Does Saturated Fat Affect Cholesterol Levels?

I feel like the answer to this question changes regularly, but I'm trying to understand the effect Saturated Fat has on blood Cholesterol levels.

What's the latest science on this? Can someone point me to some reputable, non-woo sources I can read up on that are written for the layperson?

I'm asking for educational reasons. I don't have high cholesterol.

Replies

CharlieBeansmomTracey

ladyhusker39 wrote: »

I feel like the answer to this question changes regularly, but I'm trying to understand the effect Saturated Fat has on blood Cholesterol levels.

What's the latest science on this? Can someone point me to some reputable, non-woo sources I can read up on that are written for the layperson?

I'm asking for educational reasons. I don't have high cholesterol.

if you have a genetic cholesterol disorder like I do called familial hypercholesterolemia then yes it can effect blood cholesterol levels. if you dont have high cholesterol and its normal then no I dont think it does. my body produces too much cholesterol and my body(liver) cannot process it like other people can. so therefore it clogs arteries and caused other issues which can be deadly if you dont get it under control. I have to do a low fat(of all kinds) low cholesterol,high fiber diet. I also am one who has to take meds to bring it down, for me diet and exercise makes no difference. I was diagnosed when at a healthy weight.

also if you have issues with your liver not working correctly it may also cause high cholesterol if you eat saturated fats. for me though even healthy fats have to be watched

CharlieBeansmomTracey

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5293238/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7849650

ladyhusker39

CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »

ladyhusker39 wrote: »

I feel like the answer to this question changes regularly, but I'm trying to understand the effect Saturated Fat has on blood Cholesterol levels.

What's the latest science on this? Can someone point me to some reputable, non-woo sources I can read up on that are written for the layperson?

I'm asking for educational reasons. I don't have high cholesterol.

if you have a genetic cholesterol disorder like I do called familial hypercholesterolemia then yes it can effect blood cholesterol levels. if you dont have high cholesterol and its normal then no I dont think it does. my body produces too much cholesterol and my body(liver) cannot process it like other people can. so therefore it clogs arteries and caused other issues which can be deadly if you dont get it under control. I have to do a low fat(of all kinds) low cholesterol,high fiber diet. I also am one who has to take meds to bring it down, for me diet and exercise makes no difference. I was diagnosed when at a healthy weight.

also if you have issues with your liver not working correctly it may also cause high cholesterol if you eat saturated fats. for me though even healthy fats have to be watched

I think I've seen you talk about this before but now that I'm specifically looking into it, it's seems more significant. I'm so sorry you have this condition but glad that you've learned what it is and have a good plan for addressing it.

elsie6hickman

Yes, saturated fats and transfats do affect your blood cholesterol in most people. You know what saturated fat looks like - dense and thick? That should give you a good idea what happens in your body.

ladyhusker39

elsie6hickman wrote: »

Yes, saturated fats and transfats do affect your blood cholesterol in most people. You know what saturated fat looks like - dense and thick? That should give you a good idea what happens in your body.

How does that relate to cholesterol?

pinuplove

elsie6hickman wrote: »

Yes, saturated fats and transfats do affect your blood cholesterol in most people. You know what saturated fat looks like - dense and thick? That should give you a good idea what happens in your body.

My insides must look like peanut butter.

elsie6hickman

It lowers your "good' cholesterol (HDL) and increases your "bad" cholesterol (LDL). It will also increase your Triglycerides, which is the amount of fat in your blood.

mmapags

elsie6hickman wrote: »

It lowers your "good' cholesterol (HDL) and increases your "bad" cholesterol (LDL). It will also increase your Triglycerides, which is the amount of fat in your blood.

Not true at all. Neither of your posts. In the absence of hypercholesterolemia, dietary fat has little or no relationship to serum cholesterol. If you believe it does, please post the research that supports your opinion. Meanwhile, Google the lipid hypothesis and the Framingham Heart Study.

ladyhusker39

elsie6hickman wrote: »

It lowers your "good' cholesterol (HDL) and increases your "bad" cholesterol (LDL). It will also increase your Triglycerides, which is the amount of fat in your blood.

Can you elaborate on how it does that? You're making a statement but not really explaining it.

ladyhusker39

mmapags wrote: »

elsie6hickman wrote: »

It lowers your "good' cholesterol (HDL) and increases your "bad" cholesterol (LDL). It will also increase your Triglycerides, which is the amount of fat in your blood.

Not true at all. Neither of your posts. In the absence of hypercholesterolemia, dietary fat has little or no relationship to serum cholesterol. If you believe it does, please post the research that supports your opinion. Meanwhile, Google the lipid hypothesis and the Framingham Heart Study.

Thanks Yoda

This is what I thought as well, but I've seen several recommendations to lower SF if you have high cholesterol and it sounds an awful like like the now debunked advice to cut dietary cholesterol.

Also, I'll look into the references you mentioned. Thanks again.

elsie6hickman

I'm not a medical professional, all I know is based on my personal research. mmapags seems to have the inside info on this. I do apologize if I have given you bad information. I defer to the experts.

kimny72

So I'm going to jump in as a confused layperson just like you

It seems to me like all the major health organizations (AHA, health.gov, Mayo Clinic, etc) still say diets high in saturated fat contribute to high cholesterol, and urge those with heart disease or a high risk to limit sat fat. But recent research is starting to look like that's not the case.

I found these recently, and actually bookmarked them to read later. Not sure they will clear anything up and not claiming they prove anything, just points to ponder

British Journal of Sports Medicine Saturated fat does not clog the arteries

Effects of a very high saturated fat diet on LDL particles in adults with atherogenic dyslipidemia: A randomized controlled trial

Backlash after report claims saturated fats do not increase heart risk

I know some people talk about sat fat's link to high cholesterol like it's completely debunked, but I'm not sure where that confidence comes from yet. To be fair, I naturally don't get much sat fat anyway, so I just recently became interested in this and am looking to learn more myself :drinker:

SweatLikeDog

Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig

nvmomketo

I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.

... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.

Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.

AnvilHead

SweatLikeDog wrote: »

Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig

^ Save your time, unless you want to see quackery and unsubstantiated fearmongering at its best. Lustig is about as reliable as Dr. Oz.

Firstly, where does Lustig even address cholesterol in that video? Or anything about fat's relationship to it? Why is it even relevant to this thread, other than as a thinly disguised plug for keto?

Secondly, here's a thorough, evidence-based rebuttal to his woo in that video: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

On topic: In this meta-analysis, they predicted that "compliance with current dietary recommendations (30% of energy from fat, < 10% from saturated fat, and < 300 mg cholesterol/d) will reduce plasma total and low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations by approximately 5% compared with amounts associated with the average American diet.":

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/65/6/1747/4655489

Five percent.

kimny72

SweatLikeDog wrote: »

Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig

I don't see how that helps, or fits the description of "Can someone point me to some reputable, non-woo sources" OP asked for, but that's just my opinion. I was able to find lots of quasi-doctors or doctors reaching out of their specialty attempting to make a name for themselves by making the case on their blog-website, but I don't think that's what she was looking for.

CharlieBeansmomTracey

kimny72 wrote: »

So I'm going to jump in as a confused layperson just like you It seems to me like all the major health organizations (AHA, health.gov, Mayo Clinic, etc) still say diets high in saturated fat contribute to high cholesterol, and urge those with heart disease or a high risk to limit sat fat. But recent research is starting to look like that's not the case.

I found these recently, and actually bookmarked them to read later. Not sure they will clear anything up and not claiming they prove anything, just points to ponder

British Journal of Sports Medicine Saturated fat does not clog the arteries

Effects of a very high saturated fat diet on LDL particles in adults with atherogenic dyslipidemia: A randomized controlled trial

Backlash after report claims saturated fats do not increase heart risk

I know some people talk about sat fat's link to high cholesterol like it's completely debunked, but I'm not sure where that confidence comes from yet. To be fair, I naturally don't get much sat fat anyway, so I just recently became interested in this and am looking to learn more myself :drinker:

well I can say that for me I do have some artherosclerosis due to my genetic defect and not watching my diet all those years ago, but then again back then I did not know it was genetic. I tried to eat as best as I could back then and ate low fat most of my life but obviously that didnt help as much as I think it should have. Im going to be 44 on sunday and I shouldnt have these issues but I do. for me the heart attack,stroke,TIA risk is real. the cholesterol and fat gets stored under my skin as well as in my arteries. its not fun to have when you have fat pads on your ankles and one on a knee joint. they have gotten smaller but still not gone yet.

kimny72

nvmomketo wrote: »

I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.

... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.

Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.

Is there any way to learn from Teicholtz without buying her book or subscribing to her newsletter? Because her "Big Fat Surprise" branded website that sells her book and investigative journalism and keeps popping up an offer for her newsletter doesn't instill confidence. Maybe I just didn't go through enough pages in my google search?

I googled David Feldman and came up with a stand up comedian, a professor of physics, a court reporter, and an orthopedist. Then I added "cholesterol" to the search and found the blog Cholesterol Code that says he's a Software Engineer and entrepreneur who does LCHF and learned everything through his own research and experiments. What he's done might be fascinating, but I don't know if I would trust my future health to him.

I guess for me personally, I would want more than journalists and hobbyists if I'm going to declare the recommendation of all sorts of health orgs outdated. I'm not saying their not, just that I wouldn't be convinced. I'll definitely check out the Cholesterol Code out of curiosity when I get more time.

Thanks for starting this thread @ladyhusker39 , fascinating stuff to read this weekend now!

psuLemon

The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.

But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.

But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...

SweatLikeDog

Geezus H! Three comments:

No-one is a delegated spokesperson for the OP.

Lustig has his flaws, but his explanation of cholesterol is concise, crystal clear and dead on starting at 36:29 right here

https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?t=36m29s

The ever quotable Alan Aragon said exactly the same thing, but not as clearly halfway down the page: https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/3jrc39/question_about_eggs_and_cholesterol/

nvmomketo

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.

... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.

Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.

Is there any way to learn from Teicholtz without buying her book or subscribing to her newsletter? Because her "Big Fat Surprise" branded website that sells her book and investigative journalism and keeps popping up an offer for her newsletter doesn't instill confidence. Maybe I just didn't go through enough pages in my google search?

I googled David Feldman and came up with a stand up comedian, a professor of physics, a court reporter, and an orthopedist. Then I added "cholesterol" to the search and found the blog Cholesterol Code that says he's a Software Engineer and entrepreneur who does LCHF and learned everything through his own research and experiments. What he's done might be fascinating, but I don't know if I would trust my future health to him.

I guess for me personally, I would want more than journalists and hobbyists if I'm going to declare the recommendation of all sorts of health orgs outdated. I'm not saying their not, just that I wouldn't be convinced. I'll definitely check out the Cholesterol Code out of curiosity when I get more time.

Thanks for starting this thread @ladyhusker39 , fascinating stuff to read this weekend now!

I read Teicholtz's book from the library. Her book is where I got my information although she has done some good lectures.

This one was one of her earlier lectures. I find some of the more recent ones to be better but often longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHGiid6N9Q&vl=en

Dave Feldman is an engineer with interesting n=1 experiments which have been replicated dozens of times. You might not want to base all of your health on him, but his self experiments made me think. Consistently he shows that:

High fat + high calories = lower cholesterol and triglycerides within three days. And that, low calorie + low fat = raised cholesterol levels within 3 days.

This is a very early video. Later videos get into the results of others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZu52duIqno&vl=en

psuLemon

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.

... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.

Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.

Is there any way to learn from Teicholtz without buying her book or subscribing to her newsletter? Because her "Big Fat Surprise" branded website that sells her book and investigative journalism and keeps popping up an offer for her newsletter doesn't instill confidence. Maybe I just didn't go through enough pages in my google search?

I googled David Feldman and came up with a stand up comedian, a professor of physics, a court reporter, and an orthopedist. Then I added "cholesterol" to the search and found the blog Cholesterol Code that says he's a Software Engineer and entrepreneur who does LCHF and learned everything through his own research and experiments. What he's done might be fascinating, but I don't know if I would trust my future health to him.

I guess for me personally, I would want more than journalists and hobbyists if I'm going to declare the recommendation of all sorts of health orgs outdated. I'm not saying their not, just that I wouldn't be convinced. I'll definitely check out the Cholesterol Code out of curiosity when I get more time.

Thanks for starting this thread @ladyhusker39 , fascinating stuff to read this weekend now!

I read Teicholtz's book from the library. Her book is where I got my information although she has done some good lectures.

This one was one of her earlier lectures. I find some of the more recent ones to be better but often longer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHGiid6N9Q&vl=en

Dave Feldman is an engineer with interesting n=1 experiments which have been replicated dozens of times. You might not want to base all of your health on him, but his self experiments made me think. Consistently he shows that:

High fat + high calories = lower cholesterol and triglycerides within three days. And that, low calorie + low fat = raised cholesterol levels within 3 days.

This is a very early video. Later videos get into the results of others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZu52duIqno&vl=en

Those changes in triglycerides is pretty well established though. Lower carbs increases free flowing fatty acids. Lyle McDonald talks about that stuff in booka written in like 2001. That is why its important to not get bloodwork not when dieting or after sweeping changes in diet.

pinuplove

psuLemon wrote: »

The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.

But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.

But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...

Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?

psuLemon

pinuplove wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.

But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.

But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...

Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?

Its the accompany or lack there of nutrients.

Also, semantically, not all sugars are the same. They metabolize at different rates and in some cases in difference parts of the body. Similarly, things like coconut oils are medium chain triglycerides which metabolize much faster than long chain triglycerides.

Overall, health is still about total diet. But if one wants an easy way to prioritize nutrients/foods, limited fried foods in favor of whole foods, is always a good choice.

pinuplove

psuLemon wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.

But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.

But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...

Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?

Its the accompany or lack there of nutrients.

Also, semantically, not all sugars are the same. They metabolize at different rates and in some cases in difference parts of the body. Similarly, things like coconut oils are medium chain triglycerides which metabolize much faster than long chain triglycerides.

Overall, health is still about total diet. But if one wants an easy way to prioritize nutrients/foods, limited fried foods in favor of whole foods, is always a good choice.

Thanks for elaborating

I'm not trying to argue that a Twinkie is equivalent to an apple or that full fat yogurt equals fried chicken, nutritionally. Just found it interesting that the argument I see so often (that sugar is sugar is sugar) doesn't translate here for saturated fats.

ladyhusker39

AnvilHead wrote: »

SweatLikeDog wrote: »

Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig

^ Save your time, unless you want to see quackery and unsubstantiated fearmongering at its best. Lustig is about as reliable as Dr. Oz.

Firstly, where does Lustig even address cholesterol in that video? Or anything about fat's relationship to it? Why is it even relevant to this thread, other than as a thinly disguised plug for keto?

Secondly, here's a thorough, evidence-based rebuttal to his woo in that video: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

On topic: In this meta-analysis, they predicted that "compliance with current dietary recommendations (30% of energy from fat, < 10% from saturated fat, and < 300 mg cholesterol/d) will reduce plasma total and low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations by approximately 5% compared with amounts associated with the average American diet.":

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/65/6/1747/4655489

Five percent.

Thanks. I wasn't even going to look at that silly video. I appreciate your help.

ladyhusker39

kimny72 wrote: »

SweatLikeDog wrote: »

Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig

I don't see how that helps, or fits the description of "Can someone point me to some reputable, non-woo sources" OP asked for, but that's just my opinion. I was able to find lots of quasi-doctors or doctors reaching out of their specialty attempting to make a name for themselves by making the case on their blog-website, but I don't think that's what she was looking for.

Absolutely. That's why I asked here instead of on one of those sites.

AnnPT77

pinuplove wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.

But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.

But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...

Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?

Its the accompany or lack there of nutrients.

Also, semantically, not all sugars are the same. They metabolize at different rates and in some cases in difference parts of the body. Similarly, things like coconut oils are medium chain triglycerides which metabolize much faster than long chain triglycerides.

Overall, health is still about total diet. But if one wants an easy way to prioritize nutrients/foods, limited fried foods in favor of whole foods, is always a good choice.

Thanks for elaborating I'm not trying to argue that a Twinkie is equivalent to an apple or that full fat yogurt equals fried chicken, nutritionally. Just found it interesting that the argument I see so often (that sugar is sugar is sugar) doesn't translate here for saturated fats.

Consider context. Man-o-man, I see a lot of people posting here with things similar to "if I drink one soda pop within my calories will it ruin my weight loss" or "I'm eliminating all sugar from my diet" (but not eliminating veggies/fruit).

It's really common. So, there's a bit of rhetorical "sugar is sugar is sugar" or "sugar is not the devil" as a way to talk people off that silly ledge. Somewhere in those same threads, you'll usually find multiple people saying things like "overall nutrition is important" or "be sure you're getting enough protein and healthy fats" or "don't let sugar drive out other necessary nutrition", etc.

These days, we don't see a lot of posts saying "if I eat a small burger within my diet will it ruin my weight loss" or "I'm eliminating all sat fat from my diet". In the rare cases we do, you might see the equivalent of "sat fat is sat fat is sat fat" or "sat fat is not the devil".

Circumstances here more frequently call for the de-escalation of sugar phobias. If this were the 1980s, it might have been more likely to be de-escalation of sat fat phobias.

Either way, I personally think the answer (concerning anything that's a rational food, not a near-poison) is "as long as you hit your calorie goal, don't have a contraindicating medical condition, and it isn't driving out other important nutrition, you'll be fine".

pinuplove

True. I do see a few posts about being scared of fat, but it's usually because of the sub- numbers turning red in their diary since there's no 'recommended' amount.

Personally, I love fat and have that macro set higher to align with my eating habits. I notice sat fat amounts every now and then, but it's more of an 'oh, look at at that' kind of thing since I have no medical reason to avoid it. I never look at sugar

emjay196363

OP, thanks for starting this thread. I'm really confused right now about sat fat, after my last blood work showed high cholesterol and very high triglycerides. I'm doing lots of research myself.