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

Saturated Fats and Health...The Scientific Advisory Committee report

That section that @bulkbiker posted above is major, so how can they continue with low fat mantra as before? Do they read any science nowadays?
 
bulkbiker said:
Doubt it.. their paymasters limit their internet access I reckon..
Click to expand...
But did they not read their own report? Do they understand why that might be considered part of their job?
 
P. 146 Substituting saturated fat with PUFA lowers fasting glucose

P. 148 Substituting saturated fat with MUFA no effect on fasting glucose

P. 149 Substituting saturated fat with carbohydrates no effect on fasting glucose (Really?)

P. 150 Substituting saturated fat with PUFA no effect on fasting insulin

P. 152 Substituting saturated fat with MUFA increases fasting insulin

P. 153 Substituting saturated fat with carbs increases fasting insulin

P. 155 Substituting saturated fat with PUFA lowers HbA1c

P. 156 Substituting saturated fat with MUFA lowers HbA1c

P. 157 Substituting saturated fat with carbs no effect on HbA1c (Really?)

Summary of RTC on page 171.
 
This was a meta study of mainly epidemeologic or prospectivd studies from 1991 ro 2016. However it also included a few trials that were conducted after the cloasing date, and supplied by an interested party, as yet unidentified.(para 2.6)

Many of the trials being reviewed included transfats and hydrogenated butters as sat fats.
However greater emphasis was placed on the SACN review of 2012 which became a primary source for some reason. (para 2.2)

I see Unilever is listed amongst the scientific review members and he was listed as the Chief Scientist..

I suspect one of the trials included was Framingham study that has been debunked since their fat substitutions were not isocaloric, and had poor control over data collection.
 
bulkbiker said:
Possibly for here the most important finding?
Click to expand...
I would argue that whether there is relationship between saturated fat and the risk of developing type 2 is the least important finding for most people on this forum as they have already been diagnosed. What would be more relevant would be a) factors affecting HbA1c etc. (as listed by @Sapien) and b) factors affecting cardiovascular events and mortality (as people with diabetes are known to be at higher risk).

p77 Saturated fat intake and CVD outcomes
Randomised controlled trials
CVD mortality  No effect  Adequate evidence
CVD events  Effect  Adequate evidence  The direction of the effect indicates that reduced intake of saturated fats lowers the number of CVD events ​
Prospective cohort studies
CVD mortality  No association  Adequate evidence
CVD events  Insufficient evidence​

p81 Saturated fats substitution with PUFA or PUFA and MUFA and CVD outcomes
Randomised controlled trials
CVD mortality  No effect  Adequate evidence CVD events  Effect  Adequate evidence  The direction of the effect indicates that substitution of saturated fats with PUFA lowers CVD events​
Prospective cohort studies
CVD mortality  Association for saturated fats substitution with PUFA or PUFA and MUFA on CVD mortality  Limited evidence  The direction of the association indicates that substitution of saturated fats with PUFA or PUFA and MUFA lowers CVD mortality
CVD events  No evidence
​
It's also worth reminding ourselves that these findings are based on the general population and results may differ for specific populations such as people with diabetes.
 
Going back to the info at para 15:90 that I posted, the RCT trials said insufficient evidence (meanining No significant effect) for reduction in sat fat and CVE events with a no evidence of increased mortality.
Yet in the washup section on page 71 this becomes treated as significant. If they had done the analysis using current meta analysis methods, I think the Blobi charts would show that the results were invalid, and their conclusion would be obvious as a biassed opinion, not backed up by the science.
 
Oldvatr said:
insufficient evidence (meanining No significant effect)
Click to expand...
'Insufficient evidence' is not the same as 'no significant effect'. It means that there may be a significant effect but we haven't done enough good quality measurements to say whether there is or there isn't.

Oldvatr said:
Going back to the info at para 15:90
Click to expand...
Para 15:90 is talking about risk of type 2 diabetes whereas the text on p71 is talking about CVD. The two are not comparable - perhaps there was a typo?
 
Reading through in a bit more detail I found this amazing statement
i.e. we'll class them all together but any conclusions we draw will per se be a huge oversimplification because we didn't look at the detail..
 
This kind of analysis result is not any confirmation. Specifically, if you are looking at effect of saturated fat on cholesterol level, there are more detailed studies that examine effect of different kind of saturated fatty acid on levels of different types of cholesterol levels.

I am not sure if there are any that looks at their individual effect on hba1c based on an isocalories basis. Can try searching at pubmed.

There are also external factors like activity level, types of activities, individual metabolism and age etc, that will come into play.
 
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.…