Saturated Fat is not the major issue

<i>Saturated fat has been demonised since the 1970s when a landmark study concluded that there was a correlation between incidence of coronary heart disease and total cholesterol, which then correlated with the percentage of calories provided by saturated fat, explains Malhotra. “But correlation is not causation,” he says. Nevertheless, we were advised to “reduce fat intake to 30% of total energy and a fall in saturated fat intake to 10%.”</i><p>It is frightening to think that such a fundamental piece of public policy is based on the &quot;correlation is not causation&quot; fallacious thinking.<p>Is there no one in power who is in the habit of actually thinking before approving actions?

There have been a lot of people saying this for quite awhile. Malcolm Kendrick wrote an entire book about the poor science behind our current belief that cholesterol causes heart disease. There are many others. But in the current medical environment where doctors want to prescribe a pill to fix everything and the biogen companies have enormous influence over public policy, dissent never rises above the level of a whisper.<p>Smoking, cocaine, stress, these things cause heart disease. Saturated fat probably isn&#x27;t even a minor issue as it relates to heart disease. Every day, millions of Americans take a pill to reduce cholesterol when it&#x27;s not even an issue. But don&#x27;t expect that to ever change no matter how many doctors start saying saturated fat isn&#x27;t the major issue.

A related pet peeve:<p>It&#x27;s becoming difficult to find products with &quot;all&quot; the fat (vs &quot;low&#x2F;reduced&quot; fat). Prime example for me: chocolate milk. It&#x27;s pretty rare nowadays that I ever see anything over 1% milk used in it -- and of course the label touts the low fat formulation, but doesn&#x27;t mention there&#x27;s more sugar pumped in it than a can of soda.<p>Even if this was healthier than full-fat&#x2F;less sugar chocolate milk, I&#x27;d still resent it. Chocolate milk is a treat, not a dietary staple. People should know that. Make it that way, market it that way.<p>But it&#x27;s starting to look like it isn&#x27;t healthier. Which makes the marketing more misleading and the formulation pretty ironic.

About 10 years ago the journal &quot;Science&quot; ran a cover story called &quot;The soft Science of Dietary fat&quot;. If you have access to back issues through a library (sadly it&#x27;s paywalled), go pull it and read it. Your mind will be blown at how thin the evidence is for many dietary recommendations. We know shockingly little about how our bodies actually work.

I&#x27;m confused by the reference towards the Mediterranean diet being protective against heart disease, because it seems tangential to the argument presented in the rest of the article.<p>The clinical Mediterranean diet <i>is</i> low in saturated fat. In one of the landmark papers measuring the effects of the Mediterranean diet on CVD risk, the &quot;prudent&quot; Western-style diet used as a control has 11.7% of calories from saturated fat, while the experimental Mediterranean diet has 8.0% of calories from saturated fat [1]. This diet is actually within the 10% limit the article references as out-of-date advice from the 1970s.<p>Another large intervention study has the calories from saturated fat on a Mediterranean-style diet falling from 13.7% before intervention to 8.0% after intervention [2], again below the 10% limit.<p>I am not at all suggesting that the Mediterranean lowers the risk of CVD because it is low in saturated fat. It just seems odd to use it as an example of saturated fat not being linked with CVD risk without addressing the fact that the Mediterranean diet is relatively low in saturated fat, and that intervention studies using the Mediterranean diet typically reduce the % calories from saturated fat in the intervention group.<p>It also seems odd to use the Mediterranean diet as an example in an article that paints refined carbohydrates as a major CVD risk factor. While the Mediterranean diet is relatively higher in whole-grain carbohydrates [2], it still includes lots of refined-carbohydrate foods (think pasta), and it introduces so many other dietary changes, particularly a vast increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables [2], that one can&#x27;t assume that the increase in whole grains particularly is the source of the diet&#x27;s protective effects against CVD risk.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.drhirani.com/Assets/lyonfinalreport.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.drhirani.com&#x2F;Assets&#x2F;lyonfinalreport.pdf</a><p>[2] <a href="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199488" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;jama.jamanetwork.com&#x2F;article.aspx?articleid=199488</a>

Good response to this article with, like, facts and that..<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/its-not-even-debatable-saturated-fat-is-bad-for-you-19386" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theconversation.com&#x2F;its-not-even-debatable-saturated-...</a>

The current post links to the BMJ press release on this topic. These links are to the full article:<p><a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bmj.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;347&#x2F;bmj.f6340</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6599460" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6599460</a>

&quot;Catalyst&quot;, the ABC&#x27;s weekly science show, had an interesting investigation into this last Thursday [1]. Last week was Part I, which presumably means this week will be Part II.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abc.net.au&#x2F;catalyst&#x2F;stories&#x2F;3876219.htm</a><p>---<p>Edit: Wed-&gt;Thu

They had me right until the end, with the quote from Timothy Noakes, who is not a cardiologist, and makes plenty of data-unsupported mistakes in his own writing, e.g. about barefoot running. It&#x27;s like having Malcolm Gladwell back up your research findings.<p>Was this piece supposed to be science or it is entertainment-journalism? The latter, I think. (I.e. it is not the abstract of any particular research study.)<p>I&#x27;m not saying the anti-anti-saturated fat recommendation is wrong. I&#x27;m saying this piece is just another opinion, which adds nothing to my understanding. Obviously the vast majority of educated and well-intentioned physicians disagree with their recommendation.

Am I the only one to see a trend in the increasing number of articles like these?<p>Traditionally for centuries people in India have been consuming coconut oil, ghee, etc which are supposed to be high in saturated fats and never had problems. After globalization (1992), the food industry in here changed a lot as well. The business promotion and the usage of refined oils increased which is good for business, nevertheless not for health. These days, diabetes, heart attacks and other such illness are very common even among 20+ and 30+. The Indian food industry is one in which India (as a society) failed to nurture and preserve its rich, diverse and healthy food culture.

For what it&#x27;s worth, my GP told me that old studies didn&#x27;t distinguish regular fats from trans fats, so saturated fats got the blame for what&#x27;s wrong with trans fats (which do mess up your cholesterol badly).

Trusting nutritionists is like having surgery in the 19th century. Deadly.<p>This show was quite interesting. Makes a very similar case: <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abc.net.au&#x2F;catalyst&#x2F;stories&#x2F;3876219.htm</a>

<i>...refined carbohydrates and sugar in particular are actually the culprits</i><p><i>Adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing mortality as taking a statin, writes Malhotra.</i>

Coconut oil is perhaps the best with its anti oxidant and microbicide properties. More often than not, it is the lifestyle that causes health issues.

or better yet, &quot;saturated fat is not an issue&quot;

carbs + saturated fat = cholesterol<p>choose one