Myth: “Butter is back – you can eat all the saturated fat you want”. REBUTTAL??

KETOGENICGURL

Anyone have an opinion on this nutritionist's opinion???

AlissaRumsey
Myth: “Butter is back – you can eat all the saturated fat you want”.

While we now know that total fat itself is not as much of a concern, type of fat is still important. Evidence shows that when you replace saturated fat with refined carbohydrates, it’s a wash. But when you replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat, you see reduction in heart disease. Saturated fat may not be as bad for us as previously thought, but it does not appear to be beneficial — unlike unsaturated fats, which clearly show a health benefit. No studies have shown health benefits of increased saturated fat.** In terms of full-fat products, it is ok to consume these depending on what the rest
_________________

She does NOT say WHICH poly oils..as we know the high Omega 6 corn/soy & other veggie oils are causes of inflammation…..and pretty much nothing I read chooses them over saturated fats. ONE article i've seen indicates that poly oils can help with heart disease…** and NO ONE is doing high saturated fat in diet studies..so NOTHING to compare it to for that reason, this is very misleading!

Her myth busting is from this article:

48 Nutrition Experts Debunk Top Nutrition Myths
http://www.nutritionfox.com/nutrition-myths/

Nutritionists are NOT liscenced as RDS are….

Sunny_Bunny_

Sometimes I wish I could go to school, become a RD and be a voice of reason and be able to help so many suffering people... But then I remember that I'm a bit old to start a new career and too poor to pay for it. lol

ceciliaslater

Well, I guess I'll just throw away the 1.5lb of butter I just made. So glad this RD could save me from myself.

Or maybe I'll just continue slathering it on my steak and enjoy getting thinner and feeling great... Sounds tasty.

AlabasterVerve

There's too many saturated fat "paradoxes" for me to believe that saturated fat is bad for you. Here's a new one I just saw the other day about India in the 60's:

"Diet. There is much evidence that ischaemic heart disease is caused by the kind and quantity of food eaten, especially the amount of animal fat (Kinsell et al., 1952; Kinsell, 1964; and others). Our data, however, do not support this association of high fat intake with the liability to develop ischaemic heart disease, because while in the north the consumption of fats, most of which are animal fats, is 19 times more than in the south (Indian Council of Medical Research, 1964), the disease is 7 times less in the north than in the south. Moreover, while the milk fats eaten in the north have a preponderance of saturated fatty acids, the seed oils used in the south are mainly composed of unsaturated fatty acids (Indian Council of Medical Research, 1963).

This inverse association is noteworthy, especially because others have also observed this association of high intake of animal fats and freedom from cardiovascular disease (Shaffer et al., 1964; Shaper, Jones, and Kyobe, 1961; Mann, Shaffer, and Rich, 1965). This evidence from other studies and our additional findings of the inverse association of a low intake of total as well as animal fats and a high frequency of ischaemic heart disease in the south are contrary to the view that it is the quantity of dietary fats and their degree of saturation that bear responsibility for cases of this disease.

Lately, however, several workers have observed that it is not dietary fat but sucrose or simple carbohydrate which correlates positively with ischaemic heart disease (Cohen and Teitelbaum, 1964; Yudkin and Roddy, 1964).

The data on fat and sugar consumption of Indians in the north as compared with those in the south (Fig. 2), which are consistent with our own diet surveys, do not support either the fat thesis or the sugar thesis. In fact, this study shows an "inverse" association of high intake of animal fat, a high intake of sugar, and comparative freedom from ischaemic heart disease in the Punjab (north India) in contrast to a low intake of animal fat, a low intake of sugar, and a high frequency of ischaemic heart disease in the south. Furthermore, despite the attention given to dietary fat intake as a prominent environmental factor responsible for the increasing incidence of ischaemic heart disease, there is remarkably little evidence that a change in the nature of fat intake influences survival after the development of ischaemic heart disease (Rose, Thomson, and Williams, 1965; Research Committee: Ball et al., 1965). Obviously our data do not fit the hypothesis that low ratios of poly-unsaturated to saturated fatty acids in food, or even and excess of sugar in food, contribute to an increased incidence of ischaemic heart disease." --Source: Epidemiology of Ischaemic Heart Disease in India

That's just one short section; the whole paper is worth reading, IMO.

wabmester

The epidemiological studies are "paradoxical" because fat metabolism is pretty complex, IMO. A pretty good book on the subject is The Queen of Fats, but it focuses mostly on PUFAs.

So you'll find many arguments for and against SFA based on different epidemiological studies, most of which are close to worthless.

If you look at mechanisms, you'll find incredible complexity. Some enzymes only work on specific fat types, some will accept multiple types, so what ends up in your cells is a function of both fat intake quality and quantity.

Your best bet: if your ancestors ate butter, you're probably OK eating butter too. Ideally in approximately the same quantity they did, and the butter should be made from the milk of cows who ate the same stuff your ancestor's cows ate.