Confused about fat!?

never2bstopped

peter56765 wrote: »

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.

While you may splitting hairs about which fats may or may not be more healthy. The fact is that increasing your fat intake even in the form of bacon and butter is no less healthy than increasing your carb intake to compensate for lower fat.

Again, this is not in dispute.

Just because mono and polyunsaturated may have a more positive impact on heart disease doesn't change the conclusion that saturated fats don't have a negative effect.

Disagree. It is premature to draw such a conclusion based merely on the observation that substituting saturated fat for carbohydrates is not any better. It would be akin to saying that replacing arsenic in your diet with lead paint did not result in fewer deaths so therefore arsenic must be OK.

Only if we agreed that carbs were bad for you, and that is not something I would agree to

peter56765

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.

While you may splitting hairs about which fats may or may not be more healthy. The fact is that increasing your fat intake even in the form of bacon and butter is no less healthy than increasing your carb intake to compensate for lower fat.

Again, this is not in dispute.

Just because mono and polyunsaturated may have a more positive impact on heart disease doesn't change the conclusion that saturated fats don't have a negative effect.

Disagree. It is premature to draw such a conclusion based merely on the observation that substituting saturated fat for carbohydrates is not any better. It would be akin to saying that replacing arsenic in your diet with lead paint did not result in fewer deaths so therefore arsenic must be OK.

Only if we agreed that carbs were bad for you, and that is not something I would agree to

"bad" and "good" are relative terms. Very small amounts of arsenic and lead paint are not harmful while too much of something as vital as water can be fatal. So it is with carbs and saturated fat. You can consume a certain amount of them with no problems at all. That doesn't mean there is no limit. The typical first world diet contains a large amount of saturated fat and every major world health organization recommends limiting it, and this has not changed, even one year after the Chowdhury study. The main criticism of the meta-analysis is that it contains an overly broad conclusion that saturated fat should no longer be linked to heart disease, despite the fact that there are studies in the meta-analysis that show the contrary.

geimerst

Here is Dr. Neal Barnard, from PCRM's writings on the Saturated Fat Study. It discusses the dangers of meta-analysis and the problem with the meta-analysis of dietary fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease by Chowdhury et al. - it combined the results of several prior research studies. Some had shown marked dangers of saturated fat, while others did not, and they were all blended together in a statistical stew. The weak studies tend to dilute the stronger ones, masking real dangers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-barnard-md/grease-health_b_5131729.html

peter56765

ahamm002 wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.

So olive oil and nuts have health benefits? Wow, that's not exactly new or surprising info!

I imagine if you compared most foods with nuts and olive oil (or raw veggies, etc.) you would find "much evidence" that heart disease risk could be reduced by replacing it with those foods.

That doesn't mean we have to avoid anything that isn't as healthy as nuts, especially if we're already getting plenty of healthy fats in our diets.

Good does not necessarily cancel out bad. If you ate a generous amount of olive oil and nuts but then ate some wild almonds (which contain toxic levels of cyanide), all that good wholesome food isn't going to matter. All nutrients are fine within limits. Too much of anything, even water, can be unhealthy. Saturated fat is something the first world eats in great abundance, along with sugar and salt. At some point, it's just too much and so we see the current "plague" of first world diseases like coronary artery disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. It's reckless to claim we can eat whatever we want as long as we also consume so called healthy foods too.

never2bstopped

peter56765 wrote: »

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.

While you may splitting hairs about which fats may or may not be more healthy. The fact is that increasing your fat intake even in the form of bacon and butter is no less healthy than increasing your carb intake to compensate for lower fat.

Again, this is not in dispute.

Just because mono and polyunsaturated may have a more positive impact on heart disease doesn't change the conclusion that saturated fats don't have a negative effect.

Disagree. It is premature to draw such a conclusion based merely on the observation that substituting saturated fat for carbohydrates is not any better. It would be akin to saying that replacing arsenic in your diet with lead paint did not result in fewer deaths so therefore arsenic must be OK.

Only if we agreed that carbs were bad for you, and that is not something I would agree to

"bad" and "good" are relative terms. Very small amounts of arsenic and lead paint are not harmful while too much of something as vital as water can be fatal. So it is with carbs and saturated fat. You can consume a certain amount of them with no problems at all. That doesn't mean there is no limit. The typical first world diet contains a large amount of saturated fat and every major world health organization recommends limiting it, and this has not changed, even one year after the Chowdhury study. The main criticism of the meta-analysis is that it contains an overly broad conclusion that saturated fat should no longer be linked to heart disease, despite the fact that there are studies in the meta-analysis that show the contrary.

Yes everything has a limit at which it becomes dangerous and even lethal, to include your healthy fats, but what this study seems to say is the fats are no worse than carbs. To me this says, being scared of consuming them over the recommended limit, assuming you are getting your recommended min of omega's, is unnecessary since there is no recommend limit for carbs.

peter56765

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

never2bstopped wrote: »

peter56765 wrote: »

The study's finding about replacing saturated fat with starch or sugar is not in question. There is no benefit in doing so and this should finally put to bed the "low fat" diet fad from years past. However, there does appear to be a benefit with replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, at least if the unsaturated fat is from nuts and olive oil. The Chowdhury conclusion stating that there is no benefit ever from replacing saturated fat in your diet is therefore not entirely correct.

While you may splitting hairs about which fats may or may not be more healthy. The fact is that increasing your fat intake even in the form of bacon and butter is no less healthy than increasing your carb intake to compensate for lower fat.

Again, this is not in dispute.

Just because mono and polyunsaturated may have a more positive impact on heart disease doesn't change the conclusion that saturated fats don't have a negative effect.

Disagree. It is premature to draw such a conclusion based merely on the observation that substituting saturated fat for carbohydrates is not any better. It would be akin to saying that replacing arsenic in your diet with lead paint did not result in fewer deaths so therefore arsenic must be OK.

Only if we agreed that carbs were bad for you, and that is not something I would agree to

"bad" and "good" are relative terms. Very small amounts of arsenic and lead paint are not harmful while too much of something as vital as water can be fatal. So it is with carbs and saturated fat. You can consume a certain amount of them with no problems at all. That doesn't mean there is no limit. The typical first world diet contains a large amount of saturated fat and every major world health organization recommends limiting it, and this has not changed, even one year after the Chowdhury study. The main criticism of the meta-analysis is that it contains an overly broad conclusion that saturated fat should no longer be linked to heart disease, despite the fact that there are studies in the meta-analysis that show the contrary.

Yes everything has a limit at which it becomes dangerous and even lethal, to include your healthy fats, but what this study seems to say is the fats are no worse than carbs.

Yes, that should be the take away from the study, however that is not what was generally reported. A typical article from a year ago looked like this: dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2582867/Saturated-fat-DOESNT-cause-heart-disease-all.html

To me this says, being scared of consuming them over the recommended limit, assuming you are getting your recommended min of omega's, is unnecessary since there is no recommend limit for carbs.

And perhaps there should be, but that's a discussion for another day. You seem to have come to the same conclusion that I did: as long as you stay within the limit, there's no reason to be afraid of saturated fat anymore than you are scared of eating an apple. That, however, is a far cry from claiming that saturated fat plays no role in coronary artery disease, especially given what we know about the excesses of the typical Western diet.