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women<br /><br />SFAs is the only fat (compared to PUFA and MUFAs) in this study that reversed atherosclerosis in post-menauposal women, in the group with the highest intake of SFAs<br /><br />Now, how many studies do you have that directly show that SFAs worsen atherosclerosis, using a marker like coronary angiography, and not blood lipid markers? None, right?<br /><br />You ask for proof that they are healthful. I think you are missing the point. We are asking for proof that they are harmful - which really doesn't seem to be the case.<br /><br />It is important to note that the absence of evidence that they are harmful doesn't make them healthful by default. But it's at least making them neutral. <br /><br />Now, this is not a call for eating extra amount of SFAs - just not a significant criteria for making dietary choice. Like, avoiding butter because it contains SFAs is not supported by science. It's high AGEs content might be a more important concern - but I haven't review much the litterature on exogenous AGEs and health.François Létourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704963616951516321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-43790041726558937602010-01-20T07:46:08.668-08:002010-01-20T07:46:08.668-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.François Létourneauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704963616951516321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-40531059094583275762010-01-20T03:59:24.089-08:002010-01-20T03:59:24.089-08:00Skepticaldoc
What are you views on Omega 6?
Doe...Skepticaldoc<br /><br /><br />What are you views on Omega 6?<br /><br />Does your view on short chain saturates eg Lauric acid differ from that on mid length saturates like stearic and palmitate?<br /><br />What about trans fats as a form of saturate?Robert Andrew Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05181027811602620374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-24801166465039098292010-01-19T23:24:30.761-08:002010-01-19T23:24:30.761-08:00I don't think it's necessary to eat a lot ...I don't think it's necessary to eat a lot of SFA for health. I just haven't found any good reason to avoid it. Every time I look into the claims that SFA are harmful, I find them to be hollow. The hypothesis is a "hangover from the 60s" that doesn't want to die because it's so ingrained in the popular psyche. I can't remember who I stole that quote from. <br /><br />Plenty of cultures seemed to do fine on diets that were low in SFA. And plenty did fine on diets so high in SFA they'd make a cardiologist's eyes pop out (up to 50% of calories). I will note however that the most nutrient-dense fats are rich in SFA: butter and red palm oil.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-31601902581956362982010-01-19T21:44:43.365-08:002010-01-19T21:44:43.365-08:00Sue, I hold on to my notion because I have not see...Sue, I hold on to my notion because I have not seen good science supporting the healthy nature of saturated fat? I would embrace that science with all my heart.skepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-58649710994064722482010-01-19T21:32:54.230-08:002010-01-19T21:32:54.230-08:00Skepticaldoc,
I think no matter what the science s...Skepticaldoc,<br />I think no matter what the science shows you are still going to have reservations about SFA. The SFA are bad for you is ingrained in you and you can't shake it.Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03181442844616803097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-4730441981988143242010-01-19T21:12:44.592-08:002010-01-19T21:12:44.592-08:00Good points, toddhargrove. I don’t disagree. If yo...Good points, toddhargrove. I don’t disagree. If you look at the studies that were used in the Krauss meta-analysis you will see the same studies that Gary Taubes criticizes in Good Calories, Bad Calories. Taubes mentions specifically: the Nurses Health Study and Walter Willet, Ancel Keys and the Seven Country Study, the Honolulu Heart Study, Framingham and more. These are the same studies that Krauss used for his meta-analysis. The same studies that Taubes found fault with in his book. How can anyone support the meta-analysis and at the same time pay homage to Taubes, who excoriated the studies used to build the meta-analysis? Taubes recognized these studies to be worthless; compiling them in a meta-analysis only compounds their uselessness.<br /><br />And, I have nothing against lean red meat. My animal protein is almost exclusively fish and venison. The wild deer end up eating a lot of corn out of the cornfields in the Midwest, but fortunately it creates subcutaneous fat which can easily be removed and the muscle doesn’t marble like beef. Venison meatloaf, burgers and roasts can all be very low in SFA. Natural diets do not have to contain excessive amounts of SFA.skepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-26906270808307273642010-01-19T19:10:38.141-08:002010-01-19T19:10:38.141-08:00Skepticaldoc,
I agree it’s a crapshoot. We all ...Skepticaldoc, <br /><br />I agree it’s a crapshoot. We all have to make decisions based on imperfect information. <br /><br />Nutritional science tells us little when we look at one or two studies under a microscope. But when we assemble bits and pieces of reliable information from a wide variety of sources, pictures start to emerge from the pixels of info. After reading about nutrition from lots of different angles and perspectives, such as Weston Price on traditional diets, Loren Cordain on HG diets, Richard Wrangham on cooking, and the modern biochem knowledge as assembled and framed by Taubes, Eades, Stephan, Peter, Kurt and others, a picture starts to emerge. The picture shows that natural diets are your best chance to steer clear of disease, and that animal fat is a key part of a natural human diet. <br /><br />Seeing this picture is really more an art than a science. The root word for science means to cut or split apart. The root word for art mean to join or fit together different pieces skillfully. Stephan, Peter, Kurt and Eades are scientists but also artists who can fit the pieces of info together to make a coherent picture. People like Dean Ornish and T. Colin Campbell cannot make a clear picture of all the info. Their recommended diets don’t fit with what we know about evolution and HG health. It’s bad art. There may be some small pieces of (bad) science to support it that looks good under the microscope, but from a larger perspective that includes evidence from a wide variety of sources, the stories just don’t make any sense. Laypeople are perfectly capable of seeing this. Mainstream nutrition experts can’t because they are lost in the bits and pieces under the microscope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-14900460848796031212010-01-19T14:56:36.390-08:002010-01-19T14:56:36.390-08:00It's a crap shoot. Like all of life. If you fe...It's a crap shoot. Like all of life. If you feel comfortable eating SFA till your heart's content (pun intended), be my guest. I have not seen the evidence showing the safety of SFA and the Krauss meta-analysis article in no way establishes that safety, IMO. <br />I would bet my life more on the N Karelia project than on this meta-analysis. And, in fact, the SFA eaters are doing just the opposite. Its a crap shoot. The house wins more often because they have the odds in their favor. My intention is to keep the odds in my favor with the best research. Meta-analysis does not qualify. And, I would suggest that readers re-read the authors' conclusions in my original post. It is not a powerful study, IMO.skepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-15641410256470098682010-01-19T14:26:16.359-08:002010-01-19T14:26:16.359-08:00Oh yeah, and the N Karelia project also correspond...Oh yeah, and the N Karelia project also corresponded approximately to the introduction of cholesterol-lowering drugs...<br /><br />Plus improvements in emergency care of MI patients...<br /><br />Not a very tightly controlled experiment if I do say so myself!Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-28476561201714433882010-01-19T14:20:18.399-08:002010-01-19T14:20:18.399-08:00Haha, you guys are too much.
By the way skeptical...Haha, you guys are too much.<br /><br />By the way skepticaldoc, the N Karelia project involved:<br /><br />-Several diet changes<br />-Smoking reduction<br />-Increased risk factor monitoring<br />-Increased exercise<br /><br />Also, the CHD death rate was dropping even before the N Karelia project began, according to the paper you cited. Would you explain to us why you're so sure the reduction in CHD deaths was due to a reduction in saturated fat intake?Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-36652855046118066672010-01-19T14:04:43.202-08:002010-01-19T14:04:43.202-08:00OK. Bon Appetit. http://tinyurl.com/ykg6tg6
You...OK. Bon Appetit. http://tinyurl.com/ykg6tg6 <br /><br />You all have it right and Finland has it wrong. Imagine being smarter than a whole country!<br /><br />Näkemiinskepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-24476316704839175432010-01-19T12:14:24.353-08:002010-01-19T12:14:24.353-08:00teh sun and water too?!!?
oh noes!!!
Looks li...teh sun and water too?!!? <br /><br />oh noes!!! <br /><br />Looks like we is just SURROUNDED by stuff that hasn't been exonerated from contributing to or causing coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis!!! <br /><br />What's next, air?<br /><br />I mean, yikes!caphuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17630921602227752611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-37288274963931777282010-01-19T11:38:54.941-08:002010-01-19T11:38:54.941-08:00"They have not been exonerated from contribut..."They have not been exonerated from contributing to or causing coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis."<br /><br />The sun hasn't been exonerated from contributing to or causing atherosclerosis either. Nor has water. What exactly is your point?kiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06442880766791928662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-57219160561221880062010-01-19T11:09:54.170-08:002010-01-19T11:09:54.170-08:00Skepticaldoc,
Let's assume you are correct t...Skepticaldoc, <br /><br />Let's assume you are correct that no one has proven that SFAs do not contribute to heart disease. The point still remains that there now remains very little reason to fear SFAs as a source of heart disease. If a person continued to be suspicious of SFAs just because they have not been proven innocent, then by logic they should be suspicious of almost every food on the planet as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-64857123948142803582010-01-19T09:56:51.770-08:002010-01-19T09:56:51.770-08:00Those bastards, I knew it!
SFAs, I want you all t...Those bastards, I knew it!<br /><br />SFAs, I want you all to go and sit down on that bench that says Group W . . .caphuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17630921602227752611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-26585728236163310102010-01-19T09:45:06.145-08:002010-01-19T09:45:06.145-08:00They have not been exonerated from contributing to...They have not been exonerated from contributing to or causing coronary artery disease and atherosclerosis.skepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-1849172000135161522010-01-19T09:18:47.456-08:002010-01-19T09:18:47.456-08:00skepticaldoc: "exonerated" from what, ex...skepticaldoc: "exonerated" from what, exactly?caphuffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17630921602227752611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-53137934190495911142010-01-19T09:13:15.120-08:002010-01-19T09:13:15.120-08:00I don't believe that SFA has been exonerated b...I don't believe that SFA has been exonerated by any worthy studies. Some here were making an argument that the Krauss article provided exoneration and I was arguing to the contrary.skepticaldochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338374773220426846noreply@blogger.com