Recently joined this channel and was shocked to see so many people demonizing saturated fat, suggesting that it directly causes CVD. For those who might actually care about science instead of long proven false dogma, almost a year old now, but recent science has moved past that antiquated idea:
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/1/154/6369072?login=false
The studies don’t actually suggest that at all. You’ve not only oversimplified what the data says but you made a pretty spurious leap in logic in there too.
Studies do show that refined carbs in combination with saturated fat are particularly bad for CVD risk. No study has disproven that saturated fat alone isn’t also bad for CVD risk and numerous studies show carbs from vegetable starches and whole grains to be safe and healthy when combined with sufficient fiber intake and to actually lower CVD risk.
Eliminate processed sugar. Quit drowning food in butter. Do some cardio. Stay at a healthy weight. That’s the best thing you can do for your heart disease risk.
There are hundreds of studies over 5+ decades that all end up coming to the same point of agreement on saturated fat. Listen to the majority of experts, not the one guy with a YouTube influencer presence and a book deal.
I think any diet that causes >10% weight loss in an obese population regardless of macronutrient composition is going to improve (biomarkers of) cardio-metabolic health, which is essentially what this study shows, and isn’t exactly a breakthrough.
While I agree that the science is evolving to show that saturated fats aren’t as bad as we used to think they were, and some carbon chain lengths might be good in some situations, I don’t think we can yet refute the idea that PUFAs/MUFAs are a better substitute for SFAs, even if is only relatively speaking.
I just find it crazy how there’s a nontrivial subset of the population (including you) that believe in what can best be described as “heart disease denial.” How does one study that does not even suggest what you are saying debunk 50+ years of rigorous science that has consistently shown saturated fat should be avoided? Even if you handpick studies, all the ones that “debunk” what we already know are very flawed on terms of methodology.
>Recently joined this channel and was shocked to see so many people demonizing saturated fat, suggesting that it directly causes CVD.
Ignore them. They just think the overwhelming nutrition research over the past 70 years linking consumption of foods high in saturated fat and cholestrol to CVD is relevant. They are not as enlightened about the latest and greatet research on the Inuit, Maasai, Hadza, paleo and keto as you are.
I do really wonder if some of the standard dietary guidelines are only valid in the context of a western high-carb diet.
Check this out:
> Despite a threefold higher intake of dietary saturated fat during the carb-restricted diet, saturated fatty acids in triacylglycerol and cholesteryl ester were significantly decreased, as was palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7), an endogenous marker of lipogenesis, compared to subjects consuming the low-fat diet.
I.e. serum saturated fat in low-carb diet was lower compared to low-fat diet, despite the low-carb diet eating three times as much saturated fat! Apparently the fat-adapted body preferentially oxidises saturated fat?
Another one I came across recently is salt intake recommenations. Apparently the kidney excretes salt based on an insulin signal, such that higher insulin means more salt retention (and higher blood pressure). Also there’s the polyol pathway, where glucose gets converted to sorbitol and fructose (yes, your body can make its own fructose endogenously!). Apparently the polyol pathway is more active in the presence of higher salt.