Saturated Fat: No longer the villain? (Was it ever?)
I was glad to see this post from Dr. Steve Parker on our heart health blog: Are Saturated Fats Really That Bad? Although the folks at the Weston Price Foundation have been arguing for years that saturated fats are good for you, I've always found their manifestos to be those of people who have already made up their minds and then gone looking for the evidence to support their point of view, ignoring or misrepresenting any evidence that seems to get in the way. So, it was nice to see a more impartial review of this particular issue.
I was particularly interested because I've been getting a lot of questions about coconut oil--a vegetable source of saturated fat. It's alleged health benefits are being heavily promoted but there's not much solid evidence to back up the claims.
Are Saturated Fats from Vegetables Better?
I've found it hard to evaluate whether saturated fats from vegetables are better than saturated fats from animals--in part because I think much of the conventional wisdom about saturated fats and heart disease was were on shaky ground in the first place. False assumptions lead to poor study design.
Maybe the truth is that the vegetable saturated fats aren't better than animal saturated fats but that the animal fats weren't that bad in the first place?
No wonder so many people complain that the medical/nutritional world is constantly pulling the rug out from under their feet. We're constantly reversing our recommendations and turning yesterday's "wisdom" into today's outdated myth.
How can people who try so hard to get it right get it wrong so often?
Why is it so hard for us to get it right? As Marion Nestle's argues in the introduction to her recent book, What to Eat, part of the problem is embedded in the very nature of scientific research. In an effort to reduce the variables, nutritional research focuses too much on the details and not enough on the big picture.
"The range of healthful nutrient intake is broad, and foods from the earth, tree, or animal can be combined in a seemingly infinite number of ways to create diets that meet health goals," she writes. "The attention paid to single nutrients, to individual foods, and to particular diseases distracts from the basic principles of diet and health...But you are better off paying attention to your overall dietary pattern than worrying about whether any one single food is better for you than another."
I suspect that the kind of reductionist thinking that Nestle is deploring is exactly what got us into this mess about saturated fat. We were looking for a culprit for heart disease. We found one in saturated fat...but I suspect we overlooked the critical importance of the context in which that saturated fat was being consumed.
Your thoughts?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Counting carbs: which number matters? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | What?! People who eat more carbs tend to be thinner? |
Posted by: Thomas | Sep 14, 2009 5:11:02 AM
Monica, you hit the nail on the head.
Most people will believe anything they're told - specially if the presenter has enough abbreviations after their name.
While there will always be debate and contradiction in the research community, the real "issues" do not manifest until somebody (ie: the media) gets their hands on the opposing viewpoint.
Add into the equation the refusal of most to do any quality research on their own, and the outcome should come as no surprise.
If I stood in front of room of 100 people and presented myself with a half-dozen fancy abbreviations after my name and proceeded to inform the participants that inserting raw broccoli into their rectum would produce a loss of ten pounds of body fat in a week.... I'd bet a good number would end up in the ER.
Research is just that. There is NO definitive answer. That is until the public gets their hands on it then it becomes of the word of God.
Posted by: teresa | Sep 4, 2009 10:49:51 PM
monica, while I didnT read the Women's World article, it did bring attention to so many women that coconut oil was out of stock for months. one should alway do their own research and that is how i learned of dr. ray peat. living in the tropics, i already knew of many of coconuts health benefits,but dr. peat's research really opened my eyes. i haven't used an asthma inhaler since adding the oil to my diet,my weight has been "normal" for the first time in years and my metabolism and energy have increased greatly. please consider wading through ray peat's articles on raypeat.com and you will find some astonishing research. coconutoil.com provides much info as well. good reading and aloha
Posted by: teresa | Sep 4, 2009 12:53:48 AM
monica, coconut is not a vegetable and vegetables contain unsaturated fat. dr. broda barnes makes a compelling case for the cause of increased heart disease after W.W.11, involving undiagnosed hypothyroidism. raymond peat.PhD, has a website that includes info on coconut oil and it's benefit to thyroid health, in addition to much info on fats, hormones, aging and nutrition. he is considered the leading expert in these fields. me ke aloha.
Monica's Response: I invite you to consider this alternate point of view on coconut oil regarding the benefits to thyroid health: http://thyroid.about.com/cs/dietweightloss/a/coconutoil.htm
Posted by: Gripe | Aug 5, 2009 9:01:32 PM
Epidemiological studies do not establish causality, I'm afraid. Plenty of well-designed clinical studies that pit low carb diets against low fat show superior fat loss and lipid profiles in the low carb subjects. A vegetarian whole food diet, while certainly more healthful than one based on refined carbs and other modern indulgences, is still a high carbohydrate diet and will lead to down-regulation of insulin receptors. It certainly may not happen as quickly, but it will happen.
Monica's Response: the differences between low-fat and low-carb diets usually disappear over the long term. In other words, the low carbers get off to a quicker start but after a year, they show the same fat loss as low-fat diets. Do you have any studies to support your contention that down-regulation of insulin receptors will inevitably occur with a vegetarian whole food diet? I don't think that is true.
Posted by: Anthony P | Jul 27, 2009 10:51:03 PM
There is more and more evidence linking the 'balance' of fats in the body (it can be measured by RBC fatty acid profile) may influence the effect of SFA, PUFA etc on the body in regards to lipid profile.
Thus if a patient is low in omega 3, SFA may have a negative impact on the body. Or high trans may equate to poor quality PUFA's.
As nutritionists we must take advantage of measuring our patients fatty acid profiles to reduce CVD/inflammatory processes.
This latest study highlights this and the impact of other nutrients and trans fats on atherosclerosis.
I think the link between 'damaged' fats (including too many PUFA) ie trans. fats needs to further investigated.
Increasing cholesterol/lipids cannot be seen as just one marker. Inflammatory processes in the body and poor liver function (fatty liver etc) must also be assessed.
Stress will increase cortisol and this will impact lipid profile.
High fasting glucose will also impact lipid profiles.
Posted by: gail me | Jul 27, 2009 3:35:40 PM
I am living proof that saturated animal fat is not as harmful as previous claims have made it out to be. I was put on a diet to combat cholesterol more than 20 years ago... I was also put on meds to lower my cholesterol.
During the past 2 years I have had to dramatically restrict my diet due to problems with food intolerances--this involved cutting out dairy, grains, sugar, and fruits. My diet now consists mainly of meat, vegetables and fats. I use olive oil, coconut oil, and butter generously and have stopped taking my cholesterol meds. At my last regular annual physical, my cholesterol level was better than it's been over the past 20 years. My blood pressure has improved and I have lost 25 lbs without even trying. I feel better than I have for years!!!
I was concerned that my diet might be lacking in nutrition so had a hair analysis done-- the analysis indicated NO deficiency of any kind. It did indicate a problem with several heavy metals, so with the assistance from my naturopath I am also doing a liver detox to improve the levels of heavy metals.
I feel we have been sold a bill of goods for years, and I don't think the medical profession will ever turn around to admit that perhaps a mistake was made.
Posted by: Louise | Jul 27, 2009 2:59:31 PM
In my opinion, the truth always seems to be somewhere in the middle. Moderation and Balance is the key for most things in life. Having said this, the value of eating more fruit and vegetables cannot be overemphasised. Research clearly shows the benefit of this to various aspects of human health. We also should not leave the issue of nutrigenomics out of the picture. Genes and nutrition do interact and this is where we should be keeping an eye on. I truely think that research in this area just might provide all the answers in future.
Posted by: Kim | Jul 27, 2009 2:29:42 PM
Just from my personal experience: since I have changed to a fat free diet & increased my fruits/veggies & fiber I not only feel better but my bloodwork shows significant improvement; over the past year I've lost 40 lbs without much effort. I agree with Jason, I'm sticking with my diet. You guys go ahead & eat the saturated fats.
Posted by: Will | Jul 27, 2009 2:00:31 PM
I was under the impression that saturated fat was a small contributor to heart and blood pressure problems, but the main culprit was the sugars on the surfaces of the cells in red meats. Humans have a unique type of sugar coating our cells, so we have an immune response to the sugars of other animals. meats like beef and pork are high in such sugars, while chicken and fish are very low.
Posted by: Neil Brown | Jul 22, 2009 10:19:03 PM
No way! Saturated fats should be avoided. Especially butter,cheese,milk, cheeseburgers... This is bs
Posted by: Oz | Jul 22, 2009 9:51:07 AM
Wow, I came to ND today to see how much zinc is in molasses. (I'm on juice diet to cure my eczema and I supplement with borage and cod liver oil; it's said that cod liver oil and zinc are good for most skin
conditions).
Imagine my surprise to see what I consider a mainstream site actually considering the evidence in defense of sat fats.
I've been a long-time follower of the Weston Price Foundation, so I'm a bit familiar with the issue.
Reductionism is good. I read a scientific paper which extols it as "the most powerful tool in science," and I agree. However, by removing things from their contexts, we miss their many interactions.
Posted by: Gabriel | Jul 22, 2009 4:18:09 AM
A good distinction needs to be made between saturated animal fats and plant oils. A good video on this can be found here:
http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/18.html
God bless.
Monica's Response: You might also want to listen to this episode of my podcast on coconut oil (a vegetable source of saturated fat): http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com/benefits-of-coconut-oil.aspx
Posted by: Adam | Jul 21, 2009 2:18:05 PM
All saturated fats have the exact same structural pattern. The difference is the length of the chain. This may not be entirely relevant though because the chain is broken during the digestion process. Thus the source of saturated fat may not be relevant.
Mixing fats with processed, high glycemic foods, is probably the leading cause of heart disease.
Posted by: Amber | Jul 20, 2009 4:37:50 PM
I don't know that saturated fat in coconut oil is better than the saturated fat from animals, but the biggest risk for heart disease is high cholesterol. Although coconut oil is high in saturated fat, it is also high in phytosterols, which work as a natural version of statins (the most used medication class for balancing cholesterol). The phytosterols may prevent the bad effects of saturated fat. Perhaps eating animal fat with foods high in phytosterols (certain fruits, vegetables, and nuts or seeds) would be similar to eating coconut oil.
Monica's Response: I think many people would strongly disagree with you that "the biggest risk for heart disease is high cholesterol"! Interesting point about the phytosterols, though.
Posted by: Cliff | Jul 20, 2009 2:06:13 PM
Here is an article by Dr. Fuhrman about the Weston Price Foundation:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_dietary_myths.htm
If you are tired of being confused about what is best to eat, read "The 80/10/10 Diet" by Douglas Graham.
Posted by: Evita | Jul 18, 2009 4:37:43 PM
@ JASON - sorry but that last comment is completely not substatiated in fact: "If you EVER have to take SUPPLEMENTS that are not whole food supplements (ie cod liver oil, organ pills), then your diet is missing important aspects."
Almost every person eating the SAD diet needs supplements, 1/2 of them do not know it, while the other 1/2 down multivitamins by the handful.
This particular person CHOOSES to take the B12, D, DHA and taurine.
The vitamin D comes fromt he sun.
The DHA our bodies make when we eat wholesome food with omega 3, which almost every meat eater does not get enough of.
The taurine is a safety precaution chosen by this person, but not necessary.
And the vitamin B12 is found naturally from bacteria, and our ancestors had this even in their plant part of the diet without eating animal products, and if our world wasn't so sterile today, we would too. So the vegetarian or vegan diet (if eaten properly is not missing anything).
As for the whole saturated fat issue. Splitting hairs over whether it is bad or good, I think is more confusing to people, instead of actually acknowledging that Americans eat too much of it and something about having this component in their diet, in the amounts they do, is linked to cardiovascular disease period.
In fact saturated fat increases our cholesterol more than eating products high in cholesterol - numerous studies have looked at this now. So in the end, I am not sure it is beneficial to tell people this stuff is not bad - we first have to scale down on eating it big time, as something in the diet is obviously responsible for heart disease being the number 1 killer, and saturated fat is key player indeed.
And let us not forget that none of us actually NEED any saturated fat to survive and thrive.
Posted by: Jason | Jul 18, 2009 12:09:02 AM
Peter, I find your post typically of people hooked into the medical establishments viewpoints. I find your choice of supplements curious...DHA and vitamin D both being derived from fatty foods points to obvious holes in the "whole food vegetarian diet". No idea why you are taking taurine but if you feel it's lacking than your entire amino acid profile is likely off balance - another typical pitfall of veggie diets.
Also, I would advise looking into the hormone profile effects of vegetarian diets on aging men (lower T levels, higher E levels) and the health effects therein - one of which is possibly prostate hypertrophy. Secondly, the correlation between lower cholesterol levels and higher cancer rates in older men.
Lastly, beware scanning medline and health news sites for so-called "studies" when most of these deductions come from population studies which aren't studies at all but polls of people's eating habits. Mind you, also, that the prevalance of "meat eating" in MOST people will equate to large amounts of fast food consumption. This is usually accompanied by massive amounts of HFCS from soda, french fries, etc and as such cannot be used to deduce the effects of meat in the diet.
Posted by: Jason M | Jul 17, 2009 4:45:49 PM
"At kids the amount of fat contained by every meal should not go over 35 percent of calories and saturated fat and trans fat shouldn`t be over ten percent. I have read on http://www.projectweightloss.com about this. nfortunately, most of the meals contain a lot of fat, sodium and calories, but if you don`t want your kids to have such a meal you should look up a restaurant which offers a healthy children`s meal"
Does no one want to enjoy their food anymore?! Like honestly. Not to mention the person who posted this clearly didn't read the post, the comments, or do follow up research themselves.
Posted by: Jason M | Jul 17, 2009 4:43:51 PM
In regards to Stephen's post: I don't buy it yet. I frequently scan medline and health news sites and studies still pop up regularly associating saturated fat with poor health. A recent example saw a positive association of total fat, saturated fat, and monosaturated fat consumption with pancreatic cancer. Saturated fat had the highest relationship.
Good study, bad study? I don't know but I'm sticking with a whole foods vegetarian diet with a few supplements added (B12, D, DHA, Taurine). You guys can go ahead and eat the saturated fat.
Enjoy!"
If you EVER have to take SUPPLEMENTS that are not whole food supplements (ie cod liver oil, organ pills), then your diet is missing important aspects.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 17, 2009 9:15:45 AM
People love seeing health news confirming their bad habits as good for them.
Posted by: Ted Hutchinson | Jul 16, 2009 5:17:39 AM
Those who enjoyed reading GCBC Taubes book may also enjoy reading this paper
Dietary Carbohydrates and Dental-Systemic Diseases -- Hujoel 88 (6 ..
http://jdr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/88/6/490
That is available as a free downloadable PDF.
It sets out the case that poor dental health is the result of the same poor diet that leads to chronic systemic non communicable diseases (diabetes, heart disease, obesity) in later life. It's good to see health professionals coming out in support of Taubes, pity we don't see more doctors doing the same.
Posted by: julie | Jul 15, 2009 1:01:10 AM
I don't avoid saturated fat or processed carbs, but I eat way more than my share of fruits and veggies. I think you have a lot more leeway to be healthy this way, even if some of your other food/lifestyle habits aren't perfect.
Posted by: Georgia | Jul 11, 2009 12:41:22 PM
When we eat we have to remember that our bodies were designed thousands of years ago in a very different environment. processed vegetable oils were not available. Our bodies adapted to process what was available then, one of those things being saturated fats. But at the same time our ancestors were dealing with extreme physical conditions, while modern people sit on their posteriors all day. Exercise is the key to keeping your heart healthy, plus I agree healthy grass fed hormone free meats with the proper ratio of omega 3/6 etc.
Fortunately modern science is learning the errors of previous assumptions. I just wish people wouldn't jump to the news media so quickly with each new article. We'd have less confusion if people took more time to understand their research instead of the current publish or perish mentality.
Posted by: Joe | Jul 10, 2009 2:50:37 PM
Quite an intersting post! I am squarely on the side with the saturated fat/cholesterol is not the great destroyer of health camp. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick presents evidence that is quite compelling to this end.
The primary variable in the equation is people. Two people may make the same food choices yet have markedly different outcomes having little or nothing to do with what they ate.
I agree that the health community at large has attempted to oversimplify the cause of heart disease as being saturated fat. However it will take more than a fre people retiring to turn the tide.
Posted by: Zev Winicur | Jul 10, 2009 12:37:15 PM
Monica, thank you for addressing the greater issue, which is that reductionist studies of nutrition are notoriously difficult to interpret. Although randomized controlled trials are the "gold standard" of scientific research, by their very nature, they take the problem out of context and therefore can not easily be generalized. I work in healthcare educational design, and we have the same problem. Randomized trials are not practical to do, nor are they practical to interpret. So many other factors have to be included in the study which "dilutes" the findings.
Just like vitamin C, which is more effective when taken in its bioflavonoid complex form than taken by itself, many other nutritional factors have to be reviewed in a broader context.
Posted by: Laurie Cagnassola | Jul 10, 2009 11:13:09 AM
One reason for so much confusion is that fats appeared to be the villian in the media based on science that was done on high carb diets. Saturated fat only appears to have ill effects when eaten along with a high carb diet. A whole foods low carb diet containing a large portion of sat fat actually reduces all markers of metabolic syndrome & promotes health.
To see the science, visit the Metabolism Society site at www.MetabolismSociety.org .
Hope this helps!
Posted by: D | Jul 9, 2009 4:44:52 PM
@ How about cooking the meal yourself instead of finding a restaurant to do so?
Posted by: Alecu | Jul 9, 2009 11:36:55 AM
At kids the amount of fat contained by every meal should not go over 35 percent of calories and saturated fat and trans fat shouldn`t be over ten percent. I have read on http://www.projectweightloss.com about this. nfortunately, most of the meals contain a lot of fat, sodium and calories, but if you don`t want your kids to have such a meal you should look up a restaurant which offers a healthy children`s meal.
Posted by: Health care reform | Jul 9, 2009 4:55:52 AM
Being healthy is the most important thing. Everyone wants to be fit and fine. So thanks for the information. Good post.
Posted by: ross | Jul 8, 2009 8:18:55 PM
I always hear about all these studies, but I don't understand how they are able to isolate the multitude of variables at work in a human being behavior. Number one rule of stats/cognition is that correlation is not causation...So what do they do? Look at the diets of patients who are diagnosed with heart disease and see if it's high in saturated fat and, whamo, causation?
I think a smarter approach would be to study the long-term levels of systemic inflammation and personal/dietary habits in patients who are eventually diagnosed with heart disease before trying to attribute causation. Who's to say that it isn't the bun on the burger that is causing heart disease instead of the burger.
I guess putting people on long-term restricted diets for the sake of research is borderline cruelty. Funny how Heisenberg always comes back to bite us.
Posted by: Stephan | Jul 8, 2009 8:05:39 PM
Nice one Monica. I'll be publishing a couple of posts on this issue in the next week. I believe a careful consideration of the diet modification trials (not to mention the anthropological data) exonerates saturated fat. The first post (tomorrow) will be on the infamous Finnish mental hospital trial, which is one of the main pillars of the diet-heart hypothesis.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
One more point. If you consider the prospective observational studies only, they also overwhelmingly exonerate saturated fat. Only a few have found a significant association; the large majority found no association at all.
Posted by: Peter | Jul 8, 2009 3:12:19 PM
I don't buy it yet. I frequently scan medline and health news sites and studies still pop up regularly associating saturated fat with poor health. A recent example saw a positive association of total fat, saturated fat, and monosaturated fat consumption with pancreatic cancer. Saturated fat had the highest relationship.
Good study, bad study? I don't know but I'm sticking with a whole foods vegetarian diet with a few supplements added (B12, D, DHA, Taurine). You guys can go ahead and eat the saturated fat.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Nancy | Jul 8, 2009 12:22:50 PM
So many people have their careers wrapped tightly around the low fat dietary movement that their credibility would vanish if they were proven wrong, as Gary Taubes writes about in Good Calories, Bad Calories.
I think it's going to take them retiring and letting people with newer ideas take the forefront before we really get to the truth.
I wish people would put more value on finding the truth than they did their egos or careers, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case in the nutrition area.
Posted by: markus | Jul 8, 2009 4:37:42 AM
In ‘Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You’, Uffe Ravnskov effectively falsifies the “lipid hypothesis” (that sat-fat or cholesterol cause heart disease) by highlighting the sheer weight and significance of the contrary evidence – I’ve checked his data and found him to be very reliable. He also puts forward compelling evidence about the vital health roles played by both cholesterol and the falsely demonised LDL lipids.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fat-Cholesterol-are-Good-You/dp/919755538X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247041892&sr=1-1
Posted by: David Brown | Jul 7, 2009 10:17:26 PM
Below is a quote from page 81 of Nutrition Against Disease (1971) by Roger J. Williams, PhD.
"No discussion of heart disease would be complete without mention of the question of saturated fats. It has come to be almost an orthodox position that if one wishes to protect oneself against heart disease, one should avoid eating saturated (animal) fats. While this idea may not be entirely in error, it is misleading in its emphasis. The evidence shows that high fat consumption, when accompanied by plenty of the essential nutrients which all the cells need, does not cause atherosclerosis or heart disease."
Monica, your comment about the context in which saturated fat is consumed has considerable merit. Any concentrated energy source, be it refined carbohydrate or separated fat, will stress the metabolism if consumed repeatedly over time with inadequate supportive nutrition. But saturated fat, in the context of a biologically potent whole foods diet, does not contribute to clogged arteries.
Here's more: http://www.omen.com/corr.html
Also: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550
Both the sweeteners and the edible oils industries have benefited from the campaign to convince consumers to restrict saturated fat intake. I hope this matter gets straightened out soon because it has cost trillions to treat the chronic diseases caused by excessive consumption of sugars and omega-6 fatty acids.
Posted by: Jamie | Jul 7, 2009 10:06:56 PM
Alyssa,
I think what Monica is saying is that it may be misleading to say saturated fat = BAD. Every time, no exceptions. Individual foods and how we combine them lead to such a complicated set of interactions, condensing them as we do for most scientific inquiry is misleading. Is saturated fat a contributor to heart disease? Probably. But when and how much? Those answers are less clear.
Posted by: sss | Jul 7, 2009 8:48:12 PM
if she's not saying it, that is exactly what gary taubes is saying in "good calories, bad calories" and what wolfgang lutz is saying in "life w/o bread." they and others also say it's the starches and sugars - carbohydrates - that are the culprit. they're right. so is malcolm kendrick in his "the great cholesterol con."
Posted by: Alyssa | Jul 7, 2009 7:09:43 PM
Are you honestly trying to say that saturated fats from animal foods are not a main contributor to heart disease and other health problems?!
Monica's Response: I'm honestly not sure. Obviously, I'm aware of the epidemiological data linking saturated fat consumption to heart disease. But I find this other evidence/argument worth considering. We've certainly been wrong before and I don't think that just because a lot of people have believed something for a long time necessarily makes it true.
Another friend wrote to me in conjunction with this post asking me if it wasn't safest to advise people to restrict saturated fat. I guess if people are unwilling to change anything else about their diets (i.e., they're going to continue to eat a highly-processed diet) it's probably safest for them to restrict fat and saturated fat. But if someone is willing to make a more radical shift to a whole foods diet and healthy lifestyle, I suspect that saturated fat would not be nearly as dangerous.
In the final analysis, however, I'm not delivering a verdict. I'm just opening the issue up for discussion. More insight leads to better, more informed choices.
Posted by: LB | Jul 7, 2009 4:38:30 PM
I recently read Michael Pollan's book "In Defense of Food", which presents a compelling case for looking at foods holistically rather than just as a sum of their nutrients (a great read, IMO).
For all that we've learned about nutrition in the past couple hundred years, there's probably much more to food - and our relationship to it - that we haven't figured out yet. It's easy to fall into the trap of narrowly classifying foods as 'good' or 'bad' based solely on their nutritional makeup (I know I've been guilty of this), but definitions of 'good' and 'bad' are constantly evolving as new discoveries are made. Maybe a bigger-picture approach to healthy eating would be a better idea...
Thanks, Monica, for bringing up such a great topic! I think it's definitely worth further exploration.
Posted by: D | Jul 7, 2009 4:06:48 PM
I think moderation is the key factor in everything. If I eat a ton of potato chips fried in sunflower seed oil that is certainly worse than eating a small amount of (good) meat . I agree with the first commenter that it's important to check where the sat fats come from and that pastured animals and free range eggs without hormones and antibiotics are healthier than convetionally grown ones. I personally never understood why margarine that is made from chemically altered veg oil should be better that butter which, after all, is all natural.
Posted by: Jon | Jul 7, 2009 3:07:10 PM
I recently read Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon, who is affiliated with the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF). I really enjoyed learning about the traditional foods described in the book, but with regard to its nutritional claims in support of consuming saturated fat for optimal health, it seemed to be as fanatical as the anti-sat-fat views they were attacking.
I felt like a lot of the book's claims were unsubstantiated, and it did not provide a coherent explanation of its view that sat fat is good for health. I can't remember the exact claims from Nourishing Traditions, but here are a couple of quotes that appear on the WAPF website:
"People with high cholesterol live the longest." -from http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html
"while other studies have shown that stearic acid, the main component of beef fat, actually lowers cholesterol." -from http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html
By doubly negating the standard argument that sat fat raises blood cholesterol and hence causes disease, these two quotes taken together actually support the same conclusion as the standard argument!
Still, I'm curious as to how extensive the research for and against sat fat really is. The ND Blog has linked to 'alternative views' in the past, but hasn't weighed in on the issue. Much of the research I've encountered supporting sat fat as healthy seems to be related to the WAPF in one way or another (usually via references to the WAPF, or co-founders Fallon and Mary Enig). By the way, quackwatch.com has flagged the WAPF for dubious claims (not that we should unquestioningly accept quackwatch's opinions).
Monica's Response: The post I linked to above by Dr. Parker links to several good (peer-reviewed) articles, reviewing the evidence for/against saturated fat.
Posted by: Haggus | Jul 7, 2009 2:22:01 PM
Twenty months ago, I wouldn't have believe this, but based on my personal experience with my lipid numbers and overall health since then, I think it has more to do with what you eat with your saturated fats that could end up hurting you.
Monica's Response: I have the same suspicion!
Posted by: Beth | Jul 7, 2009 12:54:03 PM
Just one point to add to your post, which I think says pretty much all. I've recently discovered Weston Price and have also been reading similar folks like Nina Planck and Gary Taubes.
Based on what I've read so far, I can't say I know if saturated fat from beef is better or worse than saturated fat from coconut. But I'd bet *real* money that saturated fat from industrial (feedlot) beef is far worse for you than saturated fat from pastured beef.
A simple look at the difference between industrial eggs and pastured eggs is pretty eye-opening IMO!
See: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/05/pastured-eggs.html
BTW, Whole Health Source is my new favorite go-to for more of this kind of discussion. Recommend it if it's not already on your list of reads, particularly his discussion of the Lyon diet heart study and the role of omega 6 to omega 3 in diet.
