No clear association between butter and heart disease or mortality risk

[DCUK NewsBot]

A meta-analysis study, involving over 600,000 participants, shows no clear signs of butter being a health risk. The study showed that there was a weak association between butter consumption and total mortality, no association was found between butter and heart disease and, furthermore, butter was linked with a reduced risk of diabetes (which largely means type 2 diabetes). A meta-analysis combines the results and data from a range of studies to draw conclusions that apply to a much larger group of participants. The research team, led by researchers from Tufts University in Boston, reviewed data from nine studies involving 636,151 participants and 6.5 million person years of follow-up. Within the participants included in the analysis, there were: 28,271 total deaths 9,783 cases of incident cardiovascular disease (including heart disease and stroke) 23,954 cases of incident diabetes Butter consumption across the nine studies varied between a third of a serving to 3.2 servings, whereby a serving represents 14g of butter (equivalent to one tablespoon of butter). The results showed the following the following increases and decreases associated with one 14g serving of butter consumption: 1% increase in all-cause mortality No increase or decrease for cardiovascular disease in general 1% decrease in coronary heart disease 1% increase in stroke 4% decrease in incidence of diabetes Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, Dean of the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, states: "Overall, our results suggest that butter should neither be demonized nor considered 'back' as a route to good health." Dr. Laura Pimpin, former postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts, noted that: "people who eat more butter generally have worse diets and lifestyles." However, whilst this is true for most of the studies used in the meta-analysis, this is a trend that is beginning to change. In recent years, butter has begun to make a gradual comeback as more people are recognising it as not being the harmful food that late twentieth century health guidelines painted it as being. In fact Dr. Pimpin states that in terms of health or harm, butter is "pretty neutral overall". Dr. Mozaffarian added that it will be of interest to investigate more into why butter showed a 4 per cent reduced risk of incidence of diabetes, stating: "More research is needed to better understand the observed potential lower risk of diabetes, which has also been suggested in some other studies of dairy fat. This could be real, or due to other factors linked to eating butter - our study does not prove cause-and-effect." Readers may be interested to note that the study that showed the lowest rates of diabetes being linked with butter consumption was a very recent 2015 study within Sweden. Within the Swedish study, by Ericson et al., the incidence of diabetes associated was 7 per cent lower for each serving of butter. The key point about this study is that since 2008, a low carb, high fat diet with low reliance on processed foods has gained significant traction in being recognised as a healthy diet. This suggests that butter can be safely adopted as part of a healthy, low carb, high fat real-food diet. The meta-analysis is published online of the PLOS ONE journal.

Continue reading...

 

[Brunneria]

Just wanted to emphasise, in bold, in red, this section from the bottom of the OP

Readers may be interested to note that the study that showed the lowest rates of diabetes being linked with butter consumption was a very recent 2015 study within Sweden. Within the Swedish study, by Ericson et al., the incidence of diabetes associated was 7 per cent lower for each serving of butter. The key point about this study is that since 2008, a low carb, high fat diet with low reliance on processed foods has gained significant traction in being recognised as a healthy diet. This suggests that butter can be safely adopted as part of a healthy, low carb, high fat real-food diet.

@Administrator - I wondered if you had seen this? Looks like something you might find useful...

 

[SunnyExpat]

Not really a study of any great use to be honest.

So a diet with more butter is healthier than one without, or at least no worse.

The only problem is there is no discrimination made in that study of the rest of the diet.

My previous diet was Mcdonald's and Krispy Kremes.
My new diet is mediterranean, with healthy non saturated fats.

The study appeared to show that if I added a nob of butter to the McDonalds, and lather a bit over the Krispy Kreme, it's suddenly preferable to Mediterranean?

Statistics are a wonderful tool.

I just wonder how many people will be adding a few dozen helpings to their poor diet, as it's proven all you have to do is eat more and more butter to keep the diabetes away.
At 7% a portion, 15 portions on your chips each day, or with your cornflakes, and you are guaranteed never to get diabetes.

 

[mikesheehan]

Studies differ...
Three-decade study confirms saturated fats are bad for health
"Saturated fats in butter, lard and red meat raise the risk of early death, but replacing these with fats like olive oil can offer substantial health benefits, a three-decade study has confirmed.

The research involving more than 120,000 people was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0705/800428-fat-study/
"
"
According to Ian Johnson, emeritus fellow at Britain's Institute of Food Research, the "findings are consistent with current public health recommendations in the UK and elsewhere, and particularly with the concept of a beneficial Mediterranean-style diet, rich in unsaturated fats from plants, fish and olive oil."

Mr Johnson, who was not involved in the study, added: "There is nothing in these results consistent with the notion that 'butter is back.'"

 

[Brunneria]

Studies differ...
Three-decade study confirms saturated fats are bad for health
"Saturated fats in butter, lard and red meat raise the risk of early death, but replacing these with fats like olive oil can offer substantial health benefits, a three-decade study has confirmed.

The research involving more than 120,000 people was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0705/800428-fat-study/
"
"
According to Ian Johnson, emeritus fellow at Britain's Institute of Food Research, the "findings are consistent with current public health recommendations in the UK and elsewhere, and particularly with the concept of a beneficial Mediterranean-style diet, rich in unsaturated fats from plants, fish and olive oil."

Mr Johnson, who was not involved in the study, added: "There is nothing in these results consistent with the notion that 'butter is back.'"

There is a thread on that report, if you are interested:
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/just-hold-on-there-fat-is-now-bad-again.104114/

 

[SunnyExpat]

Studies differ...
Three-decade study confirms saturated fats are bad for health
"Saturated fats in butter, lard and red meat raise the risk of early death, but replacing these with fats like olive oil can offer substantial health benefits, a three-decade study has confirmed.

The research involving more than 120,000 people was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0705/800428-fat-study/
"
"
According to Ian Johnson, emeritus fellow at Britain's Institute of Food Research, the "findings are consistent with current public health recommendations in the UK and elsewhere, and particularly with the concept of a beneficial Mediterranean-style diet, rich in unsaturated fats from plants, fish and olive oil."

Mr Johnson, who was not involved in the study, added: "There is nothing in these results consistent with the notion that 'butter is back.'"

Non saturated works well for me anyway.
I'm not seen any study yet to say the Mediterranean diet is harmful.

 

[Canadian_cousin]

About a month back in discussions in one of the other threads (sorry I can't remember which one ) that were discussing results published in a British Journal, it was pointed out that the statistics for unsaturated fat that went back over many years were flawed because for many years saturated fat and trans fats were grouped together as one unit in their studies. It is only in recent years that saturated fat and trans fats have been separated into distinct categories and studied independently.A study going back over three decades as this one does should say whether the two types of fats were studied separately for the three decades before they were included in any of their statistics. Does anyone know if there is any way to find out about this? As many of you have pointed out, stats can be manipulated.