Low fat diets are a sham

It also helps that the US government subsidizes the sugar and high carb food industries, who in turn are able to fund the studies of these so-called experts with big titles.

1. Hooper L, et al. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 2015.

Details: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, performed by the Cochrane collaboration – an independent organization of scientists.

It is probably the best review you can find on this at the moment, and includes 15 randomized controlled trials with over 59,000 participants.

Each of these studies had a control group, reduced saturated fat or replaced it with other types of fat, lasted for at least 24 months and looked at hard endpoints, such as heart attacks or death.

Results: The study found no statistically significant effects of reducing saturated fat, in regard to heart attacks, strokes or all-cause deaths.

Although reducing saturated fat had no effects, replacing some of it with polyunsaturated fat led to a 27% lower risk of cardiovascular events (but not death, heart attacks or strokes).

Conclusion: People who reduced their saturated fat intake were just as likely to die, or get heart attacks or strokes, compared to those who ate more saturated fat.

However, partially replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events (but not death, heart attacks or strokes).

These results are similar to a previous Cochrane review, done in 2011 (2).

2. De Souza RJ, et al. Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ, 2015.

Details: This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed observational studies on the association of saturated fat and heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and death from cardiovascular disease.

The data included 73 studies, with 90,500–339,000 participants for each endpoint.

Results: Saturated fat intake was not linked with heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes or dying of any cause.

Conclusion: People who consumed more saturated fat were not more likely to experience heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes or death from any cause, compared to those who ate less saturated fat.

However, the results from the individual studies were very diverse, so it is hard to draw an exact conclusion from them.

The researchers rated the certainty of the association as “low,” emphasizing the need for more high-quality studies on the subject.

3. Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010.

Details: This meta-analysis reviewed evidence from observational studies on the link between dietary saturated fat and risk of heart disease and stroke.

The studies included a total of 347,747 participants, who were followed for 5–23 years.

Results: During follow up, about 3% of participants (11,006 people) developed heart disease or stroke.

Saturated fat intake was not linked with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attacks or strokes, even among those with the highest intake.

Conclusion: This study did not find any association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease.

4. Chowdhury R, et al. Association of dietary, circulating, and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine Journal, 2014.

Details: This study reviewed cohort studies and randomized controlled trials on the link between fatty acids and the risk of heart disease or sudden cardiac death.

The study included 49 observational studies with more than 550,000 participants, as well as 27 randomized controlled trials with more than 100,000 participants.

Results: The study did not find any link between saturated fat consumption and the risk of heart disease or death.

Conclusion: People with higher saturated fat intake were not at an increased risk of heart disease or sudden death.

Furthermore, the researchers did not find any benefit to consuming polyunsaturated fats instead of saturated fats. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids were an exception, as they had protective effects.

5. Schwab U, et al. Effect of the amount and type of dietary fat on risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, and risk of developing type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer: a systematic review. Food and Nutrition Research, 2014.

Details: This systematic review assessed the effects of amount and type of dietary fat on body weight and risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Participants included both people who were healthy and those with risk factors. This review included 607 studies; randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies and nested case-control studies.

Results: Consuming saturated fat was not linked with an increased risk of heart disease or an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers found that partially replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat may lower LDL cholesterol concentrations and decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease, especially in men.

However, substituting refined carbs for saturated fat may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Conclusion: Eating saturated fat does not increase the risk of heart disease or type 2 diabetes. However, partially replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat may help reduce the risk of heart disease, especially in men.

Summary

Reducing saturated fat has no effect on the risk of heart disease or death.
Replacing saturated fat with refined carbs seems to increase the risk of heart disease.
Replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but results for heart attacks, strokes and death are mixed.
Time to Retire The Myth?

People with certain medical conditions or cholesterol problems may need to watch their saturated fat intake.

However, the studies are pretty clear that, for the average individual, saturated fat has no significant association with heart disease.

That being said, there may be a small benefit to replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat.

This does not mean that saturated fat is “bad” – just that it is neutral, while some unsaturated fats are particularly healthy.

Like everything else in life, it's a matter of balance. Since many of the vitamins your body needs to function are fat soluble, you need a percentage of fat in your diet in order for your body to process them. References I have read puts that percentage between 20% and 25% calories from fat. But then, it's whatever works for you.

I tend to eat about as high fat as my body allows without a gallbladder. But what's with the article's obsession with carbs?

Discussion of sat fat from experts I trust:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2012/06/21/ask-the-expert-healthy-fats/

I think the best evidence is that cutting fat just for the sake of cutting fat is not a good idea for most, and that replacing it with highly processed, low nutrient carbs is obviously a bad idea. (Most of the foods that are greatly overconsumed in the US diet, though, are obvious "junk food" like sugary soda (which I never consumed personally), or combinations of fat and carbs (chips, fast food, most sweets like donuts).) I also think the evidence remains that reducing sat fat and/or fat from animal sources can be beneficial, and that consuming too much is probably bad for you, although some are more susceptible to this with things like increased bad cholesterol.

What a good diet is is pretty well known and non controversial (adequate protein, plenty of fiber, plenty of whole plant foods, like vegetables, legumes, sources of healthy fats like nuts, avocado, olives, fatty fish), not too many calories.

Like any other diet, a low fat diet can be very healthy and (for most) satisfying and not. A good read is here: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

I personally don't find that low fat diets are promoted by anyone knowledgeable these days, or widely accepted among those I know, so fighting against low fat diets (outside of some vegan/WFPB circles) seems rather like arguing against the idea that women should not be educated. Totally correct and valid, but hardly a current issue among anyone I'm likely to run into.

On the other hand, reducing fat is something I did when losing weight and it resulted in a MORE satiating diet for me, since experimentation shows that adding more olive oil/butter than I need, eating fattier meats, or full fat dairy doesn't make a meal more satisfying or filling for me. (Including good cheese and some delicious foods like ice cream does make my diet overall more sustainable, though, and so does steak and lamb chops, etc.) Mostly what I do is reduce oils/fattier cuts of meat (didn't eat these on a regular basis anyway, though), use cheese more sparingly, reduce extras (like fried things, sweets, restaurant foods) which tend to have lots of fat, among other things, and reduce starches that I don't care about but sometimes eat mindlessly (overly large servings of pasta and rice, bread on the table, a sandwich when I'd rather have it without the bread, a meal with two starch courses, like bread AND potatoes) -- none of that was a regular issue for me, but could be something especially when going out that I'd consume without thinking.

It was dumb when people obsessed about low fat, and it's dumb when people claim that we don't need to worry about calories from fat at all, it's all about carbs, evil carbs. Especially when most of the foods people call "carbs" get lots of their calories from fat. For example, as if the issue with something like a dish like spaghetti carbonara or adding some fries to a meal or again, donuts, wasn't the calories (made up significantly of fat) but only the "carbs." Either a low carb or low fat diet would cut down on those (and someone doing moderate fats and carbs or just flexible dieting, like me, would be concerned about the calories and need to include some additional foods with more micros to round out the meal).

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Seriously, here's a very long but good read about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't be put off by the title of the blog. This woman knows what she's talking about and cites good sources:

https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

Heh, you beat me to it! I wrote too much. ;-)

lemurcat12 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Seriously, here's a very long but good read about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't be put off by the title of the blog. This woman knows what she's talking about and cites good sources:

https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

Heh, you beat me to it! I wrote too much. ;-)

Great minds. It's such a good read, it deserves to be read twice.

(I think I had that on hand from a past discussion! ;-) And in all fairness, banana companies have been pretty morally-questionable historically, of course, but I wouldn't blame "carbs" for that.)

Yeah, such a sham that I'm down to 113 lbs from 151 and I've trimmed nearly 8 inches of fat from my waist. Fatty foods don't satiate me more, the only thing they do is waste my calories, add virtually no vitamins/minerals, and raise my cholesterol. I limit my fat intake to 10-15%.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

(I think I had that on hand from a past discussion! ;-) And in all fairness, banana companies have been pretty morally-questionable historically, of course, but I wouldn't blame "carbs" for that.)

Btw, it is also an interesting read the guest post she recently wrote for authority nutrition
https://authoritynutrition.com/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans/
That explains also why some people do better on HCLF

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

(I think I had that on hand from a past discussion! ;-) And in all fairness, banana companies have been pretty morally-questionable historically, of course, but I wouldn't blame "carbs" for that.)

Btw, it is also an interesting read the guest post she recently wrote for authority nutrition
https://authoritynutrition.com/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans/
That explains also why some people do better on HCLF

The key here being "some people."

fibonacci11235 wrote: »

http://time.com/96626/6-facts-about-saturated-fat-that-will-astound-you/


No single study has ever conclusively proven that increased fat intake leads to cardiac events. Sure, fatty foods have a lot of calories and can make you gain weight, but that's it if you can't control your portions. In fact, consuming fatty foods often makes you feel more satiated than when you consume low fat foods filled with sugar. The government and nutritionists have demonized fats for decades based on faulty conclusions and weak science, and since that time food makers have made everything low in fats and replaced them with sugar. The result has been an upward trend in obesity that keeps on continuing. No thanks. You'll find full fat whole milk yogurt, cheese, butter, bacon, and the like in my fridge. I don't feel guilty about eating them at all either and lost 16 lbs with portion control and exercise.

This is true. LFHC diets were based on fluff, cherry picked science, at best. Guidelines to reduce fat wasn't based on much, and ended up being bastardized into easy food (like) products like snackwells. I don't think the guidelines to cut fat helped anybody.

I do agree that LFHC can be a good option for people. A healthy option. I think the key to a healthy HFLC diet is to keep it whole foods based. As unrefined as possible while avoiding ultraprocessed food like items.

I don't think many would argue that diet based on lots of veggies, mainly greens, is bad for people.

There are exceptions of course.

https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/ While I found the previous link fascinating, I cringe at the idea of a diet based in rice, sugar, and juice. That's how I ate while I developed my insulin resistance. My fats were not very high (but higher than <10%) nor was my protein high. I KNOW that if I eat that way I will get blood glucose swings and my reactive hypoglycemia will become symptomatic again. And my FBG? I'm not willing to even try an 80% carb diet That is based in sugar, rice and juice to begin with. I would be so ill... So exceptions. That might work for some, perhaps those who developed IR just because they got fat, but most likely not for people like me who got fat after developing IR.

A LCHF diet works better for me. A LCHF diet that is mainly whole food based, although not to the extent that a healthy LFHC diet seems to need to be. Plus I don't have to deal with the stomach upset and BM issues that arise for me in a plant based diet.

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

(I think I had that on hand from a past discussion! ;-) And in all fairness, banana companies have been pretty morally-questionable historically, of course, but I wouldn't blame "carbs" for that.)

Btw, it is also an interesting read the guest post she recently wrote for authority nutrition
https://authoritynutrition.com/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans/
That explains also why some people do better on HCLF

Very interesting.

snickerscharlie wrote: »

Gianfranco_R wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

(I think I had that on hand from a past discussion! ;-) And in all fairness, banana companies have been pretty morally-questionable historically, of course, but I wouldn't blame "carbs" for that.)

Btw, it is also an interesting read the guest post she recently wrote for authority nutrition
https://authoritynutrition.com/4-reasons-some-do-well-as-vegans/
That explains also why some people do better on HCLF

The key here being "some people."

Yup.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Seriously, here's a very long but good read about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't be put off by the title of the blog. This woman knows what she's talking about and cites good sources:

https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/

I have no issues with low fat diets for those it works for. It isn't working for most people I know and I know a lot of former vegans who have gone high fat and a lot of their personal health issues resolved by having a fat fueled diet. That said , it's a nice article.