The Saturated Fat Debate

I think since about the 1940's most of the people in the US have not been eating saturated fat. They have been eating margarine and shortening(trans fats). So how could saturated fat be causing anything.

There is so much confusion concerning all the different dietary fats. All I know is that I feel much better when I avoid saturated fats.

Brian

I avoid transfats entirely... so definately go with butter... I don't avoid anything else entirely although I'll choose unsaturated over saturated and try to limit my quantities of high fat food. (Though I increased my intake of unsaturated fat recently... I was eating about 16 g of fat a day and a nutritionist told me I should be eating more.)

I don't think saturated is something you need to avoid entirely... and some people do try to do that. Your body was built to deal with saturated fats, and I think people forgot that-- part of the reason transfats got so big before we realized it was much worse than what it replaced.

the debate about butter vs margarine has been going on for years... no one has figured it out yet. the bottom line is that fats are necessary but the food pyramid says "use sparingly"... i know this is too much information... but fats are supposed to be used as "lubrication" for the digestive system

staci said:
the debate about butter vs margarine has been going on for years... no one has figured it out yet. the bottom line is that fats are necessary but the food pyramid says "use sparingly"... i know this is too much information... but fats are supposed to be used as "lubrication" for the digestive system[...]

Fats are necessary for a lot of things other than just "lubrication". Your body needs fat to absorb certain vitamins, for example, and your brain needs it to function.

We have been "simplifying" our diet in an effort to avoid all the other crap that is going into food. I personally have serious concern about all the additives, colorants and preservatives that we suck down every day. We looked at margarine (becel) vs butter and butter won hands down (17 ingredients vs 1). Oddly enough, we use WAY less real butter than margarine.

I think that because it packs a powerful punch, we use less compared to margarine. Also, besides the types of fats, the calorie content is pretty much the same per serving. We can also pronounce all the ingredients. :P

Nourishing traditions is a very good resource. A friend has it, I've read bits and bops from it. I've adapted their way of making stocks. What a difference 24 hours makes vs 5 or 6.

The choice between butter and margarine is a little false, too. Not all margarines have transfats. What about Benecol and Smart Balance?

Lose Weight With Me said:
There is so much confusion concerning all the different dietary fats. All I know is that I feel much better when I avoid saturated fats.[...]

See, now I get the exact opposite response. The more saturated fats and the less carbohydrates I can eat, the better I feel and the stronger I am in the gym. We all have unique metabolisms and unique exercise regimes though. If I stop weight training, I start to lose my taste for protein foods.

Butter is better than margarine; it's nutrient dense and doesn't get contorted as much under heat. Heating an unsaturated oil is at least as bad as having a hydrogenated oil. Saturated fat and sugar/starch definitely is a bad combination. Finally, blood cholesterol has almost nothing to do with heart disease, at least the way we measure it.

To the quote at the top, I would say there is no need for carbohydrates in a sedentary population.

Advice to either "eat more saturated fat" or "eat no saturated fat" is too simplistic and needs to be given within the context of the overall diet.

Staci, I've heard the "fat as lubrication" argument, but I can't find any reputable source claiming that fat is a digestive lubricant. In fact, the lubricant is mucus, speaking of "too much information". We do need fat, as Chicken Girl points out.

I agree with the final statement about "context of the overall diet"

What we don't need is more confusing studies about the role of this or that vitamin, or this or that fat. We need studies on the effect of whole diets and lifestyles on WHOLE people.

There are many questions remaining. Why are researchers messing about with trivialities? Study the forest NOT the trees.

Gawd!

Yours VERY frustratedly,

~Mike

PS Message to our leaders... i.e. Governments: It's YOUR responsibility! Shape up! People are literally DYING to know.

Ryan said:

To the quote at the top, I would say there is no need for carbohydrates in a sedentary population.

Apart from their comprehensive grasp on nutrition, I trust Nourishing Traditions because it supports no industry. It stands against nearly everyone; at least in their current state. For example, they support eating meat and dairy, but not the way the industry produces them now.

"She's basing her ideas on observations of primitive populations in isolated areas who eat traditional diets, and it's so far removed from Western civilisation," [...] "In a population that is sedentary there is no need to consume saturated fats."

I really love when dietetic organizations do this. The message is "yes, this does/may help, but no one's going to do it anyways, so do it our way". The ADA does the same thing with low-carbing; they say low-carbing can help people with diabetes, but no one can stick to it, so do it their way. The thing to notice is they are deciding what a patient wants for themself, which is presumptuous at best. (Regina Wilshire gets credit for pointing out this trend to me)

"replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat is more effective in lowering serum cholesterol and reducing risk of CHD than simply reducing total fat consumption..."

Sure, if you introduce a lot of polyunsaturateds into the body without saturated fats, your body has to drive cholesterol into cell walls to keep them stable. This is not a kind thing to do to your body though. Notice the words "risk of CHD" and not actual CHD. By their guidelines, reducing serum cholesterol is reducing risk, so are they just being redundant?

"Is it just saturated fat alone that is an issue or is it a combination of high refined carbohydrate and/or starch intake as well as saturated fat intake? Has this question even been fully explored in contemporary research?"

This is a very good question. I definitely would like to know more about the harmful effects of certain food combinations. I can't help but think that simple, processed carbs + saturated fat is a one, two knock-out.

It just seems that if we focused on what we know we need (whole grains, lots of brightly-colored veggies, ample protein, etc.) the amount of saturated fat would take care of itself. When you're eating healthy foods, you don't crave unhealthy ones. I use a bit of butter on my toast and in my eggs...and rarely need it for anything else. (but, anecdotally, 15 years ago when I went from margarine to butter on that toast, my cholesterol level dropped 20 points).

p.s. though to other viewers: I've always used skim milk for my kids after age two...why do I hear some of you recommending whole milk?? I understand that fat-free salad dressing, for example, is full of sugar to make up for the loss of fat...but milk is milk...?

Ryan said:
The thing to notice is they are deciding what a patient wants for themself, which is presumptuous at best. (Regina Wilshire gets credit for pointing out this trend to me)[...]

Thanks Ryan.

Patient autonomy is truly supposed to be the foundation of the doctor-patient relationship, and by extension the relationship between organizations whom are tasked with communicating with doctors about what treatments/management options are supported by data. In the case of the ADA and dietary approach to diabetes management, it seems they've lost sight of the whole concept of patient autonomy and decided no one wants to, nor can, follow a carbohydrate restricted diet long-term, therefore they continue on with their recommendations that they even state don't work in the long-term.

So, the question begs - do carbohydrate restricted diets offer an means to manage diabetes with diet? Even the ADA has said the data supports that they can. Data from two different study populations with diabetes found both saw statistically significant improvements (and many reduced or eliminated medications) over the longer-term (up to almost two years) when following a carbohydrate restricted diet. The ADA maintains no one can follow such a diet long-term, but these two cohorts show 100% retention and compliance - maybe when given proper information and with the added incentive that following the diet led to improvement the diet can be followed in a motivated population?

Which then begs the question - should a patient with diabetes be offered a comprehensive set of guidelines with the current ADA diet side-by-side with an evidence-based carbohydrate restricted diet, along with the known/unknown risks, benefits, adherance requirements, medications necessary, etc. to make a decision for themself?

Right now, the ADA refuses to even consider doing this and instead continues promoting their dietary recommendations and now also has recommended immediate oral medication upon diagnosis in an effort to delay progression of the disease. To me this comes down to ignoring the important role the patient plays in management of their disease by ignoring the important aspect of patient autonomy - that is allowing the patient to choose the path of management/treatment they feel suits their lifestyle best and is supported by scientific data of efficacy.

Mar said:
why do I hear some of you recommending whole milk?? I understand that fat-free salad dressing, for example, is full of sugar to make up for the loss of fat...but milk is milk...?[...]

It just depends how deep you've gone into nutrition. You think whole grains are healthy, but there are some concerns. In grains, there are antinutrients. That is, there is something in them that not only doesn't nourish the body but actually works against the body being nourished. Specifically, grains will block mineral absorption, something which is very important. There are ways to reduce the amount of antinutrients, but they are not well known.

You're making the assumption that fat or saturated fat is something to be limited. I try to never let the percentage of calories I eat from fat drop below 50%. And virtually all of the fat I eat is animal. I even avoid olive oil and flaxseed oil in favor of cream and egg yolk.

You have three macronutrients: protein, fat, and carbs. You can only eat so much protein due to digestibility issues. Carbs don't contribute anything to the body; they are just energy to be burned up. Fats play many roles in the body though. Your kids are going to build their brains from fat and cholesterol. Hormonal health is affected by fats, tissue is built from fat as well as protein, fats increase nutrient absorption, and the list goes on. Eat full-fat animal foods and reduce carbohydrates, unless you're a long-distance runner or something.

Full-fat dairy products are only appropriate for babies and toddlers. The consumption of them after this stage is unnecessary and unhealthful--why on earth would you continue to need so much fat when growth is slowed/stopped? It's not developmentally appropriate.

Cannibal said:
Full-fat dairy products are only appropriate for babies and toddlers. The consumption of them after this stage is unnecessary and unhealthful--why on earth would you continue to need so much fat when growth is slowed/stopped?[...]

Because reduced fat dairy isn't appropriate for anyone.

Cannibal said:
why on earth would you continue to need so much fat when growth is slowed/stopped? It's not developmentally appropriate.[...]

Also, your cells don't live forever, so you are always replacing them to maintain yourself. You are always both shrinking and growing at the same time.

30% of calories from fat in their diet isn't going to hurt anyone. You don't need to choose between low-fat or low-carb, you can also eat everything in moderation. I personally feel better when I do, having tried both low-carb and low-fat.

Regina W said:

Right now, the ADA refuses to even consider doing this and instead continues promoting their dietary recommendations and now also has recommended immediate oral medication upon diagnosis in an effort to delay progression of the disease. To me this comes down to ignoring the important role the patient plays in management of their disease by ignoring the important aspect of patient autonomy - that is allowing the patient to choose the path of management/treatment they feel suits their lifestyle best and is supported by scientific data of efficacy.

Jim only brought in that one quote from the article, but I found this one particularly disgusting:

"Trent Watson, of the Dietitians Association of Australia, said the Weston A. Price Foundation's message would only further confuse an already muddled population."

So, it's bad... because it's not their opinion? Wow, that really brings up some concerns:
1) Biology is complicated. Really complicated. Do any of us know so much about nutrition that we can definitively place our diet above all others?
2) Is it really just better to have an inferior diet everyone agrees on?
3) Should people not be educated in nutrition so they can form their own opinions about it?

The biggest French paradox is that people talk about there being a French paradox even though French people do not live any longer and are not any healthier than the rest of us.

Oils, fats, butters, and margarines are processed unnatural foods with no place in a healthy diet. All the fat you need is contained in fish, meat, nuts, and vegetables.

Although I don't think that saturated fat is not good, I think it's best to just stay away from them until we have a clear explenation about it. It will be safer that way.

jb said:
French people do not live any longer and are not any healthier than the rest of us.[...]

jb said:
All the fat you need is contained in fish, meat, nuts, and vegetables.[...]

Jim said:
That makes it nice and simple. I like simple. However - do you remove skin from chicken or fat from beef and lamb?[...]

Hi Jim... My understanding is that the ratios of fats available via modern farmed meats is different to the evolutionary picture. Hence the need to go lean and add back in more mono and omega-3.

Grrr I do love the chicken skin :-(

jb said:
Oils, fats, butters, and margarines are processed unnatural foods with no place in a healthy diet. All the fat you need is contained in fish, meat, nuts, and vegetables.[...]

I agree with this, sounds beautifully simple eh? But bearing in mind the thing about fat ratios and adding fruits.

It's also worth noting that the most prized parts of an animal by hunter-gatherers and wild animals are the organ meats, heart, liver and so on. Also, there's a good theory that for humans, the marrow and brains of kills by other animals may have contributed significantly at some stage -- high in essential fatty acids.

Modern farming means less or even no omega-3 is present that in the wild food, would be present in high amounts. It all adds up.

The WHO stats are for countries as a whole, which have more or less diverse populations and conditions, if you think about 300 million Americans spread across a continent compared to France. The EU regional statistics I saw recently (I didn't see them online, they might be somewhere) showed that the highest life expectancy region in France (Paris and surrounds) was lower than for Sweden, Southeast England, some part of Germany and somewhere else I forget.

I usually buy chicken boned and skinless, other times I might eat the skin, I trim lamb quite agressively because I don't like the taste of lamb fat. I buy fairly lean cuts of pork and don't really trim, don't buy beef much because there isn't any good stuff around here. I like rabbit, venison and boar, which are pretty lean to start with. I don't worry about fat naturally contained in food, it's added fats and sugars that do the damage.

It also makes me feel safe to avoid saturated fat. Some surveys may prove to be ok. But it doesn't mean that it's the truth. We can't be sure of the facts that they provide.

Pat said:
It also makes me feel safe to avoid saturated fat. Some surveys may prove to be ok. But it doesn't mean that it's the truth. We can't be sure of the facts that they provide.[...]

So, if you're not sure, don't eat it at all? What if avoiding it is the very most dangerous thing?

Saturated fat is a nutrient- fats are necessary for nutrient absorbsion (sp), a source of energy, and healthy skin, nails, eyes, and brains, and (this isn't scientific, but something I've noticed) fats can help your immune system. That last statement is anecdotal- my cousin's a vegetarian who eats no fat whatsoever, and is always sick; I eat the recommended percentage of fat (30% of calories, although some days it's more saturated than others), and I don't get sick often, but when I do, drinking whole milk and eating other high-fat foods (making my diet about 50% fat), then taking a nap, makes me well again.

There also needs to be a distinction made between butter from grass fed cows and butter from grain fed cows. It makes a difference.

there's a good book on the topic by Bruce Fife
called Saturated fats may save your life

It seems to me that saturated fat is only a problem in the presence of a lot of carbs. Eat a low- or controlled-carb diet and the saturated fat shouldn't be a problem.

The only thing I know is that if I don't eat saturated fat I am RAVENOUS. I was a vegan for a year and put on around 5kgs due to just being hungry all the time. I really thought there was something wrong with me.
Now that I'm back eating fullfat/no sugar yoghurt, eggs and cheese I feel full all the time again.

Just my 2 cents.