Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 183 posts

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#91

Post by coldtea »

kaeluka wrote: post #84
lngnmn wrote: post #81

It obviously does not because there are whole populations, such as Tibetans, who consume butter on daily basis and are still alive and well, without any cardiovascular epidemic. What is a risk, by the way? How it is defined, apart from a personal lifestyle, diet, habits, current set of disorders and chronic illnesses of a particular person? It is a likelihood? An average of some imagined population of which some non-…

That's not at all obvious. Tibetans have a very different life style and nutrition than, for instance, westerners.

Which is irrelevant, as it only speaks of total risk. If butter was bad, it would be bad for them too, in a controlled study against not butter eating Tibetans, regardless if they all run 10k miles per day and eat only vegetables.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#92

Post by arethuza »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #71
arethuza wrote: post #69

One of the most remarkable snacks I've ever had was served on a trawler in the North Sea - a large number of butteries (pastries from the North East of Scotland which, as the name suggests, are made with a large amount of butter) layered in a deep baking tray and covered with a couple of pounds of salted butter and then baked until nice and hot. Possibly the most delicious thing I have ever consumed NB (it was shared…

That sounds really delicious. But what does it have to do with heart disease risk?

Well, means my heart attack risk is lower :-)

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#93

Post by Dayshine »

lngnmn wrote: post #81

It obviously does not because there are whole populations, such as Tibetans, who consume butter on daily basis and are still alive and well, without any cardiovascular epidemic. What is a risk, by the way? How it is defined, apart from a personal lifestyle, diet, habits, current set of disorders and chronic illnesses of a particular person? It is a likelihood? An average of some imagined population of which some non-…

This is a fault of journalism, not of epidemiology.

Studies very rarely go so far as to make any causative claims.

Knowing that those who meet condition A have a higher change of condition B is valuable, even if A and B are relatively unconnected.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#94

Post by Xdafjgneoiwe »

coldtea wrote: post #91
kaeluka wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all obvious. Tibetans have a very different life style and nutrition than, for instance, westerners.

Which is irrelevant, as it only speaks of total risk. If butter was bad, it would be bad for them too, in a controlled study against not butter eating Tibetans, regardless if they all run 10k miles per day and eat only vegetables.

If the sample size was large enough and you could factor our everything else, then yes. I don't think anything like this was done, though.

What exactly is your point, then?

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#95

Post by Broken_Hippo »

wapz wrote: post #44
abecedarius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, FDA labeling allows "0g trans fat" for food with 0.5 g per serving, and listed serving sizes are often laughable, so I wonder. This article I just found claims "0.56% to 4.2% trans fats" in "soybean and canola oils found on store shelves in the U.S." ( https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-vegetable-oils-... ) Dunno how much weight to give it; I try to avoid those oils anyway.

I've always been taught that after olive oil, canola is the best to use for cooking. What am I supposed to use?!

Don't worry too much about the low amounts. Develop cooking techniques to use less oil (non-stick pans, measuring out oil, etc), and switch between oils when you cook. I don't figure I'm eating enough fats to worry about it, as I don't eat meat and limit fish/seafood to once every week or two.

I use either butter or a butter/canola blend for most stovetop cooking and generally use an olive/canola blend for breadmaking, with the exception of pizza crust which is oil-free.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#96

Post by Xdafjgneoiwe »

croon wrote: post #74
Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with ketogenic diets is not the weight loss. The diet works for weight loss, that is undisputed. The problems are in the longer term with elevated cholesterol and increasing insulin resistance. Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703903 There's however tons of this. Most keto bloggers will try to tell you that increasing LDL-C is okay for different reasons (depending on who you read). That is h…

> The problems are in the longer term with elevated cholesterol... From your link: > These differences were not significant at 24 months. ----------- > and increasing insulin resistance. I'm going to need to insist on sources on this.

Insulin resistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427477

As for the cholesterol, the study I linked was probably not a very good example - sorry. Saturated fat does raise cholesterol however - so unless you are on a vegan low carb diet, you will see it rise. (IF you keep your weight steady, weight loss almost always lowers cholesterol)

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#97

Post by kaeluka »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #94
coldtea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is irrelevant, as it only speaks of total risk. If butter was bad, it would be bad for them too, in a controlled study against not butter eating Tibetans, regardless if they all run 10k miles per day and eat only vegetables.

If the sample size was large enough and you could factor our everything else, then yes. I don't think anything like this was done, though. What exactly is your point, then?

+1 Additionally, even if you could and would factor out everything else, "obvious" would hardly be the right word to use.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#98

Post by awjr »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #85
lngnmn wrote: post #81

It obviously does not because there are whole populations, such as Tibetans, who consume butter on daily basis and are still alive and well, without any cardiovascular epidemic. What is a risk, by the way? How it is defined, apart from a personal lifestyle, diet, habits, current set of disorders and chronic illnesses of a particular person? It is a likelihood? An average of some imagined population of which some non-…

I do not think you can generalize from Tibetans or other populations. That is because those rural populations often have a much healthier diet than the standard american diet. More vegetables, more fiber, less animal products in general. To say that this obviously shows that butter cannot be that bad is just not true. You are right in one point: If the only thing you eat is butter with your veggies then you do not ha…

I think we focus on diet over environment too much. It isn't just what you eat but how you get around that is vital to tackling the cardiovascular epidemic.

The only evidence that I currently have available is the Netherlands. The only western country to have a reducing obesity index, by 2030, predicted to be 8.5% down from 10%. Their diet is a very typical western diet.

However their transport system and their urban planning is hugely focused on prioritising walking and cycling with good provision of local amenities within easy cycling distances. Yes, you build higher density urban environments, but this is a good thing.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#99

Post by zenon »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #62
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #18

There is nothing wrong with butter. Oils can become rancid. Clarified butter or ghee is even better as they have longer shelf life.

There is: Butter contains 3 % trans fats. And even keto fanatics admit that trans fats are extremely unhealthy. You could say it doesn't have a huge impact and that might be true because it's only a small part of the diet. However, any amount of trans fat is dangerous. The body's enzymes can hardly remove any trans fat build up in the arteries.

Trans fat from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is (mostly) Elaidic acid, which is probably harmful. Butter contains other trans fats, like Vaccenic acid. We don't know much about the long-term health effects of Vaccenic acid.
Post reply on HN