Good fats

Options
1235

Replies

  • lockef
    lockef Posts: 466
    Options
    Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

    DON'T BE SCARED OF FATS!!!!!

    EVOO will do wonders for your HDL.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

    http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

    There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

    If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

    There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

    I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

    Well, I'm not sure I agree. The public needs some guidelines and those guidelines can only come from the knowledge base at hand. None of these orgainizations are saying "if you eat saturated fat you will develop heart disease" or even "if eat saturated fat your LDL will go up". They are recommending you eat less saturated fat because it can increase your LDL and that in turn will increase your risk of heart disease. Just as they recommend exercising more because that lowers risk. It doesn't mean you won't have heart disease if you exercise regularly. Just that you may be less likely to.

    I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me in reality. The only claim I've made is that the evidence is too divided to make any categorical statements. This means nothing about guidelines and opinions. I agree that the lay public needs some direction. But last I checked, and I'm not digging up the source this very moment, but SF, by percentage, wasn't very high in the average American diet. Yet, CHD is still the leading cause of death in the U.S.

    After reviewing the evidence, the majority of quality research doesn't support the notion that you're making. I posted the large reviews and papers that are for and against it above. You claimed it's an incomplete list. And seriously, I'm as objective as they come. There's no such thing as pure objectivity as we're all perverted by our own biases. But I'm in pursuit of the truth and have no problem admitting when I've overlooked something or when I'm wrong. In fact, I love being wrong when it comes to this stuff as it presents the opportunity to learn something new.

    So as I noted above, again, if you have some of these major publications that I've missed, I'd love to take a look at them please. And if you've not read the papers I posted above, and you're seriously interested in reading the data that fuels the guidelines these organizations dish to us... because remember... they're basing their opinions on the same body of literature... then I suggest reading them.

    If you're not that interested and if you fully trust that the advice you're getting from these agencies and institutions is current... then by all means, don't read them. I honestly couldn't care less. I'm not here to preach or convert anyone. We're all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.

    Where I'm coming from... it's just like the current recommended protein intake espoused by the RDA. It's based on antiquated research. In the decades since, much more reliable and current data has surfaced suggesting higher protein intakes for active people and athletes. Yet the recommendation stands. I'm not sure about conspiracy theories. That's not my style. But I do believe there's a lot of inertia to these big agencies and institutions. It's difficult for them to retract and revise... or so it seems.

    I don't lump the USDA into my "trusted medical organizaitons" and agree that their recommendations are outdated. No, not really outdated, just wrong. Many of their RDA were wrong to begin with and not based on medical evidence.

    I wasn't claiming that you do.

    I've said my piece and unless you're going to post some of the papers I missed so I can further my reading on the subject, I'll bow out.

    I also emailed a friend/colleague of mine who does independent research for a living who has written about this very topic. If he uncovers any papers that I missed, I'll be sure to pass them along.

    Thanks for the convo.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2011/01/26/ajcn.110.004622

    http://www.cambridgehealth.com.au/dissertation.pdf

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/889.short

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/2/458.full

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843598/

    There's research that supports the notion that SF intake is linked to problems. There's research that negates this same notion. If you look at the body of evidence as a whole with an objective eye, it's likely that you'll see that the hype surrounding SF intake is overstated. We can't say anything definitively except for the fact that we need more research on the subject.

    If you're an active, otherwise healthy individual, I wouldn't personally be sweating SF intake unless you're woofing it down like candy.

    There is likely conflicting evidence on any subject you can name. And more research is needed on just about any subject. You posted 8 studies, but there are much more than that. This is why I choose to look to the professionals who spend their lives doing the research, comparing it to other studies and formulating the most likely theories. I work in health care and work with govt. agencies, so I don't buy into conspiracy theories. I've met very few people in either field that weren't genuinely working to improve healthcare.

    I'd certainly agree with that. I've friends and family who work for a few of the gov't agencies. I also have friends who conduct research for a living. The research I threw out there is the primary papers on the subject in question. If I'm missing one that you feel is a primary paper, I'll be happy to take a look at it. The fact remains, it's far too early to make any categorical claims in either direction.

    Well, I'm not sure I agree. The public needs some guidelines and those guidelines can only come from the knowledge base at hand. None of these orgainizations are saying "if you eat saturated fat you will develop heart disease" or even "if eat saturated fat your LDL will go up". They are recommending you eat less saturated fat because it can increase your LDL and that in turn will increase your risk of heart disease. Just as they recommend exercising more because that lowers risk. It doesn't mean you won't have heart disease if you exercise regularly. Just that you may be less likely to.

    I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me in reality. The only claim I've made is that the evidence is too divided to make any categorical statements. This means nothing about guidelines and opinions. I agree that the lay public needs some direction. But last I checked, and I'm not digging up the source this very moment, but SF, by percentage, wasn't very high in the average American diet. Yet, CHD is still the leading cause of death in the U.S.

    After reviewing the evidence, the majority of quality research doesn't support the notion that you're making. I posted the large reviews and papers that are for and against it above. You claimed it's an incomplete list. And seriously, I'm as objective as they come. There's no such thing as pure objectivity as we're all perverted by our own biases. But I'm in pursuit of the truth and have no problem admitting when I've overlooked something or when I'm wrong. In fact, I love being wrong when it comes to this stuff as it presents the opportunity to learn something new.

    So as I noted above, again, if you have some of these major publications that I've missed, I'd love to take a look at them please. And if you've not read the papers I posted above, and you're seriously interested in reading the data that fuels the guidelines these organizations dish to us... because remember... they're basing their opinions on the same body of literature... then I suggest reading them.

    If you're not that interested and if you fully trust that the advice you're getting from these agencies and institutions is current... then by all means, don't read them. I honestly couldn't care less. I'm not here to preach or convert anyone. We're all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs.

    Where I'm coming from... it's just like the current recommended protein intake espoused by the RDA. It's based on antiquated research. In the decades since, much more reliable and current data has surfaced suggesting higher protein intakes for active people and athletes. Yet the recommendation stands. I'm not sure about conspiracy theories. That's not my style. But I do believe there's a lot of inertia to these big agencies and institutions. It's difficult for them to retract and revise... or so it seems.

    I don't lump the USDA into my "trusted medical organizaitons" and agree that their recommendations are outdated. No, not really outdated, just wrong. Many of their RDA were wrong to begin with and not based on medical evidence.

    I wasn't claiming that you do.

    I've said my piece and unless you're going to post some of the papers I missed so I can further my reading on the subject, I'll bow out.

    I also emailed a friend/colleague of mine who does independent research for a living who has written about this very topic. If he uncovers any papers that I missed, I'll be sure to pass them along.

    Thanks for the convo.

    I've repeatedly said that I'm not going to post links to studies because I believe cherry picking studies is pointless. I'd have to do weeks, maybe months, of research just to find enough to make any type of valid point. Plus I have no reason to believe that anyone on this board is qualified to make any meaningful hypotheses about them if I went to all that trouble.
  • Scoobies87
    Scoobies87 Posts: 379
    Options
    Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

    DON'T BE SCARED OF FATS!!!!!

    EVOO will do wonders for your HDL.

    What does HDL mean? I was always led to believe that diets were about eating low fat. eg: slimming world, weight watchers... I am so confused!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

    DON'T BE SCARED OF FATS!!!!!

    EVOO will do wonders for your HDL.

    What does HDL mean? I was always led to believe that diets were about eating low fat. eg: slimming world, weight watchers... I am so confused!

    HDL is high density lipoprotein, often referred to as "good cholesterol". High HDL levels is a negative risk factor for heart disease, so the higher the better. Vegetable fats such as extra virgin olive oil have been shown to raise HDL levels. Exercise also raises it. It is high in calories (olive oil, not exercise) but you don't need much. A little dab will do ya.

    <Edited to correct>
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    Options
    Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

    DON'T BE SCARED OF FATS!!!!!

    EVOO will do wonders for your HDL.

    What does HDL mean? I was always led to believe that diets were about eating low fat. eg: slimming world, weight watchers... I am so confused!

    To add to what bcattoes answered (I think she mistyped when she labeled olive oil as an animal fat source)... diets are about controlling your energy (calorie) balance. In very simplistic terms... if you consume more calories than you expend, you'll gain weight. Consume less calories than you expend and you'll lose weight. And when calorie in is equal to calories out, you'll maintain weight.

    Granted, optimizing health and body composition depends on a heck of a lot more than simply controlling calories.

    But the point is, dieting is a pretty vague and diverse concept. Sure, some diets are based on eating low fats. But others are centered around eating low carbohydrate, high protein, etc, etc. At the end of the day, in order for any method of eating to trigger a loss of tissue, you need to be in a calorie deficit... where calories in are less than calories out.

    Fat happens to be the most energy dense nutrient of the bunch coming in at 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbs yield 4 cals/gm and alcohol yields 7. So in theory, if you cut fat to low levels, there's a good chance that calories will come down as well, which can help weight loss. But this does not imply that it's the best or even the recommended approach.

    And to add to the confusion, different methods of eating will "match" different people depending on their health status, genetics, training, goals, etc.

    The short of it is, there's more to losing fat than minimizing dietary fat intake.
  • Zeromilediet
    Zeromilediet Posts: 787 Member
    Options
    Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

    DON'T BE SCARED OF FATS!!!!!

    EVOO will do wonders for your HDL.

    What does HDL mean? I was always led to believe that diets were about eating low fat. eg: slimming world, weight watchers... I am so confused!

    High Density Lipoprotein
    Considered to be good cholesterol.

    EVOO is a mostly monounsaturated fat (MUFA) derived as you guess from pressed olives. MUFAs are considered 'good' fats but the fats you should be aiming for are omega 3 fats (a kind of polyunsaturated fat or PUFA). Since the 80s the low fat belief has been pervasive in nutrition literature, but it seems we've been a bit over zealous with that. We need healthy fats for our brain (2/3 of our brain is fat, the protective outer layer is fatty acids and the myelin sheath that protects the neurons is fat), and the healthy functioning of our body. What's important is to get good fats. Eating fat will not make you fat. Unless you're eating your fat in a donut, french fries, or some transfat (very bad!) laden food.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    To add to what bcattoes answered (I think she mistyped when she labeled olive oil as an animal fat source)...

    Oops!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Because it has 14g of fat per tablespoon!!!! I use frylight instead

    DON'T BE SCARED OF FATS!!!!!

    EVOO will do wonders for your HDL.

    What does HDL mean? I was always led to believe that diets were about eating low fat. eg: slimming world, weight watchers... I am so confused!

    High Density Lipoprotein
    Considered to be good cholesterol.

    EVOO is a mostly monounsaturated fat (MUFA) derived as you guess from pressed olives. MUFAs are considered 'good' fats but the fats you should be aiming for are omega 3 fats (a kind of polyunsaturated fat or PUFA). Since the 80s the low fat belief has been pervasive in nutrition literature, but it seems we've been a bit over zealous with that. We need healthy fats for our brain (2/3 of our brain is fat, the protective outer layer is fatty acids and the myelin sheath that protects the neurons is fat), and the healthy functioning of our body. What's important is to get good fats. Eating fat will not make you fat. Unless you're eating your fat in a donut, french fries, or some transfat (very bad!) laden food.

    Eating fat can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
  • lockef
    lockef Posts: 466
    Options
    Eating fat can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

    - Eating carbs can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
    - Eating protein can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
  • Scoobies87
    Scoobies87 Posts: 379
    Options
    Eating fat can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

    - Eating carbs can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
    - Eating protein can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

    So basically, anything can make you fat if it takes you over on calories. So if I go over on my fat but am under on my carbs (but still within my calorie goal) then I should be OK and still lose weight?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Eating fat can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

    - Eating carbs can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.
    - Eating protein can make you fat if it causes you to eat too many calories so just make sure you log it and stay within your goals.

    So basically, anything can make you fat if it takes you over on calories. So if I go over on my fat but am under on my carbs (but still within my calorie goal) then I should be OK and still lose weight?

    Yes. It's important to eat each macronutrient (carbs, protein and fat), but for weight loss the most important thing is to stay within your calorie goal.
  • Skfiske
    Skfiske Posts: 1
    Options
    I am not sure if this has already been answered for you...I am new to adding to posts so I am not savvy on how to follow them but....HDL stands for "High Density Lipoproteins". I am almost done with my bachelor's nursing degree so physiology is how I make sense of things so that is how I will explain (in lamens terms of course! so please do not judge on specifics!)...

    Lipoproteins are what are called "carrier molecules" - they help our body move different particles around our body. They are molecules made up of lipids (fats) and proteins. Therefore, Lipoprotein is responsible for moving water-soluble fats (lipo-) and cholesterol around our bloodstream. Insulin and glucose is a easier concept to me so I will explain it in those terms - Glucose cannot move freely around the body, it needs to be attached to insulin to do so. So therefore, insulin is our carrier molecule and allows glucose to be moved into cells according to energy needs (carrier molecules don't just move so-called "bad" things..they move many essential nutrients for us too!).

    When you go into a Dr's office and they tell you your HDL or LDL levels they want your HDL(high density lipoprotein) levels to be the highest. This is because they are considered to be the "good cholesterol". Your HDL's are responsible to remove your bad cholesterol throughout your body. The bad cholesterol that HDL is removing is your LDL (low density lipoprotein).

    A doctor once explained to me to think of your HDL's as the garbage truck of cholesterols and LDL is the garbage. So...the more garbage trucks you have (HDLs) the less garbage you have (LDLs). [greater HDL = less LDL] This would include getting rid of the cholesterol built up in your vessels that creates blockages and hardening (if you don't already know...this is BAD...it blocks blood flow, create clots, and can create many other medical problems)
    example by me = if you are 3ft wide and doorways were only 1ft wide it would be harder for you to squeeze through ( creating more pressure against the doorway) or you would have to turn sideways to fit through but less of you could go through and it would take you longer to go through the doorway. So why not just get rid of some of that extra molding that is decorating that doorway so that it is 3 ft wide to fit the average person? We (blood) would be able to move through much easier (less pressure = lower blood PRESSURE) and we could move the right amount through at a time! and of course not worry about that extra molding (cholesterol) breaking off and creating blockages in other hallways (clots that are created in other parts of the body) ! !

    HDL takes LDL to the liver to be reprocessed (the garbage truck takes the garbage to be recycled).

    AND overall higher HDL levels increase cardiovascular health! But it easy to increase you HDL! Some great easy ways to do this is 1) exercise 2) maintain a healthy weight ( things we should be attempting anyways on this site!) and 3) Quit smoking!
    Pretty easy lifestyle changes to decrease cholesterol levels, huh?

    So the big thing here is that CHOLESTEROL IS NOT BAD!! IT IS AN ESSENTIAL FAT for our cells to work properly!
    Don't be afraid of cholesterol...just be mindful of what you are putting in your body...and of course if you already have high cholesterol (even if you don't yet) make lifestyle changes to increase you garbage men!

    And finally onto your second question about fats....

    The best way to measure your fat intake is through calories. As long as you are monitoring that amount of proteins you are eating (should be the largest amount of grams or calories you are consuming...half of your ideal body weight should be the grams of protein you eat in a day) and the percentage (grams or calories) of carbs you are eating...fats should just fall into place from there. This will help you meet your minimum weight losing calorie needs of 1000 to 1200 calories per day.

    Also one last final good tip is to eliminate sugars at breakfast (i.e. CARBS - our body breaks carbs into sugars..would you eat 4 tsp of sugar for breakfast?? probably not! but that is what 1 cup [8oz] of instant oatmeal is!) So, only eat proteins for breakfast! If you eat sugars (carbs) at breakfast you are gearing your body to automatically feel like it needs to have more carbs throughout the day to maintain or increase cell(body) energy levels. Decrease breakfast carbs = decrease in lunch and dinner carb cravings!

    **I know this is long but I hope the extra explanations help!**
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Then you should know that dietary cholesterol has very MINIMAL impact on blood serum cholesterol.

    This is not always true. The fact is that for some people eating cholesterol has minimal impact on blood serum cholesterol, but for others it has a big impact. The only way to know which you are is to eat cholesterol and then get a blood test. That is why the general recommendation is to limit foods high in cholesterol.
  • borys12
    borys12 Posts: 98
    Options
    Hi, nice topic, just read everything. I generally agree with joejccva71 , I read a lot of books, documentaries and so on.
    The fat I eat is mostly saturated one - coconut oil, and there is a lot of it, about 50% calories. Rest is from mostly
    from vegetrables and meat , protein shakes. There is good article about fats: http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america . I carry on my eating and feeling great. That was my $0.02.
  • questionablemethods
    questionablemethods Posts: 2,174 Member
    Options
    I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but if you're interested in having children, saturated fat also seems important. Here's a quote from the press release (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press10312007.html)
    The women with the highest fertility diet scores ate less trans fat and sugar from carbohydrates, consumed more protein from vegetables than from animals, ate more fiber and iron, took more multivitamins, had a lower BMI, exercised for longer periods of time each day, and, surprisingly, consumed more high-fat dairy products and less low-fat dairy products.

    Personally, I don't buy the idea of only temporarily eating saturated fat while trying to have kids and then going back to low-fat. I'll just keep my full-fat foods (from pastured sources), thank you.
  • Elizabeth_C34
    Elizabeth_C34 Posts: 6,376 Member
    Options
    I absolutely LOVE eggs, avacado's, peanut/almond butter, nuts, mackerel but find that every time I eat them I go over my fat. I would love to be able to eat more of these foods.

    So, what I would like to know is does it matter if I go over my fat content with good fats?

    I had a long discussion with my general practitioner and cardiologist about my diet and exercise program when I got started. I'm a lot like you. I love eggs, peanut/almond butter, fish, nuts, etc. Their recommendations were to maintain moderate levels of everything, meaning, don't go eating a dozen eggs a day and spread your lean proteins among chicken, fish, redmeat, beans, eggs, etc. They recommended my cholesterol not exceed 300g and my saturated fats not exceed 20g. Long story short, just keep things in moderation. Eat what you want, but reduce your portion sizes if need be.

    P.S. Saturated dietary fatty acids are associated with higher levels of cholesterol in the blood, but they do not correspond with increased risk of cardiovascular disease but do correspond to an increased risk of coronary heart disease. In fact, an increase in dietary carbohydrates is correlated with much higher risk of CVD versus increases in satuated fat intake.

    Sources: (recent peer-reviewed legitimate ones, not opinions from a single doctor)
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978979
    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734
    3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711693
    4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21270379

    These studies also reference numerous other recent peer-reviewed studies showing similar results.

    Before someone accuses me of "cherry picking" government research, pubmed is simply a database of articles published over many scientific journals and serves only as a central location for these articles, most of which are completed under independent grants and funding sources.
  • questionablemethods
    questionablemethods Posts: 2,174 Member
    Options
    Just to add to this discussion regarding cholesterol and health risks. A very recently published study actually found an INVERSE relationship with all-cause mortality as well as CVD mortality in women.

    Check out Petursson et al. (2011) Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01767.x
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    There are tens of thousands of studies out there on nutrition. More being conducted and published everyday. Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

    I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

    I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.
  • questionablemethods
    questionablemethods Posts: 2,174 Member
    Options
    There are tens of thousands of studies out there on nutrition. More being conducted and published everyday. Does one new study that contradicts (or supports) the subject being discussed really have much relavance without being compared and analyzed with the others? Do a dozen?

    I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, it's just a general question. You are "cherry picking" studies if you only post a few that support YOUR point. Simply because the studies were peer reviewed and published on PubMed does not change that fact. PubMed is nothing more than repository for studies published in other medical journals. A link from there proves nothing other than you know how to use a search engine.

    I have worked in Public Health Care too long and read too many of these conflicting studies to think a few links "debunks" anything.
    I certainly never claimed to be debunking anything. I do primary research myself so I am well aware that it is a slow, incremental process to come to any kind of "truth" or agreement. And then, even when some kind of agreement is reached, new methods and new ways of looking at questions can add counterarguments. I also know that even experts can become very attached to an idea and fail to fairly evaluate the full body of research. I have seen it in my own research field plenty of times.

    I'm simply pointing this new finding (from a study following 50,000 people for over 10 years -- so this wasn't small-scale).

Categories