Saturated fat - the evidence

[Alexandra100]

I have copied the following extracts from this new study published in Medscape, because it seems to me very important for most members of this Forum, and because I know some members don't want to sign up to the likes of Medscape themselves even though it is free and above suspicion. However, I strongly recommend subscribing to Medscape to anyone who wants to read the whole text of this research paper and be alerted to cutting edge research in the future.

Evidence From Prospective Cohort Studies DoesNot Support Current Dietary Fat Guidelines
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Zoë Harcombe; Julien S Baker; Bruce Davies

DISCLOSURES Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(24):1743-1749.

ABSTRACT

Objectives
National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality by reducing dietary fat intake. Our 2016 systematic review examined the epidemiological evidence available to the dietary committees at the time; we found no support for the recommendations to restrict dietary fat. The present investigation extends our work by re-examining the totality of epidemiological evidence currently available relating to dietary fat guidelines.

Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies currently available, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of CHD, were undertaken.

Conclusions
Epidemiological evidence to date found no significant difference in CHD mortality and total fat or saturated fat intake and thus does not support the present dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacks generalisability for population-wide guidelines.

****************************************************************************************

Introduction
US public health dietary advice was announced by the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human needs in 1977[1] and was followed by UK public health dietary advice issued by the National Advisory Committee on Nutritional Education in 1983.[2] Dietary recommendations in both cases focused on reducing dietary fat intake; specifically to (1) reduce overall fat consumption to 30% of total energy intake and (2) reduce saturated fat consumption to 10% of total energy intake.

The recommendations were intended to address mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD). In 2015, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis,[3] which reported that evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), available to the dietary guideline committees, did not support the introduced dietary fat recommendations. In 2016, we published a systematic review and meta-analysis,[4] which reported that RCT evidence currently available does not support the introduced dietary guidelines. In 2016, we published a systematic review,[5] which reported that epidemiological evidence, available to the dietary guideline committees, did not support the introduced dietary fat recommendations. The aim of these systematic reviews has been twofold: to examine the epidemiological and RCT evidence base for the dietary fat guidelines to assess if they were justified at the time of their introduction and to review if the evidence currently available supports the extant recommendations. This systematic review and meta-analysis completes this work by examining the totality of epidemiological evidence currently available.

****************************************************************************************

The conclusion of the four systematic reviews and three meta-analyses is that there was no evidence to support the dietary fat guidelines being introduced and there is no evidence currently available to support them. Public health authorities need to urgently review dietary advice.

 

[Guzzler]

Thank you for taking the time to copy this out for members, much appreciated. I have seen this evidence before, it is a large piece of evidence in the jigsaw.

 

[librarising]

I saw the thread title and thought 'there is no evidence!' and 'this should be good'.
Actually there is some evidence :
France has one of the highest consumptions of saturated fat.
It also has one of the lowest rates of CHD

Because this doesn't fit into the traditional Diet Heart Hypothesis they have to call it the French Paradox.
You couldn't make it up.
Geoff

 

[Alexandra100]

I saw the thread title and thought 'there is no evidence!' and 'this should be good'.
Actually there is some evidence :
France has one of the highest consumptions of saturated fat.
It also has one of the lowest rates of CHD

Because this doesn't fit into the traditional Diet Heart Hypothesis they have to call it the French Paradox.
You couldn't make it up.
Geoff

On the other hand, the French do eat a lot of white bread. It is going to be fascinating over the next few years (how many - any bets?) watching how the NHS, Heart UK etc handle the climb-down over their dietary advice. And will diabetics who have dutifully eaten the infamous "plate" sue the NHS for the damage it has done to their health?

 

[Guzzler]

Zoe Harcombe is doing a lot on this issue. Her short (half hour) video on Youtube explains the myth on the burning of calories re fats v carbs that, considering the above evidence, goes a long way in untangling the morass that is the diet/heart myth.

 

[sunnybouy77]

They have never proved consumption of meat fats leads to higher cholesterol
So confusing

 

[Guzzler]

They have never proved consumption of meat fats leads to higher cholesterol
So confusing

More than that, they have never proved, beyond doubt, that higher cholesterol levels cause CVD, CHD or any other heart related issues. They cannot prove it because cholesterol itself is still not fully understood. The manufacturers of statins have vastly overstated the benefits of statin use.

This diet/heart myth can all be laid at the feet of one man whose qualifications/specialties were, or so I have read, in Economics and Fish Physiology.

 

[Deleted member 308541]

Dr Nick on the fat groups.

 

[Sue192]

This diet/heart myth can all be laid at the feet of one man whose qualifications/specialties were, or so I have read, in Economics and Fish Physiology.

I find it incomprehensible that one person's views, findings, opinions - call it what you will - can be so blindly adopted and pushed, hard, onto an unsuspecting public. I am reminded of the study that brought about the plugging of the high-fibre diet, namely a doctor's study of, to be indelicate, the poo habits of Ugandans.....

 

[Guzzler]

I find it incomprehensible that one person's views, findings, opinions - call it what you will - can be so blindly adopted and pushed, hard, onto an unsuspecting public. I am reminded of the study that brought about the plugging of the high-fibre diet, namely a doctor's study of, to be indelicate, the poo habits of Ugandans.....

That is why ego plays a big part in all of this. The hyperinflated ego of those whose 'theories' gain ground and the subsequent ego bursting quality of those who buy into said theory. For example, if you have been a follower and prescriber of statins and have often been outspoken about the benefits pushed by Big Pharma how easy/likely are you to climb down if/when the bubble bursts? It takes a lot for a layperson to admit that they were wrong so how much harder to admit a wrong doing if you are a boffin?

 

[Biggles2]

That is why ego plays a big part in all of this. The hyperinflated ego of those whose 'theories' gain ground and the subsequent ego bursting quality of those who buy into said theory.

Very true @Guzzler. Dr. Jason Fung has a recent blog on therapeutic nutrition. In it he talks about past medical treatments which today are recognised as being dangerous fads. He notes that the 1949 Nobel Prize winner for medicine was a doctor who perfected the lobotomy procedure which he did with great efficiency with an ice-pick like instrument:
https://idmprogram.com/therapeutic-nutrition-paradigm-21st-century-medicine/
Really, the medical establishment bought into this as recently as 1949??? As they say: "Science advances one funeral at a time".

 

[Guzzler]

Very true @Guzzler. Dr. Jason Fung has a recent blog on therapeutic nutrition. In it he talks about past medical treatments which today are recognised as being dangerous fads. He notes that the 1949 Nobel Prize winner for medicine was a doctor who perfected the lobotomy procedure which he did with great efficiency with an ice-pick like instrument:
https://idmprogram.com/therapeutic-nutrition-paradigm-21st-century-medicine/
Really, the medical establishment bought into this as recently as 1949??? As they say: "Science advances one funeral at a time".

That's a great peice by Dr. Fung. I am a fan of his straight talking, no nonsense approach. Thanks for the link.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

It takes a lot for a layperson to admit that they were wrong so how much harder to admit a wrong doing if you are a boffin?

Especially when the are knowingly wrong!

 

[Pinkorchid]

Why do we even debate how much fat we eat good or bad when it is just a matter of personal choice and taste. How many here eat more saturated fat just because someone said it is good for you regardless of whether you like it or not and how many do not eat much at all because they do not think it is good for them, does not suit them or just don't like it. For me it is a no brainer I don't eat much saturated fat because I do not like it simple as that...as in red meat, sausages bacon and full fat dairy that's my choice I presume others eat it because they do like it but my taste buds are not going to change because something in the media says it is good to eat fat

 

[Kentoldlady1]

Why do we even debate how much fat we eat good or bad when it is just a matter of personal choice and taste. How many here eat more saturated fat just because someone said it is good for you regardless of whether you like it or not and how many do not eat much at all because they do not think it is good for them, does not suit them or just don't like it. For me it is a no brainer I don't eat much saturated fat because I do not like it simple as that...as in red meat, sausages bacon and full fat dairy that's my choice I presume others eat it because they do like it but my taste buds are not going to change because something in the media says it is good to eat fat

I think its more that we are avoiding something we do like ( fat) because we were told its bad for us. I know that I did. I dont anymore. I eat fat, but avoid carbs. And I like some carbs.

It might be a no brainer for you but I am obviously not as bright!!!

 

[librarising]

Why do we even debate how much fat we eat good or bad when it is just a matter of personal choice and taste. How many here eat more saturated fat just because someone said it is good for you regardless of whether you like it or not and how many do not eat much at all because they do not think it is good for them, does not suit them or just don't like it. For me it is a no brainer I don't eat much saturated fat because I do not like it simple as that...as in red meat, sausages bacon and full fat dairy that's my choice I presume others eat it because they do like it but my taste buds are not going to change because something in the media says it is good to eat fat

Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. Just like Jack Sprat and his wife.
What I see on this forum is people pushing back against decades of misinformation (akin to brainwashing)
People like myself didn't learn about sat. fat and choose to go on an eating spree. There was still a little voice (or was that just me?) reminding us that all that sat.fat was bad for us.
With each new voice exposing the myth about sat.fat our programmed psychological resistance to eating it diminished.
During the Brexit campaign Michael Gove said we had enough of 'experts'.
He meant voices with a vested interest in influencing us one way.

For some diabetics the expert voices we've had enough include those promoting carbs with every meal/ those discouraging T2Ds from testing/ those warning against sat.fat.
We've started asking for evidence and the silence is deafening.

I promote sat.fat not because I believe it's not bad for us. I believe it's actually good for us.
Unfortunately for some, the psychological resistance is strong. For others, it's a personal dislike.
I could never 'get' how the Universe/God/Mother Nature made sat fat 'bad' when it tasted so good. Now I know why.

So if we can live in a psychological space where we might accept sat.fat/avocados/tomatoes/(disliked food of your own choosing) is good for us but that we personally dislike it, then we can be at peace with the world.

No one's advocating mandatory consumption.
Geoff (not a tomato lover )

 

[JohnEGreen]

During the Brexit campaign Michael Gove said we had enough of 'experts'.
He meant voices with a vested interest in influencing us one way

A good example of professional hypocrisy..

 

[Sue192]

The little voice is occasionally there for me, @librarising, even though I have been doing LCHF for three months; strangely it strikes when I'm having double cream in coffee! It just goes to show what a 'good' job was done demonising sat.fat. I find the most difficult mindset to break is the low-fat, lite/light is better. A tbs of Hellmans Real Mayo v a tbs Light is quite a useful enlightener!

 

[Pinkorchid]

I think its more that we are avoiding something we do like ( fat) because we were told its bad for us. I know that I did. I dont anymore. I eat fat, but avoid carbs. And I like some carbs.

It might be a no brainer for you but I am obviously not as bright!!!

Not about being bright or about if fat is good or bad for us I just do not like the taste of red meat and I do not eat much butter or cream I find them to rich ..Why do people think if someone does not eat loads of meat and lot of butter and cream it is because they were told not to when it is simply because we don't like it

 

[Dr Snoddy]

Everyone is entitled to their own tastes. Just like Jack Sprat and his wife.
What I see on this forum is people pushing back against decades of misinformation (akin to brainwashing)
People like myself didn't learn about sat. fat and choose to go on an eating spree. There was still a little voice (or was that just me?) reminding us that all that sat.fat was bad for us.
With each new voice exposing the myth about sat.fat our programmed psychological resistance to eating it diminished.
During the Brexit campaign Michael Gove said we had enough of 'experts'.
He meant voices with a vested interest in influencing us one way.

For some diabetics the expert voices we've had enough include those promoting carbs with every meal/ those discouraging T2Ds from testing/ those warning against sat.fat.
We've started asking for evidence and the silence is deafening.

I promote sat.fat not because I believe it's not bad for us. I believe it's actually good for us.
Unfortunately for some, the psychological resistance is strong. For others, it's a personal dislike.
I could never 'get' how the Universe/God/Mother Nature made sat fat 'bad' when it tasted so good. Now I know why.

So if we can live in a psychological space where we might accept sat.fat/avocados/tomatoes/(disliked food of your own choosing) is good for us but that we personally dislike it, then we can be at peace with the world.

No one's advocating mandatory consumption.
Geoff (not a tomato lover )

Geoff, it's a pity that mother Nature made a combination of saturated fat and sugar even tastier!