Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
academic.oup.com
Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#2Collectively, neither observational studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, RCTs, systematic reviews and meta analyses have conclusively established a significant association between SFA in the diet and subsequent cardiovascular risk and CAD, MI or mortality nor a benefit of reducing dietary SFAs on CVD rick, events and mortality. Beneficial effects of replacement of SFA by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat or carbohydrates remain elusive.
Normie speak; they don't know.
Next....
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#3Bogeyman: "Based on the scientific evidence, there is no scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely included in the diet."
After we vanquish the bogeyman, SFA can be revealed as a health food.
https://med.umn.edu/news-events/new-research-finds-saturated...
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#4I know that the Heart and Stroke Foundation (which I assume has good intentions) has long been telling people to avoid saturated fat and sodium, when it's not completely clear these are bad for all people (some can be sensitive to sodium for example). At some level it's probably not bad advice to limit intake of these things, but what ends up happening is that recommendations are for absurdly low levels (2400mg sodium/day eg) that make many people not bother even trying.
It's like telling people they need to get 150 minutes of exercise a week. How about starting by taking the stairs.
Anyway, I think it makes it even less credible when you see things like this that say it may not even be a problem. I believe focusing on things that are unambiguously good, and positive trumps trying to prohibit or restrict things that are cornerstones of many diets.
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#5Collectively, neither observational studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, RCTs, systematic reviews and meta analyses have conclusively established a significant association between SFA in the diet and subsequent cardiovascular risk and CAD, MI or mortality nor a benefit of reducing dietary SFAs on CVD rick, events and mortality. Beneficial effects of replacement of SFA by polyunsaturated or monounsaturat…
> they don't know
Like in what looks like every other case of diet science.
People are finally questioning and replicating that kind of research. The mainstream culture of the field seems to have been bad at that on the past, but it changed. Maybe soon we will actually know something.
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#6Collectively, neither observational studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, RCTs, systematic reviews and meta analyses have conclusively established a significant association between SFA in the diet and subsequent cardiovascular risk and CAD, MI or mortality nor a benefit of reducing dietary SFAs on CVD rick, events and mortality. Beneficial effects of replacement of SFA by polyunsaturated or monounsaturat…
> they don't know Like in what looks like every other case of diet science. People are finally questioning and replicating that kind of research. The mainstream culture of the field seems to have been bad at that on the past, but it changed. Maybe soon we will actually know something.
Diet science is flawed because it does not take personal genetics into account. You can take two different sample sizes, say one from a largely Inuit population and another from a Caucasian farmer population and get two different results when changing their diet.
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they don't know Like in what looks like every other case of diet science. People are finally questioning and replicating that kind of research. The mainstream culture of the field seems to have been bad at that on the past, but it changed. Maybe soon we will actually know something.
Diet science is flawed because it does not take personal genetics into account. You can take two different sample sizes, say one from a largely Inuit population and another from a Caucasian farmer population and get two different results when changing their diet.
Yep, it is very hard for a lot of reasons. The correct way to deal with this is to acknowledge the problem and your research's limitations. The wrong way to deal with this is to pretend the problem doesn't exist. A lot of the latter seem to have happened on the past; not always by the original authors, but by the community as a whole.
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#8Just from my own anecdotal evidence, going clean vegan dropped my cholesterol levels from 6.1 to 5.1 in ~3 months. I’m pretty convinced there is a lot of truth to high saturated fat/animal products negatively impacting cholesterol levels. But that is my own personal experience.
I’d encourage anyone seeking insights to just try a vegan diet for a while and compare their bloodwork, and how they feel. Seems like little point looking for answers in the science because of the amount of noise.
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#9Just from my own anecdotal evidence, going clean vegan dropped my cholesterol levels from 6.1 to 5.1 in ~3 months. I’m pretty convinced there is a lot of truth to high saturated fat/animal products negatively impacting cholesterol levels. But that is my own personal experience. I’d encourage anyone seeking insights to just try a vegan diet for a while and compare their bloodwork, and how they feel. Seems like little…
but that vegan diet will likely raise triglycerides...
Re: Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
#10I know that the Heart and Stroke Foundation (which I assume has good intentions) has long been telling people to avoid saturated fat and sodium, when it's not completely clear these are bad for all people (some can be sensitive to sodium for example). At some level it's probably not bad advice to limit intake of these things, but what ends up happening is that recommendations are for absurdly low levels (2400mg sodiu…
2.4g sodium is only "low" if you're eating a lot of processed foods
It really isn't that low