What if there was a widely accepted theory that guided government policy and affected your life in all sorts of ways- and what if it were absolutely, boneheadedly wrong?
You’d be pretty mad, right?
That’s how I- and many of my colleagues- have felt for years about the theory that saturated fat causes heart disease.
And finally, we’re getting some vindication.
According to a new study in the prestigious Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which researchers examined data from 21 different studies from across the world involving over 350,000 subjects, there isn’t a shred of evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increase in the risk of either coronary heart disease (CHD) or cardiovascular disease (CVD).
You read that right.
“Our meta-analysis showed that there is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD,” wrote the researchers, led by Dr Ronald Krauss from the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California.
Yet avoiding saturated fat has been the cornerstone of “official” dietary advice for years, based on the assumptions that it increases the risk for heart disease, (not true), that it raises cholesterol (sometimes true but fairly irrelevant) and that cholesterol itself is a solid marker for the risk of heart disease (very far from true).
Meanwhile this misinformation- dare I say “disinformation”- has informed our food choices for decades. The food companies jumped on it, pushing margarine as a substitute for butter, and “healthy” oils like soybean, sunflower, and corn oil as replacements for saturated fat. This has caused a massive imbalance between omega-6’s and omega-3’s in the diet, which in turn contributed mightily to the epidemic of inflammation we’re now seeing.
I believe—as do many of my colleagues- that inflammation is a far more serious risk factor for heart disease than cholesterol ever was.
Omega-6 fats, you may recall, are pro-inflammatory, while omega-3’s are anti-inflammatory. They are supposed to be in balance, with an idea ratio of about 1:1- 4:1. We currently consume a ratio of at least 15:1 omega 6: omega 3, with some estimates putting the ratio even higher. My friend Jade Beutler, CEO of Barlean’s Organic Oils, likens it to putting Mike Tyson in the ring with Pee Wee Herman.
The current study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is not the first time the demonization of saturated fat has been questioned by responsible scientists.
An excellent 2004 paper entitled “Saturated Fats: What Dietary Intake?” made the following statement: “Whether a finite quantity of specific dietary saturated fatty acids actually benefits health is not yet known.”
A terrific conference entitled “Saturated Fat: What is the Evidence?” was put on by the Nutrition and Metabolism society (of which I am a member) as part of the 2008 Western Regional Obesity Course of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. I attended that conference and I can tell you the collective answer to the question “what is the evidence?” could be summed up in two words: Not much. (You can read an excellent report on that conference by Laura Dolson here )
Saturated fat has a very different fate in the body when it’s consumed in the context of a low-carbohydrate diet. As researchers Jeff Volek, PhD, RD and Cassandra Forsythe, PhD wrote recently in a paper in Nutrition and Metabolism, “We contend that the recommendation to intentionally restrict saturated fat is unwarranted and only serves to contribute to the misleading rhetoric surrounding the health effects of saturated fat.”
I’ll be the first to say that not all saturated fat is created equal. I’m not interested in consuming more saturated fats from French fries, but I think egg white omlettes are ridiculous.
It’s interesting to note that prior to the 1920’s, Americans ate tons of lard, butter, beef and cheese but both strokes and heart attacks were far less common than they are today. Enter the saturation (forgive the pun) of the food supply with hydrogenated oils, high omega-6 vegetable oils and tons of carbohydrates. Now heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States.
Coincidence?
Obviously there’s more than one factor involved in making us as unhealthy as we are, and no one- least of all me- is claiming that increasing saturated fat (without changing anything else about our diet) is a good thing, let alone a cure-all.
But maybe it’s time to consider that we’ve been demonizing the wrong component of our diet.
Maybe it’s time to start looking beyond the conventional advice about saturated fat and cholesterol and find out what’s really making us sick and fat!
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Since the government is so clueless about nutrition, can you recommend where to get training in nutrition — ie not government community colleges or state universities, but some independent trade schools or distance learning, something that can complement training in the health field of licensed massage therapy?
hi
you could try Clayton College for Natural Health– also i teach a weight loss coach certification course through Coach Training Alliance- there is also the Institute for Integrative Nutrition and finally- if you want a really legit, serious program that is forward- thinking and informed, the University of Bridgeport MS in nutrition.
be forewarned, both clayton and integrative have a vegetarian bent- though you will hear other points of view
warmly
jb
Hi Cheryl…I completed the program at the Institute for Integrated Nutrition last year….it was an absolutely fantastic program, with speakers such as Doctor Oz, Marion Nestle, Andrew Weill, Victoria Moran…just to name a few. The school is on the cutting edge of nutrition…and promotes a mind, body soul approach to life. Even more wonderful to be surrounded by like minded people..I met some great friends there. I think they started a distance learning program this year, so please take a look at it. Good luck!
I’m wondering about the “studies” that were done in the past that claimed to show that saturated fat was bad for us. I would think that these studies must have been based on something. How were these studies done and how did they get the results so wrong?
I had been involved with the study of food for the last 27 years and from that I have concluded is that the way your body actually use the fats – in other words assimilate – determines if the fat (from any source), will make you sick or not.
Bottom line, the short answer is, if you can consume fat that has not been denatured BEFORE eating it (by extreme cooking), and not denatured AFTER eating eat (in your body by free radical damage) and you don’t consume TOO MUCH of it you should be all right.
Antonio.
You should read that study again. The problem is FAT and PROCESSED CARBOHYDRATE. As fat increases in a diet to the proportion of calories so does heart disease with some indications not necessarily proven but fairly conclusive about saturated fat independently. On the other hand, it is processed refined carbs that show problems directly on atherogenicity as well a whole host of other problems not whole plant based carbs. Studies have shown over and over again that people who eat a high carbohydrate diet of whole plant based foods and eat low fat naturally since they are eating a plant based diet are not only thin but have remarkably lower rates of heart disease as well as cancer, diabetes, and also live longer.
The problem with these studies is looking at the data based on single factors. You can find all kinds of studies with whatever result you want if you look at individual nutrients because it will always shows some varying things based on the context, it is only when looking at diet in the context of whole diets that you find anything looking like real life information.
This misreading of the literature is based on the study design and often relates to factors like which is worse, processed carbs or saturated fat or polyunsaturated fat. Things get lumped in together that shouldn’t, the designers often forget to segregate the carbs into whole plant based and processed. It is a scientific mess with results that mislead the public.
Before the 20′s that you mention, the percent fat in the diet was very low! Sure they had some animal products and lard etc but they subsisted in the majority of their calories on plant based foods and carbohydrates. Not processed. That is why they were healthy, not because they ate saturated fat. It was because the majority of their calories came from plant based foods.
You make some excellent points that i agree with- you’ll find no defense of processed carbohydrates here.
The lack of heart disease was not JUST because they were eating saturated fat- it was for many reasons, some of which you mention. However the percentage of calories from any macronutrient is a very slippery statistic. The percentage of fat in the diet makes no difference to any health outcome, though the type of fat (trans for example) and the type of carbohydrates does. To give you an example of why percentage isn’t the best indicator, take protein. A person eating 15% of their calories from protein SHOULD be fine, right? But if they’re eating 1000 calories a day, it’s very very low (under 40 grams of protein). If they’re eating 6000 calories a day, it’s a different story.
You could have 90% of all the money I have in my wallet or 10% of Donald Trump’s bank account- which would you rather have?
warmly
jb
Percentage of fat in a diet actually is very well correlated with disease outcomes when you look at metaanalysis population studies. It goes even further and becomes more precise when you look at type of fat, ie saturated, trans and poly/monounsaturated.
Calories per day is another misleading number for the main reason that a person eating a plant based unprocessed diet with small amounts if animal protein is not going to be able to eat 6000 calories per day, it is physically impossible due to the volume of unprocessed carbs. The only way to get to very high numbers is to start adding fats and animal protein due to the nutrient density of these foods and THAT is precisely when disease rates start to increase with more predictive outcomes based on the type of fat.
By taking the 6000 vs 1000 per calorie a day argument, you are essentially making the point that the population studies show. That is that when you reach numbers that are very high it is precisely because you are adding processed carbs, protein, sugar, and oil / fat. We often forget about nutrient vs calorie density. When we bring that into the picture, it is very directly correlated with health overall.
I’m sorry to disagree with you but according to Walter Willett, MD, chair of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, in an interview given in 2000 widely available online, he said, based on the 30 years of data of the Nurses Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up study, “We have found no correlation between the percentage of fat in the diet and any significant health outcome”. He did go on to say that the TYPE of fat and TYPE of carbohydrate did show a correlation.
This is a very long debate in which well-meaning people can hold different points of view and can interpret the research differently.
warmly
jb
Great point! Agreed, many well meaning people hold different views. The Nurses Health Study had some flaws in that particular facet I believe. The changes the nurses made in their diets did not take into account the composition of those diets, since a lot were eating processed foods with the fats removed from them. Not exactly a healthy change. It wasn’t a switch from a fatty food to a lower fat food whole food, but from a fatty food with the fat reduced by processing. If the changes made in macronutrients are artificially made with no change in basic composition of the actual food constituents to effect the changes then I agree with you, it is likely the change won’t mean much. If those nurses actually changed the ratio’s based on whole foods, it would require them to eat more plant based foods and less animal based foods. If they did that which is not what they did, I believe it would match the numerous population studies all over the world in regards to fat and cancer and not be a huge outlier in the scientific literature.
Ok, so it’s good to eat saturated fats. Can you eat toomuch of them?
What about the researchin the China Study that links saturated fats from animal protein with cancer and degenerative diseases? How to you explain this?
I promise to do a newsletter on the The China Study very soon-
and yes, you can eat too many saturated fats in the context of a high carb diet. If you’re eating low carb with the right amount of calories and the saturated fat comes from whole food sources (not fries!) you should be fine.
warmly
jb
The China Study implicated Casein protein as the cancer causing nutrient.
Dear Dr. Jonny Bowden,
FYI. one of my best friends Ron Kenney, who
I’m wondering if some people might get the wrong idea that eating corn fed beef and pork made by industrialize farming is good for you if it contains saturated fat. When you order a steak, you really don’t know how that cow was raised unless it’s labeled “grown and grass fed by local suppliers”.
I have not had the time to look trough the study in a decent way yet, so please feel free to correct me, – however this is what spring in my face:
* Most of the studies in this meta-analysis seams to be cohort studies, and therefore lacks “control” over what is happening and why.
* There are many potential confounders that they are not adjusting for in this study, and it is very random which confounders that are adjusted for in the diffrent studyes they use.
* Many of the studies in the meta-analysis does not check for a confounding factor such as smoking – a factor which we know has great influence on CVD / stroke.
* Where a macro-nutrient is changed in this type of study – in this case in the saturated fat – it is given that at least one other macro-nutrients are also changed. What is it that has the effect?
What kind of carbohydrates are consumed, insted of the sauturated fats? – In most studies, it is the most miserable kind of carbohydrates, that it is exchanged with. – I have repeatedly pointed out in here, that there is little health to get out of changeing saturated fats with carbohydrates, infact quite the contrary.
But most evidence shows that there is a lot to gain, if one replaces some of the sauturated fats with more worthwhile fat sources.
* The relationship between fats – we know today that it is particularly cholesterol ratio in the blood and especially lipoproteins that is better markers , NOT overall cholesterol, – this should therefor of cause also be checked!
* Several of the mentioned studies measures grams insted of fat%, one could well imagine that the higher intake of fat is due to an increased caloric intake, for example caused by more exercise.
* The intake of fat in some studies seems rather small? several has under 30 and 25% fat in the Fourth Quartile – should that not be the high risk group? The danish Nutrition Council for instant writes that there is not seen a relative risk reduction in intake of below 25% fat.
Even the oldest offecial ordinary recommendations has been for years, that if one is below the recommended 10% of total energy from saturated fat, it will probably have a so small effect on CHD that it is negligible.
* This is a general problem in this kind of studies of people (especially overweight) has been shown again and again to under-report, which reduces the relative risk.
* The article “only” looks at CHD, not cancer, arthritis, and so on.
* When and how is the saturated fat measured, and is the follow-up long enough?
To be honest, the article has so far not changed much for me, – but along with other literature it is contribuation to form the basis for what the evidence is suggesting, and to show where there is still needed to be preformed good solid research. It helps to substantiate along with several other similar articles, that the saturated fat is PROPERLY not AS BAD as we in many years has been “conned” to belive.
This study should also soon be provoking the ppl that have built the best evidence showing, and been argumenting for that saturated fat is dangerous(which seams to be basicly, all the offecial recommendations), s
Jonny, should i be worried about the process of roasting damaging the fats in my almond butter?
no
jb
Thats good news. What do you think about the recent HVP recall?
Hi Jonny,
What cut of beef would you say is the leanest and is lowest in saturated fat…apparently rump and top round are very lean but i’m not entirely sure?
thanks
well remember, I’m not concerned about saturated fat- i’m far more concerned that the meat is grass-fed and humanely raised, no steroids, antibiotics or hormones (as i wrote about in depth in THe 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth)… so saturated fat isn’t really a concern of mine. That said, this chart is an excellent guide to the fat content of beef cuts..
http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/leanbeef.aspx
warmly
jb
Useful information like this one should be held and maintained as well as so will place this one on my personal search for list! Thanks for this wonderful publish and hoping to publish associated with this!
Just do a little research on other cultures such as the Inuit for example… They obtain the majority of their calories from saturated fat and have extremely low rates of cardiovascular disease.
.-= Adam´s last blog ..How Well Do Body Wraps Work? =-.
Have you actually considered adding more videos to your weblog posts to keep the readers a lot more entertained? I mean I just read via the whole post of yours and it was quite good but since I am a lot more of the visual learner,I discovered that to be more helpful nicely let me know how it turns out! I adore what you men are always up too. This kind of clever work and reporting! Keep up the great functions guys I’ve added you men to my blogroll. This is a great post many thanks for sharing this informative information.. I’ll visit your weblog frequently for some latest post.
{ 2 trackbacks }