Research on Saturated Fat vs. Fish Oil and an Editorial Rant

TrainingWithTonya

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-8-16.pdf

Some of the recent research being done here in Georgia on the effects of fat type in protecting against heart disease, diabetes, etc. I know the popular thing here lately has been to not believe that saturated fat is bad for us, but the science isn't backing that up. This study used two groups of mice and fed one a diet high in saturated fat and the other a diet with the same amount of fat content, but from fish oil instead of saturated fat. They then instigated inflammation chemically to see what the effects of that inflammation would be on the mice and if one group was better protected from heart disease, high blood sugar, etc. It showed that after the two instances of induced inflammation, the saturated fat group had a higher death rate (4 total mice--1 from the 1st round of inflammation and 3 from the second) then the fish oil group (1 mouse died after the second round of inflammation), and the cholesterol and blood glucose levels of the saturated fat group were worse then the fish oil group. Also, the amount of body fat was worse in the saturated fat group. The one thing that really stood out for me was the fact that the saturated fat group lost more weight after the rounds of inflammation, but it was due to catabolism of muscle tissue. Yeah, they were losing muscle and not fat! I know some on here will say how we can't trust these studies because they were on mice and not humans, but unfortunately we have to follow ethics when we do research and it's unethical to risk the lives of humans by putting them on a high fat diet, so this is the best we can do. Even though it is mice and not human, at least it was actual science and not the anecdotal evidence that is spouted in the media to back up the fad diet of the week. My point of posting this isn't to get into a debate about fat or lack thereof in a diet being better or worse. My point is that instead of believing the hype behind popular fads, do the research yourself to see what science you trust. Check places like www.pubmed.com for actual scientific research and read actual medical and scientific journals for what is right and wrong nutritionally instead of believing magazines you can get over the counter at a drug store or GNC or whatever is in this weeks "health" article on Yahoo. While a lot of us are here for "weight loss" this isn't just about looking good in the mirror. If you don't know what you are doing to your body, you just may end up a sexy, skinny corpse! If you learn more about what you are doing to your body with nutrition and exercise, and focus on what will provide you with optimal health and function in the body, the weight (fat) loss will come.

jms023

Yes, I totally agree with you! But you know there are still going to be those people out there who would prefer to listen to the media's shocking new report that the scientists and doctors have been wrong all this time, and there is a worldwide medical conspiracy to misinform our patients just because we doctors and scientists have all of the power and we enjoy watching people die of heart attacks. It's hard to convince the general public to actually read a scientific article, but the media does a pretty thorough job sometimes of convincing everyone that cholesterol is not actually bad for you, or saturated fat is not unhealthy, etc...I just saw the preview for Fat Head the other day, and it just amazes me what people actually allow themselves to believe, without actually doing the work of educating themselves regarding the scientific evidence.

Grokette

There is plenty of scientific evidence that PROVES that saturated fats are not bad for us and that they are completely necessary in very moderate amounts for proper brain function and also down to the cellular level.

There are well known research scientists and doctors that are proving this day by day.

Also, breast milk is compromised of mostly saturated fats. If saturated fat were so bad for us, then why would the thing we eat from the day we are born be bad for us??????????

Also, saturated fat is NATURAL occurring and that is what I eat. All natural foods.

I refuse to believe that we are supposed to eat "low fat" when for generations before us ate higher fat foods and lived to be ripe old ages without the health problems that we see today. And there are tribal people around the world that eat about 90% saturated fat with no heart disease.

The proof is there.

I also find it very odd that since I have went back to eating a high fat, moderate protein, low carb eating plan that my cholesterol and triglyceride levels have dropped to the point that my doctor has asked me to raise them a bit.

I had high cholesterol and high triglyceride levels before embarking on that journey.

I don't read the latest magazine articles or what have you. I do read scientific sites, books, articles, etc..............

jms023

Your body makes all of the saturated fats you need. Also, certain fats are necessary to have in your diet (these are the so-called "essential fatty acids") and thus it is not suggested that you cut all fat out of your diet, only that you lower your intake of fat to a certain proportion of your daily caloric intake (around 30%) and that you eat certain fats (such as PUFAs, which include the essential fatty acids) while limiting your intake of others (saturated fats, trans fats). Also, I just did a Pubmed search using the words "saturated fat" and "heart disease" and got back 1000 articles on the subject. Just scanning the first few pages, it is clear that many of these articles are research that links saturated fat intake to heart disease, obesity, high cholesterol, etc...You did not cite any scientific articles regarding your anecdotal evidence stating that people used to eat lots of saturated fats and live longer. I'm pretty sure that the link between saturated fats and CVD was not studied 100 years ago, and I'm also fairly certain that people had a lower lifespan back then, and that they ate less food in general because super WalMarts did not exist back then and acquiring food was slightly more difficult than it is currently for the average American. Also, I'm sure portion sizes were smaller than "supersize." Thus, it is pretty much impossible to link one factor of lifestyle (saturated fat intake) with a clear outcome (healthier lives), and anyone who claims that is reporting bad science.

Furthermore, there HAVE been clinical research studies published that link the intake of saturated fat to a greater risk of CVD. For instance, this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21270377

Who came up with the brazen, highly flawed, and thoughtless statement that scientists do not base recommendations on scientific research? Do you think we just make stuff up because we think it sounds right?

Grokette

Your body makes all of the saturated fats you need. Also, certain fats are necessary to have in your diet (these are the so-called "essential fatty acids") and thus it is not suggested that you cut all fat out of your diet, only that you lower your intake of fat to a certain proportion of your daily caloric intake (around 30%) and that you eat certain fats (such as PUFAs, which include the essential fatty acids) while limiting your intake of others (saturated fats, trans fats). Also, I just did a Pubmed search using the words "saturated fat" and "heart disease" and got back 1000 articles on the subject. Just scanning the first few pages, it is clear that many of these articles are research that links saturated fat intake to heart disease, obesity, high cholesterol, etc...You did not cite any scientific articles regarding your anecdotal evidence stating that people used to eat lots of saturated fats and live longer. I'm pretty sure that the link between saturated fats and CVD was not studied 100 years ago, and I'm also fairly certain that people had a lower lifespan back then, and that they ate less food in general because super WalMarts did not exist back then and acquiring food was slightly more difficult than it is currently for the average American. Also, I'm sure portion sizes were smaller than "supersize." Thus, it is pretty much impossible to link one factor of lifestyle (saturated fat intake) with a clear outcome (healthier lives), and anyone who claims that is reporting bad science.

Furthermore, there HAVE been clinical research studies published that link the intake of saturated fat to a greater risk of CVD. For instance, this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2127037

Who came up with the brazen, highly flawed, and thoughtless statement that scientists do not base recommendations on scientific research? Do you think we just make stuff up because we think it sounds right?

PUFA's have been proven to be more detrimental because they are highly processed. I no longer consume PUFA's in any shape or form.

Here is one article citing scientific evidence contrary to what is originally posted. I will post more shortly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/cleanprint/CleanPrintProxy.aspx?1300164420719

jms023

Three things:

1) My link was wrong in my previous post, and I have now edited it to link to the correct article.
2) Grokette: your link is not working on my computer
3) Grokette: I think you may have trans fats confused with PUFAs. Trans fats are completely man-made and processed, and absolutely not recommended for any amount of intake. PUFAs occur in natural sources (such as fish and plant oils) and if you do not eat any PUFAs then you will die, because certain fats in this group (linoleic and linolenic acid) are essential for life, as your body cannot produce them but requires them.

Grokette

An article from a Dr and research confirming that saturated fat is not the evil nutrient that some so-called researchers try to make it out to be...........

Two major studies conclude that saturated fat does NOT cause heart disease

Posted By Dr John Briffa On 15 January 2010 @ 12:59 pm In Cholesterol and Statins,Food and Medical Politics,Healthy Eating,Unhealthy Eating! | 67 Comments


One of things I try and do on this blog is right what I see as nutritional wrongs. So, if there’s a common perception that artificial sweeteners are better than sugar for weight loss, but there’s really no evidence for that, then I’m inclined to write about it. If the evidence suggests that margarine is likely to be unhealthier than butter, I’ll write about that too. Similarly, I’ve been keen to point out that it appears that saturated fat, widely taken as to be artery-clogging and heart disease-provoking, is nothing of the sort.

I have written more than once about this, most recently here [1]. This review of the literature found no evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. And it’s a shame (in my opinion, anyway), that this study got no mainstream publicity.

The same, appears to be true, of a recent report published in the Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism [1]. You can read a complete version of this report here [2]. The whole edition of this journal was dedicated to reporting an ‘Expert Consultation’ held jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the US. The consultation took a wide, sweeping look at the relationship between fats, physiology and health, and took place in late 2008. One of the things that was inevitably a focus of the consultation was the link between saturated fat and heart disease.

The ‘experts’ responsible for assessing this relationship looked at two lines of evidence: epidemiological studies and intervention studies. Let’s look at both in turn.

Epidemiological studies look at the relationship between factors (such as smoking and lung cancer, exercise and dementia, saturated fat and heart disease) in populations. These studies can only really tell us about associations between things, but can’t generally be used to inform us if one thing is causing another. Nevertheless, if saturated fat does truly cause heart disease (like we’ve been told for the last few decades), then the epidemiological evidence should show that higher levels of saturated fat are associated with a higher risk of heart disease (also known as ‘coronary heart disease’ or ‘CHD’ for short).

Well, according to the WHO/FAO report, there is no association. Here’s what the report states:

“Intake of SFA [saturated fatty acids] was not significantly associated with CHD mortality…

and also

SFA intake was not significantly associated CHD events [e.g. heart attacks]…”

And now on to intervention studies�

In such studies, individuals a subjected to some sort of intervention (such as a medication, increased exercise or dietary change). The relevant intervention in this area is to put people on a low saturated fat diet diet, and see how they fare compared to individuals who are not subjected to this change. Unlike epidemiological studies, intervention studies can prove ‘causal’ links between things. For example, if eating less saturated fat leads to a reduced risk of heart disease, then it’s a pretty good bet that saturated fat causes heart disease (all other things being equal).

So, what did the WHO/FAO report find with regard to relevant intervention studies? Here’s what:

“…fatal CHD was not reduced by…the low-fat diets…”

Just this week saw the publication of another huge study which assessed the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease [2]. This study was actually an amalgamation (meta-analysis) of 21 epidemiological studies. Taken all together, this review monitored almost 350,000 people over between 5 and 23 years. And here’s what it found:

1. No association between saturated fat and risk of heart disease

2. No association between saturated fat and risk of stroke

You know what this all means, don’t you? That there really is no evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease or cardiovascular disease generally.

Despite all this evidence to the contrary, I suspect the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease will perpetuate for some time. One reason for this has to do with cholesterol. There is some evidence that saturated fat puts cholesterol levels up, and we all know that cholesterol causes heart disease, right? So, if saturated fat puts cholesterol up, it must increased the risk of heart disease too. Well, this line of argument assumes that cholesterol causes heart disease, and actually the evidence shows this is far from assured. But even if it did, the logic is still faulty. We could use the same logic to claim that if something causes cholesterol to fall it must be good for heart health. So, if arsenic and cyanide reduce cholesterol, should we all be swigging these poisons down every day?

Anyway, while the ‘cholesterol causes heart disease’ paradigm is prevalent, I think saturated fat is going to be in the firing line. Shame, because at worst it appears an innocent bystander.

Another reason that saturated fat is likely to get a hard time for some time yet has to do with the fact that paradigms do tend to change very slowly. And at least some of this has to do with a reluctance some of us have to changing our minds about things we ‘know’. Some of us feel we ‘know’ saturated fat causes heart disease, because we’ve been told it so often and consistently we’re not even inclined to challenge this notion. And if we happen to be health professionals or academics who, at least in part, define ourselves by our ‘knowledge’ and ‘intelligence’, it can be mightily difficult to admit that we were wrong.

Not being a literary type, I’m not really a quote person either. But I do know at least one. It is British economist’s John Maynard Keynes’ assertion that When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?� How I would like to see health professionals and Government departments take a leaf out of Keynes’ book, and make pronouncements regarding saturated fat and other dietary factors based on science fact (not fiction).

References:

1. Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2009; 55 (1-3).

2. Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease Am J Clin Nutr 13 January 2010 [epub ahead of print].

Grokette

Three things:

1) My link was wrong in my previous post, and I have now edited it to link to the correct article.
2) Grokette: your link is not working on my computer
3) Grokette: I think you may have trans fats confused with PUFAs. Trans fats are completely man-made and processed, and absolutely not recommended for any amount of intake. PUFAs occur in natural sources (such as fish and plant oils) and if you do not eat any PUFAs then you will die, because certain fats in this group (linoleic and linolenic acid) are essential for life, as your body cannot produce them but requires them.

PUFA's such as vegetable oils, canola oil, corn oil and soy oil I do not eat. They are highly processed and not good for us as they throw off the Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio. I try my hardest to get very little Omega 6 in my eating plan as this is not good for us.

jms023

Here is a quote directly from the first scientific article the above article cites as a primary resource:

"Fats are energy dense (37 kJ or 9 kcal per gram), provide the medium for the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, are a primary contributor to the palatability of food, and are crucial to proper development and survival during the early stages of life – embryonic development and early growth after birth – on through infancy and childhood. Thus, the greater need for fatty acids during pregnancy and lactation is highlighted. The n–3 long chain fatty acids provide the structural basis for the development of the brain and central nervous system. In contrast, the high intake of saturated fatty acids, and to an even greater extent trans fatty acids, substantially contributes to the development of cardiovascular diseases. These claim many lives not only in affluent societies, but now they are also the main cause of adult death in both developed and developing countries."

n-3 long chain fatty acids are PUFAs, btw. Also, it seems to directly contradict the summary given by the above author. Weird.

The second article is one that I find more interesting. This meta-analysis basically shows that saturated fats have a weak link with CVD. Here is a short review I found that describes the article's influence:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974200/?tool=pubmed

But, as you recall, I did not say that saturated fat should be completely cut out of one's diet. As this article states, the issue is more complicated that that, as there may be certain types of saturated fats that are better for you than others. I think the best way to think about it is to follow the motto "everything in moderation." Although, perhaps not trans fats But I wouldn't go so far as to say that saturated fats, especially in high amounts as seen in the average American diet, are good for you, or not at all bad for you, as the above article seems to insinuate. I think it is more of a continuum, and not two polar opposite possibilities.

Also, you are right in stating that too many omega-6 fats are bad for you, as too much of anything is bad for you. However, a small amount is absolutely essential. The reason physicians focus on recommending omega-3's instead of omega-6's is because the average American gets a whole lot of omega-6 and not enough omega-3. It's all about balance.

jms023

Here is another fun article regarding the meta-analysis study:

http://summertomato.com/study-exonerating-saturated-fat-tainted-by-industry-funding/

COIs (conflicts of interest) are a pretty huge deal in scientific research. In fact, my school requires everyone who is involved in research to fill out a COI form stating any stakes they may have in the results of the research they are doing. Would you trust a study that proves a certain drug works if that study were funded by the pharmaceutical company that makes the drug? I don't think so. So why trust a study that all of a sudden shows that years of research regarding saturated fats are wrong when this study is funded by dairy companies who want you to consume more of their products?

I am NOT saying that the study is invalid, but the results need more research. Meanwhile, I wouldn't make any radical dietary changes.

CherylYMerritt

bump

TrainingWithTonya

There is plenty of scientific evidence that PROVES that saturated fats are not bad for us and that they are completely necessary in very moderate amounts for proper brain function and also down to the cellular level.

There are well known research scientists and doctors that are proving this day by day.

Also, breast milk is compromised of mostly saturated fats. If saturated fat were so bad for us, then why would the thing we eat from the day we are born be bad for us??????????

Yes, infants need more fats then adults, that's why there is more fat in breastmilk and why whole milk is recommended for children up to age 2. Fat is the primary source of fuel for metabolism at rest and babies aren't born with a lot of body fat and need dietary intake to fuel their bodies as well as the need for development of all sorts of cells. After age 2, however, we don't need that much fat because most of the central nervous system is fully functional and locomotion allows the anaerobic metabolism to work burning more carbohydrates then fat so less is needed for fuel. Any basic lifecycle nutrition class will teach that. But if you need a reference, I like the book Nutrition Across the Lifespan by Mary Kay Mitchell. She lists lots of references for studies that have been done over the years.

Also, saturated fat is NATURAL occurring and that is what I eat. All natural foods.

Arsenic is also natural. Doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to eat it.

I refuse to believe that we are supposed to eat "low fat" when for generations before us ate higher fat foods and lived to be ripe old ages without the health problems that we see today. And there are tribal people around the world that eat about 90% saturated fat with no heart disease.

The generations before us actually died of acute diseases like the common cold and nutrient deficiencies such as scurvy and rickets before they lived long enough for their cardiovascular disease to be evident. That's why when we started curing those issues, heart disease and cancer started being the predominant killers in about the mid-1900's. Also, I never stated that we should eat low fat. I stated that we should eat healthy fats like fish oil and other unsaturated fatty acids, some of which are vital to optimal human performance, instead of saturated fats that are scientifically linked to cardiovascular disease and are proving to be linked to diabetes and cancers.

The proof is there.

I also find it very odd that since I have went back to eating a high fat, moderate protein, low carb eating plan that my cholesterol and triglyceride levels have dropped to the point that my doctor has asked me to raise them a bit.

I had high cholesterol and high triglyceride levels before embarking on that journey.

This is merely anecdotal evidence. And quite honestly, expected if you started an exercise program, regardless of what you eat. Exercise lowers total cholesterol and triglyceride levels. That has been proven. Sorry, I don't have the the studies in front of me but look for the book Clinical Exercise Physiology and I'm sure it will list them. As for telling you to raise your cholesterol, your doctor was probably referring to your HDL levels, which are cardioprotective. We tell all our patients to raise their HDL levels. But you can't raise HDL levels with saturated fat. You have to consume unsaturated fatty acids, particularly Omega 3's such as fish oil, and exercise more in order to raise HDL levels.

I don't read the latest magazine articles or what have you. I do read scientific sites, books, articles, etc..............

Really? Then why are you posting links to MSNBC and a blog in your later posts? Neither of those are scientific journals. Which is the whole point of me posting a real research article. I want to make sure that people don't listen to blogs that can be written by any Joe Blow regardless of actual credentials or popular media articles that take one small section of a study and quote it out of context to meet the sensational headline they want to sell. It takes a little more work to search Pubmed and click through to find the full text of the study and actually read it, but the information is much higher quality then MSNBC, Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia, or some random persons blog.

Grokette

There is plenty of scientific evidence that PROVES that saturated fats are not bad for us and that they are completely necessary in very moderate amounts for proper brain function and also down to the cellular level.

There are well known research scientists and doctors that are proving this day by day.

Also, breast milk is compromised of mostly saturated fats. If saturated fat were so bad for us, then why would the thing we eat from the day we are born be bad for us??????????

Yes, infants need more fats then adults, that's why there is more fat in breastmilk and why whole milk is recommended for children up to age 2. Fat is the primary source of fuel for metabolism at rest and babies aren't born with a lot of body fat and need dietary intake to fuel their bodies as well as the need for development of all sorts of cells. After age 2, however, we don't need that much fat because most of the central nervous system is fully functional and locomotion allows the anaerobic metabolism to work burning more carbohydrates then fat so less is needed for fuel. Any basic lifecycle nutrition class will teach that. But if you need a reference, I like the book Nutrition Across the Lifespan by Mary Kay Mitchell. She lists lots of references for studies that have been done over the years.

Also, saturated fat is NATURAL occurring and that is what I eat. All natural foods.

Arsenic is also natural. Doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to eat it.

I refuse to believe that we are supposed to eat "low fat" when for generations before us ate higher fat foods and lived to be ripe old ages without the health problems that we see today. And there are tribal people around the world that eat about 90% saturated fat with no heart disease.

The generations before us actually died of acute diseases like the common cold and nutrient deficiencies such as scurvy and rickets before they lived long enough for their cardiovascular disease to be evident. That's why when we started curing those issues, heart disease and cancer started being the predominant killers in about the mid-1900's. Also, I never stated that we should eat low fat. I stated that we should eat healthy fats like fish oil and other unsaturated fatty acids, some of which are vital to optimal human performance, instead of saturated fats that are scientifically linked to cardiovascular disease and are proving to be linked to diabetes and cancers.

The proof is there.

I also find it very odd that since I have went back to eating a high fat, moderate protein, low carb eating plan that my cholesterol and triglyceride levels have dropped to the point that my doctor has asked me to raise them a bit.

I had high cholesterol and high triglyceride levels before embarking on that journey.

This is merely anecdotal evidence. And quite honestly, expected if you started an exercise program, regardless of what you eat. Exercise lowers total cholesterol and triglyceride levels. That has been proven. Sorry, I don't have the the studies in front of me but look for the book Clinical Exercise Physiology and I'm sure it will list them. As for telling you to raise your cholesterol, your doctor was probably referring to your HDL levels, which are cardioprotective. We tell all our patients to raise their HDL levels. But you can't raise HDL levels with saturated fat. You have to consume unsaturated fatty acids, particularly Omega 3's such as fish oil, and exercise more in order to raise HDL levels.

I don't read the latest magazine articles or what have you. I do read scientific sites, books, articles, etc..............

Really? Then why are you posting links to MSNBC and a blog in your later posts? Neither of those are scientific journals. Which is the whole point of me posting a real research article. I want to make sure that people don't listen to blogs that can be written by any Joe Blow regardless of actual credentials or popular media articles that take one small section of a study and quote it out of context to meet the sensational headline they want to sell. It takes a little more work to search Pubmed and click through to find the full text of the study and actually read it, but the information is much higher quality then MSNBC, Yahoo, Google, Wikipedia, or some random persons blog.

The articles and the studies were done by DOCTORS. It is very well known that PUBMED is endorsed by the Federal Government, so of course they will continue to say that saturated fat causes heart disease,Type 2 diabetes and other ailments when we all know it is truly caused due to the sugar, HFCS and refined grains that everyone is eating.

I have read enough articles and books by well known Naturopathic MD's and regular MD's and research scientists to know better. Plus common sense reigns supreme here.

I find it funny that these agencies continue to say that saturated fats are a partial cause of heart disease and Type 2 Diabetes when I am living proof of completely the opposite as are many other people.

More and more dieticians and Endocrinologists are switching their Diabetes patients over to a higher fat eating plan that includes a healthy dose of saturated fats and are getting off their medications, insulin levels are returning to normal and cholesterol is not skyrocketing.

Dr Ansel Keys is the doctor that started this nonsense regarding the saturated fat scare and there have been many, many doctors that didn't and still don't believe his studies.

Grokette

I will continue to be an advocate of eating natural occurring fats, including saturated fats. I will continue to eat my home filtered bacon drippings, beef tallow, ghee, coconut and palm oils.

Nature doesn't put saturated fat in vegetables, mother's milk, and other foods for kicks. It's there for a reason.

That is all I have to say.

jms023

Well, here we go with the government conspiracy theory I was referring to in my first post. Just to make this clear, Pubmed doesn't have anything to say about anything. Pubmed is simply a search engine that allows people to find scientific articles published by researchers in scientific journals. The research may or may not be endorsed by the NIH (National Institute of Health, aka evil scheming government). If the research did receive funding from the NIH, it is fully accessible to the public. If not, one can only see the abstract and must either pay to subscribe to the scientific journal where the research is published or be part of an institution that pays for the access in order to read the full text. I guess all of the independent researchers in the world are being paid by the US government to keep saying that saturated fat is bad for you? Though, I can't really think of a reason why the US government would want to endorse research that is apparently wrong, in which case it leads to invalid medical advice and skyrocketing healthcare costs due to the CVD epidemic that is one of the top killers of people in developed countries worldwide. Though, if you could please explain why the US government wants to lie to us, please be my guest.

Nature doesn't put saturated fats in most vegetables--it is only found in coconut, palm, and palm kernel oils. Do you avoid all other vegetables? And yes, it is in human breast milk, for reasons very well elucidated in one of the above posts. Also, by your logic, nature apparently has the capacity for logical reasoning and the goal of nature is to perpetuate the existence of the human race. Is there also a reason that nature causes natural disasters? Because those don't seem to be very compatible with a long lifespan.