Butter And Ldl

[ghost_whistler]

According to this: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/...els-ldl-levels/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

There was a BBC study of some rigour that seemed to show Butter raised LDL.

"The group who ate butter saw their bad LDL levels rise by about ten per cent, as expected. But the olive oil and coconut oil saw no rise in bad LDL – despite coconut oil having more saturated fat than butter.’"

Dr Kendrick is seen by many keto'ers as credible. He is not arguing against fat at all, but this single comment seems relevant given that butter is recommended as a low carb fat.

 

[Guzzler]

I think you need to read the piece again, carefully. Kendrick is saying that the cholesterol hypothesis even in trials is not proven.

 

[lucylocket61]

I switched fromm flora type stuff to butter about 18 months ago, and my cholesterol LDL has been falling ever since. I think maybe what that study says is not what you think it says.

 

[bulkbiker]

I doubt very much that the BBC has done a study on LDL.

 

[Guzzler]

I doubt very much that the BBC has done a study on LDL.

Moseley did a 'test' on one of his health programmes using about 60 people AFAIR monitoring cholesterol after olive oil, coconut oil and butter. But this was probably about three years ago.

 

[bulkbiker]

Moseley did a 'test' on one of his health programmes using about 60 people AFAIR monitoring cholesterol after olive oil, coconut oil and butter. But this was probably about three years ago.

I'm guessing that is what is being referred to here but a "study" it wasn't.

 

[ghost_whistler]

I think you need to read the piece again, carefully. Kendrick is saying that the cholesterol hypothesis even in trials is not proven.

Yes that's why the comment about butter in the test is puzzling.

He says the BBC test was scientifically rigorous and then reports that the butter eating cohort had a rise in LDL.

 

[ghost_whistler]

I switched fromm flora type stuff to butter about 18 months ago, and my cholesterol LDL has been falling ever since. I think maybe what that study says is not what you think it says.

What does it say then?

 

[ghost_whistler]

I doubt very much that the BBC has done a study on LDL.

Did you even read the article?

Here is the study

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e020167

 

[lucylocket61]

Yes that's why the comment about butter in the test is puzzling.

He says the BBC test was scientifically rigorous and then reports that the butter eating cohort had a rise in LDL.

the point is that the butter had less saturated fat than coconut oil, but the higher saturated fat in the coconut oil had less impact on LDL than the low saturated fat in butter, thus showing that the effect of saturated fat in the diet was the opposite of the low fat mantra from ancel keys earlier work, which ancel keys himself later reverse in the 1990's.

edited to add: and the butter raised the HDL, cancelling out the raise in LDL

 

[ghost_whistler]

the point is that the butter had less saturated fat than coconut oil, but the higher saturated fat in the coconut oil had less impact on LDL than the low saturated fat in butter, thus showing that the effect of saturated fat in the diet was the opposite of the low fat mantra from ancel keys earlier work, which ancel keys himself later reverse in the 1990's.

edited to add: and the butter raised the HDL, cancelling out the raise in LDL

I'm not sure that is true, the study says that butter raised LDL by 10% and HDL by 5%.

I don't know if it's a zero sum game either.

Also it may be that the higher the sat fat content the less it affects LDL, it may be so. However that isn't why I posted. Butter is pointed to as exmplary of healthy fat in many low carb/keto sources. If it raises LDL and in excess of HDL then I think that should be questioned, if true

 

[Guzzler]

Butter raising ldl by 10% is moot because ldl does not cause cvd/chd etc. The whole sat fat/heart health hypothesis wrt to cholesterol or not has been debunked.

 

[bulkbiker]

Did you even read the article?

Here is the study

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e020167

No because of course you didn't provide the link... and as I said the study was done by the people who published it and not the BBC.. Prof Nita Farouhi for example is employed at Cambridge University.

First confounder - "Participants were all fasted for a minimum of 4 hours prior to attending the assessment; the majority were fasted overnight" . Why were they not all fasted overnight? A fairly simple procedure to allow for uniformity in the initial test.
Second - lack of info - doesn't mention if they were all fasted for the same period at the tests taken at the end of the test.
Third .. the change in LDL seems to have been less than 0.5 mmol/l hardly the significant change they claim surely? Especially as it has been shown that cholesterol numbers can change significantly over the course of one day let alone 4 weeks.
Fourthly - so what? Butter may raise LDL a little bit more than coconut oil but does that matter in the slightest? As the particle sizes of the LDL weren't even considered then the study tells us nothing of note except that it wasn't very well run (although it was much better than the study published in "The Lancet Public Health " about Low carb being dangerous).

Calling LDL "bad" simply shows the lack of knowledge of the reporter writing the BBC piece.

 

[ghost_whistler]

Butter raising ldl by 10% is moot because ldl does not cause cvd/chd etc. The whole sat fat/heart health hypothesis wrt to cholesterol or not has been debunked.

Sure, that's the popular claim. But it's only a hypothesis. I don't think that has been fully established. Have we any RCT's that show this?

 

[ghost_whistler]

No because of course you didn't provide the link... and as I said the study was done by the people who published it and not the BBC.. Prof Nita Farouhi for example is employed at Cambridge University.

First confounder - "Participants were all fasted for a minimum of 4 hours prior to attending the assessment; the majority were fasted overnight" . Why were they not all fasted overnight? A fairly simple procedure to allow for uniformity in the initial test.
Second - lack of info - doesn't mention if they were all fasted for the same period at the tests taken at the end of the test.
Third .. the change in LDL seems to have been less than 0.5 mmol/l hardly the significant change they claim surely? Especially as it has been shown that cholesterol numbers can change significantly over the course of one day let alone 4 weeks.
Fourthly - so what? Butter may raise LDL a little bit more than coconut oil but does that matter in the slightest? As the particle sizes of the LDL weren't even considered then the study tells us nothing of note except that it wasn't very well run (although it was much better than the study published in "The Lancet Public Health " about Low carb being dangerous).

Calling LDL "bad" simply shows the lack of knowledge of the reporter writing the BBC piece.

The article doesn't say LDL is bad, it refers to the bad LDL - the LDL component that is negative.

 

[bulkbiker]

The article doesn't say LDL is bad, it refers to the bad LDL - the LDL component that is negative.

If you read uninformed articles about cholesterol HDL is called "good" and LDL is called "bad" .

 

[Guzzler]

Sure, that's the popular claim. But it's only a hypothesis. I don't think that has been fully established. Have we any RCT's that show this?

One of the roles of cholesterol is repair, that has been established. Dietary cholesterol accounts for, at most, 15% of total body cholesterol and if there is a shortfall then the body produces more because it is vital for life. So vital that the body does not leave it to chance by relying on diet.
Suggest you read from: Prof. Ken Sikaris, Aseem Malhotra or any of the dozens of experts in the field. There is a great lecture by Ivor Cummins on YouTube called 'The Cholesterol Conundrum' that may clarify things for you and he does cite references for further reading.

Edited to add, Dave Feldman is another great source of info on lipids.

 

[bulkbiker]

@ghost_whistlerI assume you are referring to this article?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/art...-coconut-oil-good-or-bad-for-your-cholesterol
It is so much easier if you publish a link...

I quote from it

"There are 2 different types of cholesterol which have opposite health implications.
LDL cholesterol is so-called ‘bad’ cholesterol, linked with increased risk of heart disease and stroke.
HDL cholesterol is ‘good’ cholesterol, thought to be beneficial because it carries away LDL from the blood stream."

The conclusion that

"For butter, study participants had an average increase in LDL cholesterol by 0.3 millimoles per litre, representing a rise of around 10%. The increased risk to heart health reverted back again once the regime was stopped."

Is quite astounding.. Apart from the incorrect use of language of "reverted back" (sic).
There is no report of follow up anyway so how do they know the LDL levels "reverted back"?

Also I note from the video clip.. the people taking the olive oil and coconut oil were drinking it.. either "naked" or in coffee.. the butter group were spreading it on ... yep you guessed it .. Bread!

Edit to add it does seem to contradict the Harvard Prof who recently said that coconut oil was "poison" though..So far as I can see no-one died from ingesting coconut oil.

 

[ringi]

They 'proved' that butter was harmless and that olive oil and coconut oil were of benifit. The people who run the study was not expecting that outcome.....

(High TG are due to over eating along with too much suger and carbs, therfore can increase with added fat unless carbs are reduced.)

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Correlation and causation.

The original article in this thread states that dietary saturated fats do not turn into cholesterol. They are carried directly to the tissues by chylomicrons.

LDL is made in the liver from the saturated fat in the liver which in turn is made from carbohydrates.

So there is an apparent correlation between increased (although the baseline is not stated) consumption of butter and a rise in LDL produced by the liver.

It would have been good to see some kind of attempt at an explanation as to why butter was associated with a rise in liver-generated LDL.

The OP has a valid point; if butter apparently encourages a rise LDL then (regardless of the cause) it may be less healthy than olive oil and coconut oil assuming:

(1) The raised LDL is of the particle size considered to be dangerous.
(2) The risks associated with that particular fraction of LDL is accurately reported.

As already pointed out the diet of all participants would have to be strictly controlled so that all other aspects are the same. Same level of proteins, same level of carbohydrates.

Noted also, from https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e020167:

"The effects of different dietary fats on lipid profiles, metabolic markers and health outcomes may vary not just according to the general classification of their main component fatty acids as saturated or unsaturated but possibly according to different profiles in individual fatty acids, processing methods as well as the foods in which they are consumed or dietary patterns.".

My emphasis.

So the conclusion seems to be that there was a measured difference in lipid profile but the study has no idea if it is due to the type of fat consumed or due to other unrelated aspects such as chugging down olive oil or coconut oil changing what you eat during the day.

If it is assumed that the butter is mainly eaten on bread products then a simple explanation might be an increased consumption of bread. However we don't have enough information to draw this conclusion.

From the abstracts we don't even know if the participants on the olive oil were forbidden butter and coconut oil for 4 weeks (and so on for the others).

Bottom line is that, although there was a simplistic methodology, a significant difference in blood lipid profile was noted and this requires an explanation.

Yet another "more funding required for another study".