• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

American college of cardiology says saturated fat is ok!

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,675
Location
South of England
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
from Ken Berry’s Facebook page.

BREAKING::: The American College of Cardiology (good buddies with the American Heart Association) has just published a State-of-the-Art Review announcing their new stance on Saturated Fat.

Here is the Abstract
"The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.

Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are much less strongly related to CVD risk. It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering the overall macronutrient distribution.

Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods."

The article is currently behind a pay-wall. I just purchased a copy for $35. Video coming tomorrow.

LIMITING SATURATED FAT INTAKE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. Your doctor needs to know...

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2020/06/16/j.jacc.2020.05.077
 
There’s a documentary on BBC iPlayer called “The Truth About: Fat”

It states that according to scientific research not all saturated fats are bad and in fact dairy and eggs seem to have a positive effect.

What I personally find is that saturated fat often makes you feel fuller for longer so I eat less. A slice of buttered toast keeps me fuller than a plain toast
 
Lots of us find fat filling and doesn’t raise the important bits of cholesterol nor make us fat. Don’t eat toast as bread has way too many carbs for my blood glucose levels.
 
Before anyone gets excited about this, please take some time to look at the authors and their funding, and then ask yourself if the study is truly independent and valid. There is nothing in this abstract that describes what methodology they used to form their conclusion from, and it seems to be smoke and mirrors.

Edit to add: I am suspicious of anyone publishing a headline report then hiding it behind a paywall, If it is valid science, then why is it not in the public domain? NIH/ NCBI/ Cochrane?

And it has a glossy video too? My hackles are raised. My BS detector is alarming.
 
Last edited:
@Oldvatr fair points but when it supports what we already believe from personal experience it’s encouraging nonetheless. It seems the rest might be shared soon so I’ll wait and see.
 
Oldvatr said:
I am suspicious of anyone publishing a headline report then hiding it behind a paywall
Click to expand...

Happens almost all the time these days.
Rarely do we get to see a full paper without it being behind a paywall..
 
HSSS said:
@Oldvatr fair points but when it supports what we already believe from personal experience it’s encouraging nonetheless. It seems the rest might be shared soon so I’ll wait and see.
Click to expand...
It agrees with my viewpoint too, but to blindly accept this report without reasonable scrutiny just because we happen to like what it says does not make for informed increase of knowledge. It is similar to what google and facebook are guilty of when they tailor our newsfeeds depending on what our like history has been. It distorts our picture of the world and IMHO is The Emperor's New Clothes.

I happen to have been party to one of the meta studies that launched this new paradigm, and was able to correlate the raw data with the conclusions, and was satisfied that the statistics used actually supported the conclusions drawn and were valid. That was a proper study that was peer reviewed and fully published into archive, and the authors appeared to be proper researchers. This study under discussion here does not seem to have the same level of aptitude and authority. I would need access to the PDF to make any review that could alter my opinion. The Abstract has redacted too much information.
 
One would assume with this group making such an apparent major switch, there is more to it than their source of funding starting to come from for eg. The farming, or low carb lobby, instead of another self interested funder.
D.
 
About *************-ing time! Just figures that they'd put potentially life altering information behind a massive paywall, but still. It's something!
 
Someone asked for the science that supports the Eatwell stance on Satfat.

This is apparently the current status of the AHA advice based on this 2017 report.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

It does not support the the linked ACJ report

The AHA website today is advising
"The most recent recommendation by the American Heart Association (AHA) is to further limit saturated fats to only 5 or 6 percent of your total daily calories. So for a 2,000 calorie per day (calorie/day) diet, that would be about 100 to 120 calories or around 11 to 13 grams."

Seems that this is a pre release version of the JACC report
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271027/AIP/1-s2.0-S0735109720356874/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=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&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20200625T092203Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYXAZ3PKM2/20200625/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=85a85d9c19597e4d2319c8da7a0fc2198f9e43e3b10eb5557dcab183ac02dbee&hash=d10e8643e208daf5cd4d1c3e32acaac106131824d300ec835fb9f3f3ec581cbf&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S0735109720356874&tid=spdf-1289bdd1-86b1-41d4-b9ac-3af247d0bd81&sid=9f2fafc098546545fb6857a2fc9a0fb5f6e7gxrqb&type=client

brief scan through shows this draft document is not adding any new information, but is a discussion document aimed at politicians to change Eatwell and the standard US dietary guidelines. The reference list at the end seems to be cherry picking the studies that support their action, but is only 'inclusive' by referencing out to meta studies that have already been presented. The conclusion section shows these aims in full as a wishlist of political milestones on their roadmap. The reference list of studies starts with well known LCHF and Keto authors and again seems to reinforce the bias especially since several of the referenced studies involve authors of the JACC report.

Edit: That said,the reference list is impressive, and is of interest to those wondering what the science supporting Low Carb, keto nutrition looks like.What I am having difficulty with is that the authors are largely pediatricians, and children's specialist, and there seems to be no cardiologists or endo's involved in the analysis. Yet the topics of CHD and CVD mortality are primarily an adult preoccupation.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2020-6-25_10-9-22.png
    251.1 KB · Views: 300
Last edited:
So the reports were overblown. Not so much of a switch after all.

No wonder Pilate said, "What is truth?"
D.

 
Think it was @Cocosilk
 
Listened to a few YouTubers regarding this, such as Ken Berry. Ultimately this is still annoying as it plays into the hands of those who like to "frame" and or "start from here", whilst ignoring the in front of you and lived evidence. Even the best studies in my view do not trump current and past history. The "framing" allows those with an agenda to wave a bit of paper if the "evidence" goes in their direction.

I prefer evidence from living societies who have eaten and continue to eat saturated fat in a clean environment (by clean I mean no sugars, grains or modern oils); without going through the list, the evidence is crystal clear here. Then we can look at past evidence such as Western A Price, South Pacific Islanders, etc. We can look at the Women's Health Initiative, if we must look at more recent studies or the Minnesota Health Trial. For me the best evidence in modern times is comparing clinical end points (dead people), saturated fats raise cholesterol - do more people die with closer to so called normal cholesterol or not.

(Google search "do more people die with normal cholesterol")





If I had to get on a plane made with similar science to the above, I would make sure my funeral plans were sorted. This level of (not) science is laughable, except that millions have been affected by the practical repercussions.
 
Dead men tell no tales.

I was lucky to come across a paper published by an Australian Hospital that examined the post mortem details of heart attack victims and their results showed that the majority of heart attack victims had low or medium levels of LDL in their medical history. This paper was withdrawn shortly after publication after it was shown that LDL levels drop off rapidly after death and this was considered to be a corruption that invalidated the study.

However, I have found a paper from an earlier time where this same objection was raised, but the team demonstrated that LDL levels remained fairly static for about 16 hours post mortem, and they were able to verify their results They also correlated back to previous medical histories.
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/95/6/397/1559536

Edit to add: this study was carried out on healthy individuals who suffered violent death events, so in other words, we are not looking at patients with death caused by any underlying conditions.
 
Last edited:

...and I'm guessing two slices of butter would keep you fuller still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…