Saturated Fats are GOOD for you

drasr

Cis and Trans are chemistry terms for spatial orientation of hydrogen atoms around a double or triple carbon bond. It is not a specific form of fat. As i have explained in one of my previous posts, partial hydrogenation of unsaturated fats may lead to trans unsaturated fat. Similarly like it mentions that bacteria do it in animals which occurs naturally. If hydrogenation is complete, the unsaturated fat is converted into saturated fat. So i don't know what the arguement is anymore. All i have been implying is that it is good to substitute saturated FAs with MUFA and PUFA. Linoleic Acid[since you quoted] is an essential UNSATURATED fatty acid. Essential because body can't produce it and it has to be taken in diet.

Now If you think i have provided some wrong information or information without any base or evidence, please point it out and i will try my best to explain it or admit i am wrong. But don't just make fun of it without reason.

drasr

And this is the most accurate, logical statement I've read in the whole thread.

Most of the naturally occuring fats are 'UNSATURATED'.

freerange

The problem I have is your assertion that a saturated fat is a saturated fat,

And irrespective of whether it is butter or hydrogenated oil, all saturated fats enter the same metabolic pathways and are broken down into fatty acids and some by-products.

as if eating a tub of hydrogenated corn oil will have no different affect on the body than eating a tub of butter (make mind grass fed raw milk butter please)

musica814

drasr

The problem I have is your assertion that a saturated fat is a saturated fat,

And irrespective of whether it is butter or hydrogenated oil, all saturated fats enter the same metabolic pathways and are broken down into fatty acids and some by-products.

as if eating a tub of hydrogenated corn oil will have no different affect on the body than eating a tub of butter (make mind grass fed raw milk butter please)

Tell me HOW is it different???

crisanderson27

And this is the most accurate, logical statement I've read in the whole thread.

Most of the naturally occuring fats are 'UNSATURATED'.

This may very well be...but again, what type of unsaturated? And what happens to them once they go through the digestion process??

The human body was designed to intake many different types of foods, and turn it all into a proper mix of fuel that it needs to survive, and more importantly, thrive. Heavily processed unsaturated fats are going to behave much differently in the digestive tract than unprocessed natural fats, particularly in the moderation of which you would receive those natural unsaturated fats if you were killing/picking and eating them yourself.

I'm no dietician. I know only what has worked for me in losing weight, and what has helped me become a much stronger, much healthier individual. I eat butter, whole eggs, peanut butter, virgin olive oils, virgin sunflower oils, and until recently whole milk...by the bucketload. Plenty of fats in my diet...but the saturated fats are surrounded with necessary healthful nutrients, and the unsaturated fats are directly from vegetables or unprocessed vegetable (NOT generic vegetable!) oils.

To be honest, I think that's all people really need. The original posters point, as I took it...was that fats in general, and unsaturated fats in specific...aren't the bad guys we've always been taught.

Cris

drasr

Cris
If you are making comparisons then it is only fair that the factors are kept constant.
Why do you compare naturally occuring saturated fats with artificially processed unstaurated fats??
Compare naturally occuring unsaturated fats with naturally occuring saturated fats and artificially processed saturated fats with the likewise unsaturated fats.

Question - if you have to substitute trans fat with a healthy substitute, what would it be
1.MUFA and PUFA, naturally occuring
2.Saturated Fat, Naturally occuring
3.Artificial unsaturated fat
4.Artificial saturated fat

Zeromilediet

That statement was meant in a sarcastic tone. But there is enough evidence to suggest that substituting saturated FAs with MUFA and PUFA has a long term effect in preventing CHD/CAD. Its all there on the net. Just google it. Or refer to the wikipedia link.

Um, no you google it. You made the claim, so I'm asking you to back it up.

No need for sarcasm--it was a simple request. People often come on these boards and make claims based on their fuzzy understanding of human physiology.

The *fact* is no matter how much cholesterol you consume (i.e., in those fatty steaks), it has no impact on blood cholesterol. This was demonstrated in two long term CHD studies you must have heard of: Framingham and Tecumseh?

From the Tecumseh study: "Serum cholesterol and triglyceride values were not positively correlated with selection of dietary constituents." The 'dietary constituents' in English are--that's right--saturated fats.

And, from William Castelli, director of the Framingham study for many years:
"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active." Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study)

So, again I ask you to cite the evidence supporting your position.

BTW, I have a degree in geology; the textbook we used stated Wegener's theory of continental drift was unsubstantiated--of course now we all accept that hypothesis as Common Belief. Just saying ... what we know today is fluid. Textbooks now laud his vision. It's my opinion studies conducted in the name of nutrition have been weak in rigorous scientific methods.

Egger29

"there is no direct correlation or inconclusive correlation between saturated fat intake and the risk of CHD. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Cardiovascular_disease

Out of the 12 studies mentioned, 10 clearly point to a direct evidence of an increased risk of CHD with an increased intake of saturated fat.

I think a National Journal of Medicine which is peer reviewed research holds alot more weight than "Wikipedia".

Just saying..

drasr

as if eating a tub of hydrogenated corn oil will have no different affect on the body than eating a tub of butter (make mind grass fed raw milk butter please)

I get what you are trying to say but your assumption is wrong.

Out of the butter and corn syrup, which is worse - definitely corn syrup.

Why - It is important to keep the composition of each in mind. While butter is mostly fat, corn syrup also has a lot of processed sugar and carbs in addition to the fat. So corn syrup is worse.

BUT the saturated fat in both will be metabolized in the same way i.e. broken down into fatty acids and then esterized as per the requirement of the body. But it still doesn't change the fact that saturated fat is saturated fat.

drasr

"there is no direct correlation or inconclusive correlation between saturated fat intake and the risk of CHD. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Cardiovascular_disease

Out of the 12 studies mentioned, 10 clearly point to a direct evidence of an increased risk of CHD with an increased intake of saturated fat.

I think a National Journal of Medicine which is peer reviewed research holds alot more weight than "Wikipedia".

Just saying..

The wikipedia is a collection of articles. There are references to those articles at the end. The studies have been done in institutions like Stanford etc and are reviewed by peers.

crisanderson27

Cris
If you are making comparisons then it is only fair that the factors are kept constant.
Why do you compare naturally occuring saturated fats with artificially processed unstaurated fats??
Compare naturally occuring unsaturated fats with naturally occuring saturated fats and artificially processed saturated fats with the likewise unsaturated fats.

Question - if you have to substitute trans fat with a healthy substitute, what would it be
1.MUFA and PUFA, naturally occuring
2.Saturated Fat, Naturally occuring
3.Artificial unsaturated fat
4.Artificial saturated fat

I think you missed my point. The point is that I don't have to keep the factors constant, because my comparison (and maybe I wasn't clear) was between the 'processed' unsaturated fat, and the 'unprocessed' saturated. Do you see what I mean? I can avoid heavily processed fats period...of any type.

Again, I am no nutritionist...I just know what works for me. If I had to choose from your list, I'd choose both 1 and 2. From the evidence I've read (not exhaustive...by any means), and my own personal experiences...you need both to one extent or another. There are substitutes that may be acceptable, but by using the above as a guide, I will be eating far healthier than anyone that believes the whole 'fats in general, and saturated fats in particular...are the devil' nonsense.

Cris

drasr

That statement was meant in a sarcastic tone. But there is enough evidence to suggest that substituting saturated FAs with MUFA and PUFA has a long term effect in preventing CHD/CAD. Its all there on the net. Just google it. Or refer to the wikipedia link.

Um, no you google it. You made the claim, so I'm asking you to back it up.

No need for sarcasm--it was a simple request. People often come on these boards and make claims based on their fuzzy understanding of human physiology.

The *fact* is no matter how much cholesterol you consume (i.e., in those fatty steaks), it has no impact on blood cholesterol. This was demonstrated in two long term CHD studies you must have heard of: Framingham and Tecumseh?

From the Tecumseh study: "Serum cholesterol and triglyceride values were not positively correlated with selection of dietary constituents." The 'dietary constituents' in English are--that's right--saturated fats.

And, from William Castelli, director of the Framingham study for many years:
"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active." Dr William Castelli 1992 (Director of the Framingham study)

So, again I ask you to cite the evidence supporting your position.

BTW, I have a degree in geology; the textbook we used stated Wegener's theory of continental drift was unsubstantiated--of course now we all accept that hypothesis as Common Belief. Just saying ... what we know today is fluid. Textbooks now laud his vision. It's my opinion studies conducted in the name of nutrition have been weak in rigorous scientific methods.

I have a degree in medicine and i know a lot more in detail about the physiology, biochemistry and pathology of fat metabolism and the correaltion with CAD etc. And that is after reading a variety of books. But this is taught even in elementary school that all the carbs are broken down into glucose, fructose and galactose, all the fats are broken down into fatty acids and all the proteins are broken down into amino acids.

drasr

As per the RDA. <33% of your total fat should be saturated. Rest should be unsaturated. That's the point i have been trying to make all along. More Unsaturated fat, less saturated fat. I never said don't eat saturated fat or just eat unsaturated fat but still don't know why are people being so hostile.

End6ame

Well I guess that since I only have an A.S in Networking, A.S. In Cyber Security and Digital Forensics, a B.S in Information Assurance and Security, and an M.S in Information Assurance, I am truly a "lay person" and couldn't possibly understand something as complex as human physiology.

In other word's drasr, you can drop the condescending attitude. Did you even read the article that I posted or are you just hiding behind your degree in medicine and refusing to consider alternate theories and information. I am sure that in the near future a new perfectly acceptable and legitimate study will be published on a different matter; will it be wrong simply because you didn't learn about it in med school. 

The fact is, that a degree in medicine matters very little to nutrition, yes there is overlap but it is not the focus, medicine is. So you are no more an expert than I am. 

I can not make any better claims than those made and supported with evidence and facts in the article that I posted so there is little point of me regurgitating the information in response to some of yours. Try reading the article. 

drasr

Its not my fault that you find my attitude condescending. It actually reflects a lot about your attitude. Its surprising that you find it insulting because obviously if you talk about cyber security which i have no idea about and call me a layman, i would understand. But here that's not what we are talking about. But anyways that's a different matter. And physiology is a lot more complex than you think and its understanding goes way beyond reading a few articles on the net. Do you think i could match your knowledge in cyber security or whatever you have a degree in, by just reading on the net. We will continue this discussion when that "new perfectly acceptable and legitimate study will be published". Till then you can think and eat whatever you want. America is a free country.

Grokette

As per the RDA. <33% of your total fat should be saturated. Rest should be unsaturated. That's the point i have been trying to make all along. More Unsaturated fat, less saturated fat. I never said don't eat saturated fat or just eat unsaturated fat but still don't know why are people being so hostile.

Some articles for your reading pleasure and edcation about the heathfulness of eating saturated fats.............

http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2007/04/06/saturated_fat_the_misunderstood_nutrient#axzz0zknkn0yT

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/saturated_fat.htm

http://www.preventionisbest.com/site/saturatedfat.html

http://www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_fats_health_benefits.htm

drasr

What's with you guys??? According to RDA, 33% of the total fat should be saturated fat and it is recommended exactly because it is needed. Did i ever say in this entire post that our diet should have no saturated fats at all??

davebrown9

I am a layman who studies nutritional controversies. The saturated fat controversy is the one that interests me most because the vilification of saturated fat has caused an unimaginable amount of damage to the public health.

The idea that saturated fats clog arteries is based on the belief that any fat that raises LDL cholesterol is bad. But does it make sense to restrict all saturated fats simply because two kinds (myristic acid and plamitic acid) raise LDL levels? Note, myristic acid and palmitic acids also raise HDL cholesterol which is considered a good thing.

The remaining saturated fatty acid chain lengths either have no effect on LDL cholesterol or they raise HDL cholesterol only.
Here's an excellent article by a writer who still believes LDL cholesterol is a problem.

Part 1: What is saturated fat: http://www.saywhydoi.com/saturated-fats-what-is-saturated-fat/ .
Part 2: Benefits of saturated fat: http://www.saywhydoi.com/saturated-fats-benefits-of-saturated-fats/
Part 3: Why are saturated fats considered bad for you? http://www.saywhydoi.com/saturated-fats-why-saturated-fats-are-bad/
Part 4: Conclusion http://www.saywhydoi.com/conclusion-on-saturated-fats-is-saturated-fat-bad-for-you/

The author of the above article is still researching saturated fats. I sent him this article about the benefits of high LDL levels. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/tau-cn050511.php

Here's another indication that saturated fats are not to blame for clogged arteries. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05

Dairy fats have been relentlessly vilified for decades without justification. http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/david-brown-dr-rod-jackson-and-jimmy-moore-a-saturated-fat-roundtable-discussion/6260

My conclusion regarding saturated fats is that in the context of a nutritionally adequate diet they may be consumed without restriction. Regarding the supposedly heart protective PUFA, consuming 33% fat calories is problematic. PUFAs of all sorts are highly reactive. The research shows that consuming more than 1% of total calories of omega-3s and 6s in roughly equal amounts provides no additional physiological benefit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgU3cNppzO0 In fact, consuming more than 4% of total calories as PUFA is risky. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201103/your-brain-omega-3 And deliberately increasing omega-6 seed oil intake to prevent heart disease is insane. http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/nutrition/12170/Queen-of-Fats-goes-Omega-6-in-another-super-size-me-experiment

End6ame

Its not my fault that you find my attitude condescending. It actually reflects a lot about your attitude. Its surprising that you find it insulting because obviously if you talk about cyber security which i have no idea about and call me a layman, i would understand. But here that's not what we are talking about. But anyways that's a different matter. And physiology is a lot more complex than you think and its understanding goes way beyond reading a few articles on the net. Do you think i could match your knowledge in cyber security or whatever you have a degree in, by just reading on the net. We will continue this discussion when that "new perfectly acceptable and legitimate study will be published". Till then you can think and eat whatever you want. America is a free country.

Muhahah… you fell for my trap!

The FOCUS of my degrees is Cyber Security, so no; I do not think you could match my knowledge by reading articles. That being said, the focus of your degree is medicine NOT nutrition, so yes, I and others could be just as informed as you through our own research, Just as you could be just as informed as me in Application Development since is merely a part of, not the focus of, my education. While all of this strays from the point of my original post it illustrates that having a degree in medicine makes you no more knowledgeable in the area of nutrition than my degrees in cyber security.

We are constantly told by the media about how awful saturated fats are with evidence that is designed to support the hypothesis and/or blatantly ignores other variables. As davebrown9 said, the ignorance of saturated fats IS causing damage to public health, so it doesn’t hurt to consider alternate points of view.

Did you read the article (and the other's posted)? If so, what specifically do you disagree with?