A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Post Reply
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Post by Doc »

Wasn't there a topic on Scientific Fraud ?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/upsho ... -line.html
A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Aaron E. Carroll

THE NEW HEALTH CARE APRIL 15, 2016
Continue reading the main story

So which kind of fat is actually bad for you? Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times

There was a lot of news this week about a study, published in the medical journal BMJ, that looked at how diet affects heart health. The results were unexpected because they challenged the conventional thinking on saturated fats.

And the data were very old, from the late 1960s and early 1970s.

This has led many to wonder why they weren’t published previously. It has also added to the growing concern that when it comes to nutrition, personal beliefs often trump science.

Perhaps no subject is more controversial in the nutrition world these days than fats. While in the 1970s and 1980s doctors attacked the total amount of fat in Americans’ diets, that seems to have passed. These days, the fights are over the type of fat that is considered acceptable.

Most of our fat comes from two main sources. The first is saturated fats. Usually solid at room temperature, they’re in red meat, chicken and dairy products. The second is unsaturated fats, usually softer and more liquid at room temperature. They’re in fish, nuts and vegetable oils. Many doctors and nutritionists still argue, quite strongly, that the key to health is to emphasize the unsaturated fats. Others believe that’s misguided.

This week’s news came to us by way of a randomized controlled trial, which I’ve argued repeatedly is the best kind of study to determine how one thing causes another.

The Minnesota Coronary Experiment was a well-designed study that was conducted in one nursing home and six state mental hospitals from 1968 to 1973. More than 9,400 men and women, ages 20 to 97, participated. Data on serum cholesterol were available on more than 2,300 participants who were on the study diets for more than a year.

At baseline, participants were getting about 18.5 percent of their calories from saturated fat, and about 3.8 percent from unsaturated fats. The intervention diet was considered a more “heart healthy” one. It encouraged a reduction in the amount of calories from saturated fats (like animal fats and butter) and more from unsaturated fats, particularly linoleic acids (like corn oil). The intervention diet lowered the percent of calories from saturated fats to 9.2 percent, and raised the percent from unsaturated fats to 13.2 percent.
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

The average follow-up for these participants was just under three years. In that time, the total serum cholesterol dropped significantly more in those on the intervention diet (-31.2 mg/dL) than in those on the control diet (-5 mg/dL).

There was, however, no decreased risk of death. If anything, there seemed to be an increased mortality rate in those on the “heart healthy” diet, particularly among those 65 years and older. More concerning, those who had the greater reduction in serum cholesterol had a higher rate of death. A 30mg/dL decrease in serum cholesterol was associated with a 22 percent increase in the risk of death from any cause, even after adjusting for baseline cholesterol, age, sex, adherence to the diet, body mass and blood pressure.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Doc wrote:Wasn't there a topic on Scientific Fraud ?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/upsho ... -line.html
A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Aaron E. Carroll

THE NEW HEALTH CARE APRIL 15, 2016
Continue reading the main story

So which kind of fat is actually bad for you? Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times

There was a lot of news this week about a study, published in the medical journal BMJ, that looked at how diet affects heart health. The results were unexpected because they challenged the conventional thinking on saturated fats.

And the data were very old, from the late 1960s and early 1970s.

This has led many to wonder why they weren’t published previously. It has also added to the growing concern that when it comes to nutrition, personal beliefs often trump science.

Perhaps no subject is more controversial in the nutrition world these days than fats. While in the 1970s and 1980s doctors attacked the total amount of fat in Americans’ diets, that seems to have passed. These days, the fights are over the type of fat that is considered acceptable.

Most of our fat comes from two main sources. The first is saturated fats. Usually solid at room temperature, they’re in red meat, chicken and dairy products. The second is unsaturated fats, usually softer and more liquid at room temperature. They’re in fish, nuts and vegetable oils. Many doctors and nutritionists still argue, quite strongly, that the key to health is to emphasize the unsaturated fats. Others believe that’s misguided.

This week’s news came to us by way of a randomized controlled trial, which I’ve argued repeatedly is the best kind of study to determine how one thing causes another.

The Minnesota Coronary Experiment was a well-designed study that was conducted in one nursing home and six state mental hospitals from 1968 to 1973. More than 9,400 men and women, ages 20 to 97, participated. Data on serum cholesterol were available on more than 2,300 participants who were on the study diets for more than a year.

At baseline, participants were getting about 18.5 percent of their calories from saturated fat, and about 3.8 percent from unsaturated fats. The intervention diet was considered a more “heart healthy” one. It encouraged a reduction in the amount of calories from saturated fats (like animal fats and butter) and more from unsaturated fats, particularly linoleic acids (like corn oil). The intervention diet lowered the percent of calories from saturated fats to 9.2 percent, and raised the percent from unsaturated fats to 13.2 percent.
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

The average follow-up for these participants was just under three years. In that time, the total serum cholesterol dropped significantly more in those on the intervention diet (-31.2 mg/dL) than in those on the control diet (-5 mg/dL).

There was, however, no decreased risk of death. If anything, there seemed to be an increased mortality rate in those on the “heart healthy” diet, particularly among those 65 years and older. More concerning, those who had the greater reduction in serum cholesterol had a higher rate of death. A 30mg/dL decrease in serum cholesterol was associated with a 22 percent increase in the risk of death from any cause, even after adjusting for baseline cholesterol, age, sex, adherence to the diet, body mass and blood pressure.
One of the major issues is that no one has found a connection between serum cholesterol and arterial plaque, so measuring blood levels is not that meaningful.

All these correlational studies are suspect imho. We need more hard science and animal studies.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Post by Doc »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Doc wrote:Wasn't there a topic on Scientific Fraud ?


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/upsho ... -line.html
A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Aaron E. Carroll

THE NEW HEALTH CARE APRIL 15, 2016
Continue reading the main story

So which kind of fat is actually bad for you? Credit Karsten Moran for The New York Times

There was a lot of news this week about a study, published in the medical journal BMJ, that looked at how diet affects heart health. The results were unexpected because they challenged the conventional thinking on saturated fats.

And the data were very old, from the late 1960s and early 1970s.

This has led many to wonder why they weren’t published previously. It has also added to the growing concern that when it comes to nutrition, personal beliefs often trump science.

Perhaps no subject is more controversial in the nutrition world these days than fats. While in the 1970s and 1980s doctors attacked the total amount of fat in Americans’ diets, that seems to have passed. These days, the fights are over the type of fat that is considered acceptable.

Most of our fat comes from two main sources. The first is saturated fats. Usually solid at room temperature, they’re in red meat, chicken and dairy products. The second is unsaturated fats, usually softer and more liquid at room temperature. They’re in fish, nuts and vegetable oils. Many doctors and nutritionists still argue, quite strongly, that the key to health is to emphasize the unsaturated fats. Others believe that’s misguided.

This week’s news came to us by way of a randomized controlled trial, which I’ve argued repeatedly is the best kind of study to determine how one thing causes another.

The Minnesota Coronary Experiment was a well-designed study that was conducted in one nursing home and six state mental hospitals from 1968 to 1973. More than 9,400 men and women, ages 20 to 97, participated. Data on serum cholesterol were available on more than 2,300 participants who were on the study diets for more than a year.

At baseline, participants were getting about 18.5 percent of their calories from saturated fat, and about 3.8 percent from unsaturated fats. The intervention diet was considered a more “heart healthy” one. It encouraged a reduction in the amount of calories from saturated fats (like animal fats and butter) and more from unsaturated fats, particularly linoleic acids (like corn oil). The intervention diet lowered the percent of calories from saturated fats to 9.2 percent, and raised the percent from unsaturated fats to 13.2 percent.
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

The average follow-up for these participants was just under three years. In that time, the total serum cholesterol dropped significantly more in those on the intervention diet (-31.2 mg/dL) than in those on the control diet (-5 mg/dL).

There was, however, no decreased risk of death. If anything, there seemed to be an increased mortality rate in those on the “heart healthy” diet, particularly among those 65 years and older. More concerning, those who had the greater reduction in serum cholesterol had a higher rate of death. A 30mg/dL decrease in serum cholesterol was associated with a 22 percent increase in the risk of death from any cause, even after adjusting for baseline cholesterol, age, sex, adherence to the diet, body mass and blood pressure.
One of the major issues is that no one has found a connection between serum cholesterol and arterial plaque, so measuring blood levels is not that meaningful.

All these correlational studies are suspect imho. We need more hard science and animal studies.
I read somewhere that there is some evidence that Alzheimer's may be caused by lack of cholesterol.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11325
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Post by noddy »

I have read many science rants that the link between fat and fatness was never actually proved, it just seemed self evident and noone ever challenged it.

the chemical understanding of energy transformation says that its sugars and sugar like carbs that are the *easiest* for our bodies to turn into stored fats, actual fats require lots of breaking down and transforming so are not as fatty due to the extra steps and energy loss

a second bunch of studies ive seen says that low fat stuff does not satiate and causes over eating and the rich full fat foods make you feel full much quicker, so you eat less.

also, this one has been doing the rounds of late.

http://time.com/3734033/whole-milk-dairy-fat/
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: A Study on Fats That Doesn’t Fit the Story Line

Post by Typhoon »

noddy wrote:I have read many science rants that the link between fat and fatness was never actually proved, it just seemed self evident and noone ever challenged it.
Quite right. People in Japan love their meat marbled, the fattier and more fine the marbling, the better.
noddy wrote:the chemical understanding of energy transformation says that its sugars and sugar like carbs that are the *easiest* for our bodies to turn into stored fats, actual fats require lots of breaking down and transforming so are not as fatty due to the extra steps and energy loss
If one takes a whole body PET scan of a patient, then the two natural regions of highest glucose uptake, the brain and the heart, are lit up.

If the patient then fasts for 24 hours, the heart disappears in the subsequent PET scan as the heart has switched from consuming glucose for energy to consuming fats.
noddy wrote:a second bunch of studies ive seen says that low fat stuff does not satiate and causes over eating and the rich full fat foods make you feel full much quicker, so you eat less.

also, this one has been doing the rounds of late.

http://time.com/3734033/whole-milk-dairy-fat/
I like to eat fatty stuff before a round of drinking . . .
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Post Reply