More evidence that saturated fat has been falsely accused?
What if cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are really all the same disease?
An excellent commentary in this month's issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association lays out a compelling and detailed map showing how obesity and insulin resistance interact to promote the growth of cancerous tumors. The authors argue that weight loss (if appropriate) should be a central feature of cancer prevention and treatment. Going a step further, the journal's editors suggest that obesity (and insulin resistance) is the common culprit in all of the Dreaded Three: cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
Now, if you ask the dietary establishment how to prevent obesity, cancer, and heart disease, they will most likely advise you to reduce your intake of total fat, saturated fat, and red meat. (See, for example, the American Cancer Society, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and the American Heart Association.)
Yet another study in the same issue of JADA tells a different story:
Saturated fat and red meat seem to prevent expanding waistlines
Danish researchers studied the links between consumption of various food groups and change in waist size. Why are they worried about waist size? An increase in waist size signals an increase in visceral, or abdominal, fat. This is considered the most dangerous pattern of weight gain because abdominal fat is strongly linked to increased risk of heart disease, cancer, insulin resistance, and diabetes. In fact, the association is so strong that a waist measurement of more than 35" (for women) or 40" (for men) is an independent risk factor for heart disease.
Surprisingly (to some), they found that women who ate more butter and high fat dairy products gained less weight around the waist than those whose diets are lower in saturated fat. A similar association was observed with red meat--that is, those who ate more red meat had smaller waistlines. The researchers seem to be at a loss to explain these findings.
Some would argue that a diet higher in fat and protein may be lower in carbohydrates and that carbohydrates drive insulin resistance and obesity.
No consistent link found between animal fat and breast cancer
Then there was this study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Researchers from several European countries collected and analyzed dietary records for 319,000 women and found "no consistent association" between the consumption of eggs, meat, or dairy products with breast cancer. This, of course, contradicts previous observations.
I'm reminded of our extended debate over whether or not eating red meat increases your risk of cancer. And many of the same observations apply here: trying to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of diet on disease using diet records is a very tricky proposition. It's possible that red meat may be a red herring. For one thing, any category that lumps a char-grilled fast food hamburger (and the fries likely to accompany it) together with a grass-fed bison filet is completely meaningless.
Should you start eating more meat?
I'm not making any blanket recommendations one way or another. Some thoughts:
The prevailing wisdom that meat and saturated fat are unhealthy is based on the same sort of inconclusive, circumstantial evidence as the studies I've noted here. But if we really want to get to the truth, we're going to need to consider ALL the (flawed) evidence, not just that which supports our point of view.
As many of you know, I'm not a big meat eater myself--although this is more for environmental, ecological, and ethical reasons than nutritional concerns. But I'm pretty sure that no one food or group of foods causes disease. In fact, to circle back to the beginning of this post (and a recurring theme around here), it seems that plain overconsumption of food in general is a bigger problem. The fact that so much of that food is over-processed and nutrient-poor sure doesn't help.
If you're eating a calorically-appropriate diet made up mostly of whole foods, I'm prepared to be pretty darned flexible about the details.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Are grains necessary to a healthy diet? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Creating your own Nutrition Facts labels |
Posted by: Jack Christopher | Nov 7, 2009 1:07:02 PM
Pastured (grassfed) organic meat and dairy are different than grain fed industrial animal products. One is high toxins, hormone filled and has unbalanced fats, the other doesn't
If a study concluded: all plant food is bad. But you found out the plant foods studied were toxin filled, GMOed and non-organic, you'd toss out the result.
All foods should get a fair hearing.
Posted by: elninotheblog | Oct 5, 2009 5:02:26 PM
Yes- My theory: the whole fat scare was siezed and propagated by the vegetable oil producers so they could keep selling their products which at the time was 40% TRANS FAT - Crisco invented the hydrogenation process used to convert vegetable oils into a viscous goo that resembles LARD. Starting in 1910-1912 they wanted you to start splitting up your money and buying Crisco shortening for less money and work than you would spend buying meat and collecting the fat to use for other purposes like baking. Heart disease skyrocketed in the 50s and 60s as this practice took hold. They actually got away with telling peopl it was from eating too much animal fat.
Posted by: Heidi | Sep 10, 2009 10:31:19 PM
I read an article about two years ago in the LA Times addressing the inconsistencies of studies like these. The studies which ask people about what they ate in the past tend to be the least accurate. Furthermore, there are always too many factors that weigh in with correlation studies. They are simply correlations, and nothing more.
Posted by: Christian Walker | Sep 8, 2009 9:50:01 PM
The last line of this article is brilliant.
An interesting historical note on grain consumption:
Julius Caesar's small army (diet based on wholewheat bread) consistently outsmarted and outfought the combined might of the Germanic tribes (paleo diet) during and after the conquest of Gaul.
Posted by: Matt | Sep 8, 2009 9:49:07 PM
While you assert that over consumption of food in general may lead to obesity and other health problems: I have never heard of anyone becoming obese from the over consumption of vegetables. I cannot say that for consumers of meat, dairy and processed foods and oils.
While you may be able to comfortably tolerate limited amounts of these "foods", that is not the same as saying or proving that they are good for you. Just as an occasional cigarette will probably not cause your death, neither will the occasional burger. That does not mean they are essential or desirable parts of your daily diet.
Stop perpetuating the myth! The sooner you admit and promote the fact that whole fruits and veggies are the basis of a healthy lifestyle, the better off everyone will be.
Posted by: Joe | Sep 8, 2009 8:43:25 PM
Monica -- How can one view the full ADA article?
Healthy Vegan Woman -- Read "The Vegetarian Myth" with an open mind for answers to your question. Agriculture is, quite literally, destroying the planet.
Monica's Response: Joe, you need a subscription to the journal or library access.
Posted by: Craig | Sep 8, 2009 5:35:06 PM
Just read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. It changed my life. I maintain a lean 168 pounds, am 5'9", and am an active duty service male 38 years old. I feel great and my last complete physical showed me having the health of a 20 year old - full cholesterol and liver PAN included. Humans were not designed to eat grains.
Posted by: Jackie T. (RD) | Sep 8, 2009 2:19:45 PM
The process of making vegetable oil does not produce trans fats. Trans fats are created when you take a fat that is liquid at room temperature and alter it to make it stable and solid at room temperature. Vegetable oils are mostly poly and mon-unsaturated fats.
Posted by: Jason K | Sep 8, 2009 1:57:37 PM
Michelle O Fried: Living in Ecuador myself near Vilcabamba, the so-called "Valley of Longevity". would be neat to connect with another 'gringo' interested in health/nutrition.. feel free to get in touch jkreiselman at yahoo dot com.
Posted by: Maggie | Sep 8, 2009 1:38:57 PM
Thanks for this article. I'm not sure, but I read somewhere that the studies in the 50s which labeled saturated fats as public enemy number one were using what we would now classify as trans fats, that is, the fats were damaged. It's clear that trans fats clog arteries, pure saturated fats maybe got that initial bad rap under false pretenses.
Posted by: Healthy Vegan Woman of Chilldbearing Age | Sep 8, 2009 1:26:56 PM
BadKarma -- how on Earth is a diet based on vegetables, fruits, legumes, and grains destructive to the environment? And unhealthful?
And what forces are trying to "terrorize" people into following a vegan diet? The <1% of the population who are vegan? I think there are forces a lot stronger whose messages are far more pervasive.
See Food, Inc. and Read the China Study.
Posted by: Mary | Sep 8, 2009 1:15:36 PM
I have a question related to the Danish study and it is this. Could it possibly be that the red meat products that the Danish or European participants consume is grassland beef and not corn or grain fed beef? Grasslands fed beef is rich in Omega 3's, is it not?
Monica's Response: Grass-fed beef has a greater proportion of omega-3 fats but the total amount of omega-3 is still quite low--probably too low to explain the effect.
Posted by: Michelle O. Fried | Sep 8, 2009 1:12:52 PM
Thank you, Monica, for your clarity and getting back to basics. A "calorically-appropriate diet made up mostly of whole foods" can only be the best, simplest dietary advise anyone can give (or take).
Sometimes I wonder about the value of studies on specific foods; such studies have to be flawed because there are so many other variables operant.
I live in Ecuador where our beef (see "carnes rojas") is all grass-fed. And here most nutritionists and doctors are still pressing for chicken consumption, even though the chickens are fed full of hormones!
Posted by: Garth | Aug 31, 2009 2:04:57 PM
I love meat - eat animal protein. It's good for you. I believe that cancer, heart disease and diabetes are all caused by chronic consumption of sugars and grains and I avoid them both as a rule of thumb. Here are some great books to reference in order of my personal preference - The Primal Blueprint, The Paleo Diet, Good Calories Bad Calories, Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You. Good luck!
Posted by: mohamed nabil sallam | Aug 25, 2009 6:37:48 AM
i think my stomach is digesting meat very well and it dont cause any obesity or weight gain for me.
on contrary it gives me a perfect power and put me in an optimum health,
but as you said it depends mainly for the type of meat you ate .
and i think also that it goes well with people with O blood type
Posted by: Kristin Allen | Aug 24, 2009 1:05:13 PM
No one has mentioned vegetable oil.
With the myth that "saturated fats" have lead to the dreaded three diseases: diabetes, cancer and heart disease, what I don't hear anyone talking about is vegetable oil and its role in this whole dilemna. With the aversion to saturated fat, promoted largely by vegetable oil producers, people have made a switch to vegetable based polyunsaturated fats sources (canola oil, peanut oil, sunflower and safflower oils, margarine). The problem lies in the fact that when the vegetable oil is produced, it is chemically altered to a point where it is oxidized, creating trans fat and free radicals and is terrible for our systems. What they don't tell us is that trans fat is a by-product of the chemical process involved in creating vegetable oil. They cannot list by-products in the ingredient list. So why is America fat? Not because of animal fats. Vegetable oils are in just about every product on the shelf. A great book to read about the science behind the vegetable oil problem is "Deep Nutrition" by Cate Shanahan, MD.
Posted by: Johanna Burani, MS, RD, CDE | Aug 21, 2009 8:35:00 AM
As with good nutrition in general, it's all about portions. Europeans don't consume the large portions that are commonplace to us in this country. Perhaps this helps explain why the saturated fats mentioned in the study did not appear to produce negative results. But you just can't tell Americans that haphazard use of butter, etc. won't increase cardiac risk. Many will interpret this to mean "I can have as much as I want." I say this after 22 years of nutrition counseling experience.
Posted by: BADKarma | Aug 21, 2009 1:34:31 AM
What none of you seem to understand is the whole point behind "food scare of the week" junk science is to terrorize the entire population into going Vegan... Possibly the worst, most unhealthy diet imaginable if you happen to be a female of child-bearing age; only marginally less so if you're male; and utterly destructive of the environment; but HIGHLY chi-chi and Politically Correct.
Posted by: Aggie | Aug 21, 2009 1:05:19 AM
Oops, excuse the mistakes in grammar in my comment. I should have read it over more carefully before I posted.
Posted by: Aggie | Aug 21, 2009 1:04:10 AM
Excellent points, Jay. Correlation do not prove causation. People have blindly accepted the results of studies that say active people live longer. Could it not be that health people are more active, and that is why they live longer?
Other studies focus on one particular group, such as the peopel of Okinawa, as if the only difference between these people and other groups is what they eat.
In most studies concerning health and diet, there are way too many variables, which is why we often seen conflicting studies.
Also, these studies are sometimes based on what people recall having eaten over the past year. How accurate can these be? Most people have trouble remembering what they ate last week, let alone over the course of a year.
The jury is still out on the relationship between health and diet, if there is one beyond the obvious effects of severe deprivation. A good book on our current preoccupation with perfect health is Worried Sick by Nortin Hadler, MD. Informative blog is junkfodscience at blogspot.
Posted by: Jay Kenney, PhD, RD | Aug 20, 2009 3:57:30 PM
If a diet high in fatty dairy products and meat promotes CVD, IR, and weight gain how do we explain the data from the article Monica discussed?
Well if you look at people who consume more diet versus regular sodas it is the fromer who are more likely to gain weight. However, this does not mean sugar-rich sodas are less fattening as it may well be that people who are struggling to keep from gaining weight choose to drink more diet sodas than those without that tendency. In a like fashion given the wealth of reports connecting eating a lot of fatty animal products with weight gain and especially CVD and even IR and type 3 diabetes is it not possible the results of this study may simply be that people who eat more red meat and dairy fat may be less prone to gain weight and develop other health issues? Self-selection is often a problem in epidemiological studies when the people who perceive themselves to be at higher risk are more likely to cut back on well publicized dietary risk factors.
Certainly the data are overwhelming that eating more saturated fat raises LDL-Cholesterol levels and increase the risk of CVD. IMHO the risk that eating more red meats and fatty dairy products leads to IR, type 2DM and some cancers is compelling but perhaps not conclusive. However, epidemiological studies like the one Monica disussed cannot really establish cause and effect.
Posted by: Brenda | Aug 20, 2009 2:49:47 PM
I agree with Robin. I would really use an optional column that let me see which foods contributed to a particular nutrient - like Vita E, so if I wanted to reduce calories without reducing the Vita E (or folate, Vita B12, etc), it would be easier to do.
Posted by: Brenda | Aug 20, 2009 2:45:11 PM
The studies come from the EU where bovine growth hormone is not used to make cows produce more milk, and cows are not raised in CAFO conditions on GMO corn. I wonder if that is relevant?
Posted by: JS | Aug 20, 2009 1:31:00 PM
I'm not discounting diet in any way shape or form, but people need to remember that genetics do play a role in a few cases (note, a few, not a majority), like those with the ApoAI-CIII-AIV gene cluster.
Posted by: RB | Aug 20, 2009 11:56:14 AM
Of course there's something else.
Through calorie reduction a person can lose weight and be thin. But, if the calories being eaten are from grains, you will raise your triglyceride levels since the insulin spikes from the carbs will cause you body to sore fat. That is probably one of the biggest contributors to heart disease.
A deficiency of carbs is not unhealthy. I challenge you to find a double blind study that supports that position.
Posted by: Rod C. | Aug 20, 2009 3:27:50 AM
I would somewhat agree with this article. However, it still wouldn't explain how you can have skinny people who get heart attacks. So there's something else that must be factored into the equation.
I subscribe to the school of thought that calories are calories, regardless of whether it comes from fat, protein, or carbohydrates. Each 1 of these macronutrients have their benefits and drawbacks. I think the key lies in eating high quality versions of each (for example, favoring mono- and polyunsaturated fats and complex, low glycemic load carbs). Also important is balancing a high intake of 1 macronutrient with a nutrient that compensates for its drawbacks (for example, consuming red wine/resveratrol with meals high in saturated fat). For more on this, there's a good article at http://beyondorganic.net/dieting-p3.html. Last but not least, making sure you have a healthy intake of each. The Atkins diet advocates a deficiency of carbs, and is therefore unhealthy.
Posted by: Bob | Aug 20, 2009 12:18:19 AM
Obviously it's better for your health not to be overweight.
It's an _independent_ question as to whether it's better to eat red meat or the equivalent amount of calories in whole grain bread.
And that's the question I'm interested in because that's the choice that I get to make every day.
BTW, I can't read the linked article - do you need some kind of subscription?
Posted by: Earl | Aug 19, 2009 10:06:35 PM
I'm always happy to see articles like this. It is what is needed to break through the misguided anti-fat/pro-carbohydrate dietry recommendations (influenced by political interest groups) of the last 20 years that has lead to the current obesity epidemic.
Posted by: Robin | Aug 19, 2009 5:25:09 PM
Could you please change the "my tracking" section so that an additional report can be obtained showing the foods contributing to a particular nutrient?
Posted by: ross | Aug 19, 2009 4:59:29 PM
"Stop confusing people with your misguided interpretations of worthless 'studies'."
The science of nutrition (like all sciences) is the observation and logical/unbiased interpretation of patterns with the intent of understanding how we can use this knowledge to make better predictions about the future. Do you think Marie Curie's "worthless studies" cost her her life? Science is a body of verifiable knowledge that is based on past hypotheses. Without predictions, the scientific method cannot operate and our lives can never improve.
A misguided interpretation is one that prescribes to any individual hypothesis or theory without considering the infinitely flexible and consistently incomplete body of knowledge at its foundation.
Keep up the excellent work, Monica.
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Aug 19, 2009 2:10:54 PM
Cliff, although--as I've pointed out in my post--the studies discussed here are hardly definitive, I don't think they are worthless. Feel free to offer an alternate interpretation.
Posted by: Cliff | Aug 19, 2009 2:02:45 PM
Monica,
Stop confusing people with your misguided interpretations of worthless "studies".
Posted by: Ashley | Aug 19, 2009 1:59:39 PM
Excellent article. The more and more I learn about health and nutrition, the more and more I've started to hate modern food technology! They have set up an environment in which food is readily available in vast amounts, fast to prepare and very satiable that it is hard to resist eating too much if you're not careful and paying close attention to your intake. Modern food technology has acted, in a way, like a catalyst for human food consumption.
You also hit the nail on the head in that a burger from a fast food chain is absolutely NOT the same as buying regular beef from your grocery and making one yourself, and the meat is so different composition-wise from a grass-fed animal that they shouldn't even be put in the same category.
