LCHF and Keto: Peter Attia cautions saturated fat science not settled.
AlabasterVerve
Posts: 3,171 Member
Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
0
Replies
-
The American Heart Association is still recommending we keep our saturated fat consumption 5% to 6% of total calories. All fats are not created equal. Avoid transfats, limit saturated fats.0
-
This is basic evolutionary science - we are much stronger as a species if we DON'T all have the same response to food intake. There SHOULD be significant variation in how people respond to different macro ratios.
Nature hates monocultures.0 -
"science not settled"
No way. I'm amazed.
Science is never "settled".0 -
I'm more interested in what the science says than an organization who makes recommendations willy nilly and tortures data to fit their beliefs -- they're a joke and have lost all credibility, IMO.HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »The American Heart Association is still recommending we keep our saturated fat consumption 5% to 6% of total calories. All fats are not created equal. Avoid transfats, limit saturated fats.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I'm more interested in what the science says than an organization who makes recommendations willy nilly and tortures data to fit their beliefs -- they're a joke and have lost all credibility, IMO.HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »The American Heart Association is still recommending we keep our saturated fat consumption 5% to 6% of total calories. All fats are not created equal. Avoid transfats, limit saturated fats.
Then why are you listening to anything Attia says?0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I'm more interested in what the science says than an organization who makes recommendations willy nilly and tortures data to fit their beliefs -- they're a joke and have lost all credibility, IMO.HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »The American Heart Association is still recommending we keep our saturated fat consumption 5% to 6% of total calories. All fats are not created equal. Avoid transfats, limit saturated fats.
Science is not above being influenced by monetary pressures. Scientists need to eat too and so have to seek out organizations willing to fund research. Oftentimes, these organizations have a preferred set of results they'd like to see and are more likely to fund more follow on studies if the research points the way they'd like. Think that might sometimes have an effect?
The best science is usually done with government funding since the money comes from general taxation rather than, say, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Of course, politicians head up the government and they almost always have an agenda, however it is the civil servants below them who do all the actual work and they will be there long after the current round of political appointees are wiped away in the next election. Civil servants are typically immune from being fired by the political wonks so they don't even need to fear the big boss all that much.
Health Canada, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the UK Food Standards Agency, the Australian Department of Health and Aging, the Singapore Government Health Promotion Board, the Indian Government Citizens Health Portal, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Food and Drugs Board Ghana, the Republic of Guyana Ministry of Health, and Hong Kong's Centre for Food Safety - all recommend limiting saturated fat intake. That's probably as near to a large, widely held consensus that we're ever going to get.0 -
The American Heart Association is beholden to many stakeholders.0
-
There's a subset of the population that can be negatively affected by anything if you look closely enough. I honestly don't care what the breakdown of sat vs unsat is in my day to day, because all of my bloodwork regarding those types of numbers is textbook perfect and always has been. OTOH I can flip to anemic pretty quickly, where the vast majority of people don't have to give how much iron they consume a second thought.
Perhaps instead of any organization, regardless of who sponsors them, making these sweeping generalizations, they should advise people to talk to a trained medical professional to figure out what, if any, things they personally need to be aware of, and pro-actively do what they can to fix them.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
I'm more interested in what the science says than an organization who makes recommendations willy nilly and tortures data to fit their beliefs -- they're a joke and have lost all credibility, IMO.HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »The American Heart Association is still recommending we keep our saturated fat consumption 5% to 6% of total calories. All fats are not created equal. Avoid transfats, limit saturated fats.
Which is exactly what Attia and Taubes do, they are both anti science
0 -
The American Heart Association makes millions by licensing out their "Heart Healthy" label. They aren't about the jeopardize the monetary value of pushing whole grains over healthy fats.0
-
Cynicism noted, but the major issue is what are the healthy fats, specifically how do we classify saturated fat.0
-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but degrees do not an ethical scientist make.
How many highly educated scientists are caught falsifying their research every year? Fewer now that they know the journals are looking for Photoshopped images, but those same individuals are unethical enough to fudge their results in ways that are harder to catch.
ETA:lemurcat12 wrote: »Cynicism noted, but the major issue is what are the healthy fats, specifically how do we classify saturated fat.
And yes ... back to the topic at hand ...0 -
Anti bad science definitely. I have the utmost respect for both of them. Taubes and Attia have a hypothesis, they formed NuSi to fund the research needed to test it and they're funding scientists who are skeptical of their hypothesis to perform the studies. That's exactly how it should be.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Anti bad science definitely. I have the utmost respect for both of them. Taubes and Attia have a hypothesis, they formed NuSi to fund the research needed to test it and they're funding scientists who are skeptical of their hypothesis to perform the studies. That's exactly how it should be.
What's funny is Taubes chastised others for cherry picking evidence to support a hypothesis instead of letting the body of evidence tell a story and that's exactly what he did. Also hilarious that for someone you think is for science couldn't even get basic facts right in his books, he just skipped over them since they didn't support his hypothesis and outright lied about things to support his hypothesis, which Oh by the way has already been debunked time and time again.
http://t.co/VdCmzu6qSl0 -
It
It's basically a blog post where he said some guy had adverse lipid numbers consuming higher saturated fat while his were stellar.....ok, I'll just play through then. Next.AlabasterVerve wrote: »Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi0 -
neanderthin wrote: »It
It's basically a blog post where he said some guy had adverse lipid numbers consuming higher saturated fat while his were stellar.....ok, I'll just play through then. Next.AlabasterVerve wrote: »Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
Yes, it is indeed a blog post! I thought "on his blog" and "full post" were descriptive enough and made that clear...0 -
I guess I'm not clear on your inquiry. Considering he consumes vast quantities of fat, he's letting people know that consuming lots of SFA's might not be the best course of action. I agree.AlabasterVerve wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It
It's basically a blog post where he said some guy had adverse lipid numbers consuming higher saturated fat while his were stellar.....ok, I'll just play through then. Next.AlabasterVerve wrote: »Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
Yes, it is indeed a blog post! I thought "on his blog" and "full post" were descriptive enough and made that clear...
0 -
The ongoing reduction for SFA's is probably the knee jerk to heart disease that is now the #1 cause of death and the correlation with saturated fat, which if you've kept abreast of the research is not merited in my opinion.....that focus has blindsided the powers that be for a few generations now and with the reverse happening with cholesterol and recent studies that show replacing saturated fat with say carbs might not be the best course of action.........without actually saying why that might be, which I find disingenuous. Particle size is the new buzz word that has yet to find it's way into the halls of justice or the ears of the giants that write our fate.0
-
damn editing.
0 -
dp and damn editing again, because beer.
0 -
Diets high in saturated fats have been linked in several studies to certain types (various hormone-receptor positive, I believe, but I could be wrong on that detail) of breast cancer.
The heart disease debate gets discussed over and over, but there are more reasons than heart disease to consider SFAs.
ETA link to abstract. Types where strong correllation was found were ER+, PR+, and HER-. Other types did not show significant correllation, as I understand the abstract.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 438 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions