# Saturated fat does not contribute to heart disease



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM.

Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute Oakland CA Harvard School of Public Health Boston MA.

BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies. DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD. RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Link: Siri-Tarino PW. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Jan 13. [Epub ahead of print] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Maybe it should read, "Changing the amount of saturated fat consumed in the future does not reverse damage caused in the past". Now, if they measured the saturated fat levels in deceased people's blood, they might be able to claim that present saturated fat levels have no impact of mortality chances.

Medical research is very hard since everyone has different pasts, and certain things impact one person in one way, but has no effect on another. I'm sure you could eat enough foods high in saturated fats to cause health problems. And I am skeptical of their claim of 5 to 23 years and knowing just how much saturated fat each one ate. That is a long time to keep track of all the saturated fat you consume, especially if you eat out at restaurants that don't tell you that info. Did they study vegetarians vs carnivores? That might work.

I'm not a big fan of the process that they use in medical studies because they never seem to come up with any 'positive' results. It is always trying to prove things aren't causing problems instead of figuring out what does cause them. And they never get 100% black and white findings, but make it seem like they do. I was reading one where out of 2500 subjects and 2500 control, 8 versus 12 got sick in both groups, yet the headline was "A 50% Reduction" and they stopped the study early. Yet in real life, there is no evidence to back up that claim that the virus spreads any slower.

And that doesn't even get to the conspiracy theory problem with who is funding this research and what benefit will they get...


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Well, there's no relation between saturated fat intake and heart desease, this means that there is no evidence that saturated fat is harmfull.

They do know what causes problems, transfats, sugar and oxidized LDL (saturated fat increases LDL that is not harmfull).

Therefor, we can safely say that saturated fat is harmless.


----------



## robertz (Feb 4, 2009)

I would say soy is more harmful than saturated fats, and they have been pushing it on us for years, maybe because it's a cheap fodder for the overpopulation these days.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Classified said:


> And that doesn't even get to the conspiracy theory problem with who is funding this research and what benefit will they get...


Its a meta analysis that compares all the trials, there could be 1 biased but meta analysisses give a good view about the reality. I would agree that 1 study isnt proper evidence.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

I am not a nutritionist, but I want the scientists/medical researchers to state facts, not these wishy-washy claims. I want the peer review process to include convincing other scientists and researchers that their claims are right and that there is a super majority conscientious as to what the truth is. Quite frankly, I want to see scientists make a version of "The Science Bible" that has everything that humans have proven as fact that is up to date, unbiased, and truthful.

I know you need some fats in your diet, the question is what is the 'correct' level for me? I know I see a difference in my mood when I eat fish (or take fish oil/omega-3) for instance, but what happens if when you overeat these fats? Will it cause weight gain or a decreased quality of life?

http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/0602/sc0602-saturatedfats.html
http://www.preventionisbest.com/site/saturatedfat.html
These websites seems to back up the idea that it's not saturated fats that cause all the problems.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

What do you mean with wishy washy claims? I dont like scientists to state "facts" as some claim complete bull****, combining the results of several long term studies is the way to go, and from this the conclusion is that saturated fat isnt correlated with an increased link of heart desease.
Its not a claim, its the results of several studies that came to this conclusion.

As far as the articles you listed, they also claim that saturated fats arent bad but those sites usually arent very good sources and use sketchy evidence, leave evidence out and only reference the evidence what supports their conclusion etc.

A meta analysis of all data available is for me the best source.

Personally i beleive a low carb diet is optimal for health, i dont follow such a diet myself tough as i dont have the motivation to go eat completely differend.

Omega 3 is very recommend because we in the western word have a very bad omega3/6 ratio wich has been connected with heart desease.

Anyway, what the optimal diet is can be discussed, the most important thing is to leave out transfats, excess sugar and to eat lots of healthy food.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

It's wishy washy because they didn't prove anything and I'm not sure how repeatable it would be, now, I haven't read their study and it could be better than I am thinking it will be, and I'm not claiming that I'm not sterotyping them. They didn't answer the bigger questions. What does cause heart disease? Why should I not be concerned with eating lots of saturated fats? Did they control everything these subjects ate for 5-20+ years? How did the saturated fats interact with other substances that the person ate (are some combinations worse and amplify things)?

This seems like a better "fact" to me.


> A study conducted at the Wynn Institute for Metabolic Research in London examined the composition of human aortic plaques. This study found that the artery-clogging fats in those who died from heart disease were composed of 26 percent saturated fat and 74 percent polyunsaturated fatty acids.


Now, figuring out what diet choices and lifestyle behaviors led to those heart attacks is the tough part and I don't really like the 'statistics' type of science. I want them to look at the biology of individuals and figure out how saturated fat (or anything else) gets processed and used.

I have no agenda on this topic, but it just seems like a small piece of a puzzle that I am interested in, yet nobody ever puts the whole thing together.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Well those facts are the big problem, its best to look at the actual fat intake and the risk of heart desease, as those findings let to the false conslusion about saturated fats leading to heart desease in the first place.

The full paper isnt available yet so i cant answer all your questions, they looked at saturated fat intake so all sorts of food combinations are included. 

Sugar, a bad omega 3/6 ratio and transfats have been implicated in heart desease, there are other reviews about that, the researchers only looked wheter saturated fat intake was associated with heart desease, it wasnt their job to look what does cause an increased risk, there are other reviews about that.


----------



## crayzyMed (Nov 2, 2006)

Here's an example of something that does increase the risk of heart desease:


> Health effects of trans-fatty acids: experimental and observational evidence.
> Mozaffarian D, Aro A, Willett WC.
> 
> Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. [email protected]
> BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Growing evidence indicates that trans-fatty acids (TFA) adversely affect cardiovascular health. As part of the World Health Organization (WHO) Scientific Update on TFA, we reviewed the evidence for effects of TFA consumption on coronary heart disease (CHD). SUBJECTS/METHODS: We searched Medline publications examining TFA consumption and CHD risk factors or outcomes, emphasizing results of studies in humans. We evaluated and synthesized evidence from both controlled feeding trials evaluating risk factors and long-term observational studies evaluating risk factors or clinical outcomes, each of which have complementary strengths and limitations, to enable the most robust and reliable inferences of effects. RESULTS: The effects of TFA consumption on risk factors most consistently seen in both controlled trials and observational studies included adverse lipid effects (for example [upward arrow] low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, [downward arrow] high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), [upward arrow] total/HDL-C ratio), proinflammatory effects (for example [upward arrow] tumor necrosis factor-alpha activity, [upward arrow] interleukin-6, [upward arrow] C-reactive protein) and endothelial dysfunction. These effects were most prominent in comparison with cis unsaturated fats; adverse effects on total/HDL-C and endothelial function were also seen in comparison with saturated fatty acids (SFA). TFA may also worsen insulin sensitivity, particularly among individuals predisposed to insulin resistance; possible effects on weight gain and diabetes incidence require further confirmation. Five retrospective case-control studies and four prospective cohort studies demonstrated positive associations between TFA consumption and CHD events. A meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated 24, 20, 27 and 32% higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death for every 2% energy of TFA consumption isocalorically replacing carbohydrate, SFA, cis monounsaturated fatty acids and cis polyunsaturated fatty acids, respectively. The differential effects of specific TFA isomers may be important but are less well established. The available evidence indicates that trans-18:1 and particularly trans-18:2 isomers have stronger CHD effects than trans-16:1 isomers. The limited data suggest that the experimental effects of ruminant and industrial TFA are similar when consumed in similar quantities, but very few persons consume such high levels of ruminant TFA, and observational studies do not support adverse CHD effects of ruminant TFA in amounts actually consumed. CONCLUSIONS: *Controlled trials and observational studies provide concordant evidence that consumption of TFA from partially hydrogenated oils adversely affects multiple cardiovascular risk factors and contributes significantly to increased risk of CHD events. The public health implications of ruminant TFA consumption appear much more limited. The effects of specific TFA isomers require further investigation.*


----------



## Honeybee1980 (Jan 29, 2009)

I agree that a low carb or paleo type diet is the optimal one, there are some great blogs and forums out there for anyone interested. I am eating PaNu style + taking some supplements (magnesium, vit D, fish oil, etc.) and I feel amazing. I also am losing weight, skin is much clearer, and knee pain reduced.

http://www.paleonu.com/what-is-panu/

*other great blogs:*
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

http://freetheanimal.com/

*and a forum/message board:*
http://forum.lowcarber.org/


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

The saturated fat scare seems to go back to the lipid hypothesis which is way back in the late 50's I believe. You would think more people would be challenging it (they are, just kind of slow) and cholesterol intake alarmism, but it seems like a very slow roll.


----------



## bowlingpins (Oct 18, 2008)

I am too tired atm to go over that study in detail but I Know that certain type of fats (the saturated kinds), the body is not able to metabolize, therefore they are converted to cholesterol. Cholesterol and its oxidized form, are major components of atherosclerotic plaques.
This why when a person's cholesterol is high, it is recommended they switch to a low cholesterol and a low fat diet as well. 
Unsaturated fats (the kinds which have double bonds) are healthier because the body is able to break them down at the double bonds into simpler products that are not converted to cholesterol.


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

Dietary cholesterol is much different than blood cholesterol, in fact there might be no correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. 

Maybe we should be looking close at the trans fat and refined sugar? Specifically what we do to the insulin levels, we poop on them.

Saturated fat does a lot of good things, strong cell membrane/bones/lungs ftw, remove toxins, healthy skin, etc.


----------

