Does Saturated Fat Affect Cholesterol Levels?
Options
Replies
-
I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.
... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.
Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.
Is there any way to learn from Teicholtz without buying her book or subscribing to her newsletter? Because her "Big Fat Surprise" branded website that sells her book and investigative journalism and keeps popping up an offer for her newsletter doesn't instill confidence. Maybe I just didn't go through enough pages in my google search?
I googled David Feldman and came up with a stand up comedian, a professor of physics, a court reporter, and an orthopedist. Then I added "cholesterol" to the search and found the blog Cholesterol Code that says he's a Software Engineer and entrepreneur who does LCHF and learned everything through his own research and experiments. What he's done might be fascinating, but I don't know if I would trust my future health to him.
I guess for me personally, I would want more than journalists and hobbyists if I'm going to declare the recommendation of all sorts of health orgs outdated. I'm not saying their not, just that I wouldn't be convinced. I'll definitely check out the Cholesterol Code out of curiosity when I get more time.
Thanks for starting this thread @ladyhusker39 , fascinating stuff to read this weekend now!
I read Teicholtz's book from the library. Her book is where I got my information although she has done some good lectures.
This one was one of her earlier lectures. I find some of the more recent ones to be better but often longer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHGiid6N9Q&vl=en
Dave Feldman is an engineer with interesting n=1 experiments which have been replicated dozens of times. You might not want to base all of your health on him, but his self experiments made me think. Consistently he shows that:
High fat + high calories = lower cholesterol and triglycerides within three days. And that, low calorie + low fat = raised cholesterol levels within 3 days.
This is a very early video. Later videos get into the results of others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZu52duIqno&vl=en
5 -
I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.
... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.
Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.
Is there any way to learn from Teicholtz without buying her book or subscribing to her newsletter? Because her "Big Fat Surprise" branded website that sells her book and investigative journalism and keeps popping up an offer for her newsletter doesn't instill confidence. Maybe I just didn't go through enough pages in my google search?
I googled David Feldman and came up with a stand up comedian, a professor of physics, a court reporter, and an orthopedist. Then I added "cholesterol" to the search and found the blog Cholesterol Code that says he's a Software Engineer and entrepreneur who does LCHF and learned everything through his own research and experiments. What he's done might be fascinating, but I don't know if I would trust my future health to him.
I guess for me personally, I would want more than journalists and hobbyists if I'm going to declare the recommendation of all sorts of health orgs outdated. I'm not saying their not, just that I wouldn't be convinced. I'll definitely check out the Cholesterol Code out of curiosity when I get more time.
Thanks for starting this thread @ladyhusker39 , fascinating stuff to read this weekend now!
I read Teicholtz's book from the library. Her book is where I got my information although she has done some good lectures.
This one was one of her earlier lectures. I find some of the more recent ones to be better but often longer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHGiid6N9Q&vl=en
Dave Feldman is an engineer with interesting n=1 experiments which have been replicated dozens of times. You might not want to base all of your health on him, but his self experiments made me think. Consistently he shows that:
High fat + high calories = lower cholesterol and triglycerides within three days. And that, low calorie + low fat = raised cholesterol levels within 3 days.
This is a very early video. Later videos get into the results of others.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZu52duIqno&vl=en
Those changes in triglycerides is pretty well established though. Lower carbs increases free flowing fatty acids. Lyle McDonald talks about that stuff in booka written in like 2001. That is why its important to not get bloodwork not when dieting or after sweeping changes in diet.1 -
The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.
But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.
But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...
Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?0 -
The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.
But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.
But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...
Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?
Its the accompany or lack there of nutrients.
Also, semantically, not all sugars are the same. They metabolize at different rates and in some cases in difference parts of the body. Similarly, things like coconut oils are medium chain triglycerides which metabolize much faster than long chain triglycerides.
Overall, health is still about total diet. But if one wants an easy way to prioritize nutrients/foods, limited fried foods in favor of whole foods, is always a good choice.3 -
The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.
But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.
But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...
Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?
Its the accompany or lack there of nutrients.
Also, semantically, not all sugars are the same. They metabolize at different rates and in some cases in difference parts of the body. Similarly, things like coconut oils are medium chain triglycerides which metabolize much faster than long chain triglycerides.
Overall, health is still about total diet. But if one wants an easy way to prioritize nutrients/foods, limited fried foods in favor of whole foods, is always a good choice.
Thanks for elaborating
I'm not trying to argue that a Twinkie is equivalent to an apple or that full fat yogurt equals fried chicken, nutritionally. Just found it interesting that the argument I see so often (that sugar is sugar is sugar) doesn't translate here for saturated fats.
2 -
^ Save your time, unless you want to see quackery and unsubstantiated fearmongering at its best. Lustig is about as reliable as Dr. Oz.SweatLikeDog wrote: »Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig
Firstly, where does Lustig even address cholesterol in that video? Or anything about fat's relationship to it? Why is it even relevant to this thread, other than as a thinly disguised plug for keto?
Secondly, here's a thorough, evidence-based rebuttal to his woo in that video: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
On topic: In this meta-analysis, they predicted that "compliance with current dietary recommendations (30% of energy from fat, < 10% from saturated fat, and < 300 mg cholesterol/d) will reduce plasma total and low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations by approximately 5% compared with amounts associated with the average American diet.":
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/65/6/1747/4655489
Five percent.
Thanks. I wasn't even going to look at that silly video. I appreciate your help.2 -
SweatLikeDog wrote: »Best ever explanation of why fat is harmless: YouTube: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig
I don't see how that helps, or fits the description of "Can someone point me to some reputable, non-woo sources" OP asked for, but that's just my opinion. I was able to find lots of quasi-doctors or doctors reaching out of their specialty attempting to make a name for themselves by making the case on their blog-website, but I don't think that's what she was looking for.
Absolutely. That's why I asked here instead of on one of those sites.3 -
The biggest factors for metabolic markers are your body composition, whether or not you exercise, and genetics.
But if you wanted to prioritize fats; id put unsaturated first, than SFA and limit or dont touch transfats.
But it should probably be noted that sat fats from dairy, beef, and things like coconut oil will have different impacte than fried chicken, etc...
Can you explain your last statement a bit more? It feels equivalent to saying sugar in fruit has a different impact than table sugar because of additional fiber, micro nutrients, etc. Which I think we agree on, but still maintain that metabolically sugar is sugar. Why would saturated fat not be saturated fat?
Its the accompany or lack there of nutrients.
Also, semantically, not all sugars are the same. They metabolize at different rates and in some cases in difference parts of the body. Similarly, things like coconut oils are medium chain triglycerides which metabolize much faster than long chain triglycerides.
Overall, health is still about total diet. But if one wants an easy way to prioritize nutrients/foods, limited fried foods in favor of whole foods, is always a good choice.
Thanks for elaborating I'm not trying to argue that a Twinkie is equivalent to an apple or that full fat yogurt equals fried chicken, nutritionally. Just found it interesting that the argument I see so often (that sugar is sugar is sugar) doesn't translate here for saturated fats.
Consider context. Man-o-man, I see a lot of people posting here with things similar to "if I drink one soda pop within my calories will it ruin my weight loss" or "I'm eliminating all sugar from my diet" (but not eliminating veggies/fruit).
It's really common. So, there's a bit of rhetorical "sugar is sugar is sugar" or "sugar is not the devil" as a way to talk people off that silly ledge. Somewhere in those same threads, you'll usually find multiple people saying things like "overall nutrition is important" or "be sure you're getting enough protein and healthy fats" or "don't let sugar drive out other necessary nutrition", etc.
These days, we don't see a lot of posts saying "if I eat a small burger within my diet will it ruin my weight loss" or "I'm eliminating all sat fat from my diet". In the rare cases we do, you might see the equivalent of "sat fat is sat fat is sat fat" or "sat fat is not the devil".
Circumstances here more frequently call for the de-escalation of sugar phobias. If this were the 1980s, it might have been more likely to be de-escalation of sat fat phobias.
Either way, I personally think the answer (concerning anything that's a rational food, not a near-poison) is "as long as you hit your calorie goal, don't have a contraindicating medical condition, and it isn't driving out other important nutrition, you'll be fine".7 -
True. I do see a few posts about being scared of fat, but it's usually because of the sub- numbers turning red in their diary since there's no 'recommended' amount.
Personally, I love fat and have that macro set higher to align with my eating habits. I notice sat fat amounts every now and then, but it's more of an 'oh, look at at that' kind of thing since I have no medical reason to avoid it. I never look at sugar
2 -
OP, thanks for starting this thread. I'm really confused right now about sat fat, after my last blood work showed high cholesterol and very high triglycerides. I'm doing lots of research myself.0
-
I would go with Nina Teicholtz's Big Fat Surprise. She dives into where that myth that saturated fat=bad really are from.
... It dies seem to be getting less common now that it was a few years ago.
Dave Feldman has a collection if N=1 experiments on high fat and cholesterol. His stuff is worth looking into IMO.
Is there any way to learn from Teicholtz without buying her book or subscribing to her newsletter? Because her "Big Fat Surprise" branded website that sells her book and investigative journalism and keeps popping up an offer for her newsletter doesn't instill confidence. Maybe I just didn't go through enough pages in my google search?
I googled David Feldman and came up with a stand up comedian, a professor of physics, a court reporter, and an orthopedist. Then I added "cholesterol" to the search and found the blog Cholesterol Code that says he's a Software Engineer and entrepreneur who does LCHF and learned everything through his own research and experiments. What he's done might be fascinating, but I don't know if I would trust my future health to him.
I guess for me personally, I would want more than journalists and hobbyists if I'm going to declare the recommendation of all sorts of health orgs outdated. I'm not saying their not, just that I wouldn't be convinced. I'll definitely check out the Cholesterol Code out of curiosity when I get more time.
Thanks for starting this thread @ladyhusker39 , fascinating stuff to read this weekend now!
I read Teicholtz's book from the library. Her book is where I got my information although she has done some good lectures.
This one was one of her earlier lectures. I find some of the more recent ones to be better but often longer.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CHGiid6N9Q&vl=en
Dave Feldman is an engineer with interesting n=1 experiments which have been replicated dozens of times. You might not want to base all of your health on him, but his self experiments made me think. Consistently he shows that:
High fat + high calories = lower cholesterol and triglycerides within three days. And that, low calorie + low fat = raised cholesterol levels within 3 days.
This is a very early video. Later videos get into the results of others.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZu52duIqno&vl=en
Those changes in triglycerides is pretty well established though. Lower carbs increases free flowing fatty acids. Lyle McDonald talks about that stuff in booka written in like 2001. That is why its important to not get bloodwork not when dieting or after sweeping changes in diet.
I know. You'd think doctors and the public would have become aware of it by know... About twenty years later.
2 -
emjay196363 wrote: »OP, thanks for starting this thread. I'm really confused right now about sat fat, after my last blood work showed high cholesterol and very high triglycerides. I'm doing lots of research myself.
It looks like there's a lot of question about this relationship right now. I guess I'm not the only one who's unsure about the science or how to apply it to my eating habits. I eat a balanced diet with just enough low nutrient foods to keep my sweet tooth happy, so I'm not worried about it myself. But I think it's one of those things right now that falls under the "better safe than sorry" category if you have health concerns like you do.
All the best in figuring out a good strategy to manage your situation.0 -
emjay196363 wrote: »OP, thanks for starting this thread. I'm really confused right now about sat fat, after my last blood work showed high cholesterol and very high triglycerides. I'm doing lots of research myself.
if you are having issues with your cholesterol its best to watch your sat fat intake. talk to your dr and see if they recommend a low fat /low cholesterol diet or not. they might depending on your numbers. high cholesterol also can be hereditary.1 -
I will say this - I do not readily accept every "new" idea that comes around. I look at the study, who is was conducted by, who paid for the research, how many people, for how long and what age. My cardiologist told me in May to limit saturated fats and avoid transfats (which I do). Now it could be that he is just getting a kick back from the drug companies, but I don't think so, since my GP says it too. I don't have heart disease, but my father had a triple bypass when he was 70, so perhaps he is thinking genetics. But with the way my father eats, and has always eaten, it's enough proof to me that saturated fats are just not good for you. But that is just my observation.0
-
elsie6hickman wrote: »I will say this - I do not readily accept every "new" idea that comes around. I look at the study, who is was conducted by, who paid for the research, how many people, for how long and what age. My cardiologist told me in May to limit saturated fats and avoid transfats (which I do). Now it could be that he is just getting a kick back from the drug companies, but I don't think so, since my GP says it too. I don't have heart disease, but my father had a triple bypass when he was 70, so perhaps he is thinking genetics. But with the way my father eats, and has always eaten, it's enough proof to me that saturated fats are just not good for you. But that is just my observation.
it could be genetic but the only way to tell would be a genetic test. some people have issues processing fats and cholesterol, does he have high cholesterol or anything? if so then yes it most likely is genetics. but then again other heart issues can be genetic too even without the high cholesterol issues.so hard to tell.0 -
elsie6hickman wrote: »I will say this - I do not readily accept every "new" idea that comes around. I look at the study, who is was conducted by, who paid for the research, how many people, for how long and what age. My cardiologist told me in May to limit saturated fats and avoid transfats (which I do). Now it could be that he is just getting a kick back from the drug companies, but I don't think so, since my GP says it too. I don't have heart disease, but my father had a triple bypass when he was 70, so perhaps he is thinking genetics. But with the way my father eats, and has always eaten, it's enough proof to me that saturated fats are just not good for you. But that is just my observation.
"The" study? Unless it's a well-structured meta-analysis, we should be looking at the weight of the evidence over many studies.
Certainly, follow your doctor's advice - s/he knows your medical history - vs. any single study that may or may not be relevant to your personal circumstances.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions