This article does not mean---"I can eat all the saturated fat I want now".
If you read this article completely as well as the actual analysis---the conclusion is that we need more long term, controlled research studies. We need more studies looking at the function of different types of saturated fat on various health conditions.
Yes there is plenty of room for fat in the diet; but it doesn't indicate that one's diet should be made up of large amounts (the upper limit remains at about 35% of total calorie intake).
Yes there is room for some saturated fat intake as well. It allows one to include some selections of higher fat meats, cheese, dairy, etc. But we still should not be shoveling down double meat, double cheese, bacon loaded hamburgers.
The group that is most disturbed by this article/research are the manufacturer's of supplements (fish oil, omega, etc). You'll see why if you read the actual study.
I think fat is definitely needed in the diet! Unsaturated fat is a given. Saturated fat, i think is fine too, in moderation. I do not think saturated fat is killing us. I think sugar is killing us along with too big of potion sizes!! Of course saturated fat is bad when we're eating too much, but if you're eating appropriate portion sizes, some saturated fat is not going to do you in. (My opinion.)
This study got a huge amount of coverage, but I would take it with a grain of salt. There is a great deal of research showing saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease; it's not one study that all scientists latched onto. It's years of research.
I'm not talking about healthy fats, but saturated fat.
Remember, there are fads in health news reporting. For awhile there were a lot of stories on "healthy obesity," which now studies are saying is a myth. For awhile the popular wisdom was eating fat made you fat, period. How do you know what to believe? You believe people who devote their careers to studying the totality of evidence on the issues. There's this misperception out there that scientists are told what to believe about X on their first day as a scientist, and march along in lockstep for the rest of their lives. The real scientists I know are interested in seeing what the evidence shows over time, incorporating multiple studies, not confirming some conventional wisdom. Most lay people are not qualified to evaluate bodies of scientific research; we tend to believe whatever affirms our own preference.
For my part, I have cut way back on saturated fat in my diet for the last two years, and my doctor took me off Lipitor. My HDL is high, my LDL is low. I have a hard time beleving that's not a good thing and I can now go back to all the bacon cheeseburgers I want.
I have upped my fat to about 65-70 %, and am healthier than ever before.
I have congestive heart failure, so I had to lose weight, and low carb, high fat allowed me to control my appetite, and lose weight.
I know the diet is extreme, and most people won't eat as I do, but if one can get healthier at 65% fat, then there is nothing to fear from 40 %, or 50 %.. it is more important how you get the fat. I get a lot from macadamia nuts, and olive oil, and eat chicken without skin, which sounds funny, but I prefer to get my fat no from the skin, which I find revolting..lol, and add olive oil. I also choose to limit red meat to one day a week, even though I am not sure if it matters. I just prefer chicken. I do eat thighs instead of chicken breasts, because they are higher fat, but I don't just eat any fat.
I did have an issue with cholesterol, and low HDL, and read in some book that saturated fat would raise my HDL, and my Tchol dropped 90 points, and my HDL went from 24 to 37, and I am off my Lovastatin, which was lucky, because now I would be on the pill just because I have CHF. If I was still on it, they wouldn't think of taking me off of it today, but with a 105 Tchol, they can suggest it, but I prefer not to take pills.
At the very least, it needs to be studied more. I love my results, but sometimes reasons why it works are hazy, and I would love to know that my results can be replicated, which means we have to explain why, so others can follow a plan, not just start a high fat diet like I did, and get bonus health benefits. Until I dropped my diabetes meds, and cut my BP meds, I just figured the statin would take care of my cholesterol, which was way down my list of worries. Once I was down to just cholesterol, and CHF, I wanted to eliminate the cholesterol pill.
Getting down to 1 problem controlled by pills, makes life easier, and less chance of drug interactions. Some of my pills were to overcome the side effects of others, and I fixed all the dietary problems, with high fat. Hopefully, I can get my heart valve replaced soon, and see what difference that makes.
I think for most people this may just give them peace of mind, knowing that if they eat 35 % fat,instead of 25%, it won't clog their arteries, as long as they don't get it from certain kinds of fats. SP allows 30 %, with some leeway, but I hear a lot of people aiming for much lower, because of the idea that fat is bad.
Many fatty foods like avocado, and nuts, have other healthy nutrients that will make you healthier, despite being high in fat.
I'm glad to see it's getting out to the average citizen, too.
Unfortunately, you're likely to attract a lot of unsupportive consensus here!
I am a solid proponent of healthy fats, and fats as related to CVD or TChol is one of my "soapbox" topics. Even so, I can't say that there is "no link" or "no association". There are "links". They just aren't properly controlled, and therefore are invalid. Nobody looks beyond the popularly promoted viewpoint, though.
For one thing, our lipid *hypothesis* is based upon a study of rabbits force-fed a high-fat diet. Rabbits aren't metabolically designed to process fats. Know of any carnivorous rabbits? me neither.
Other studies lumped fats all together... and some of those studies did show a possible correlation or even causation of "fats" and CVD. Unfortunately, the trans fats weren't separated out from the other fats in most of those studies. When that was done, the correlation between saturated fats and CVD disappeared. The association stayed, relevant to the trans fats. Even the much-maligned Ancel Keys admitted that he could draw no causative conclusions on other (non-trans) fats. Yet we still base our fat-phobia on those studies.
Another consideration is that we stopped too soon in our enquiry. Many studies are designed to show correlation, association, links, call-them-what-you-will, between fats and TChol. Well, cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, either. What they should be asking is what dietary interventions might be applied to reduce the risk of CVD -- which isn't properly based upon TChol, but perhaps upon homocysteine levels, or other parameters we haven't addressed yet. Maybe because we're too busy chasing those associations with TChol!
And the source of information is apparently more relevant than the information. If it doesn't come from sources pre-approved (which means sources which quote the popularly promoted opinions), it's not likely to be given the slightest warrant, beyond being criticised as unreliable. How did science deteriorate into this? It wasn't always so. Our loss.
In any case, I do hope more information is offered to folks in general. No one has to just swallow every piece of data they encounter. The internet is full of things of questionable merit. OTOH, there are things worth considering and researching more deeply, too. Researchers and medical professionals are starting to step outside the proscribed boxes they've been working within. Good for them, and, hopefully, good for us, too.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.