Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Saturated fat and cholesterol good for you

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Say uncle.
FYI, the correct reference to the second article is Dariush Mozaffarian, Eric B Rimm and David M Herrington, "Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80, 5: 1175-1184, November 2004. Would you be so kind as to give an actual reference for the first one (journal name, year and a few clues as to authors could be enough). The link you gave produces nothing. Trust me when I say I can find it if you provide the reference. As for your uncle, I note that although I whupped your ass on the refined foods claim, you have yet to admit it. I relish the opportunity to again give you the thrashing that you so richly deserve. I will use the Mozaffarian et al article if that is what's necessary, but I would appreciate the opportunity to refute your claim using both of your citations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Would you be so kind as to give an actual reference for the first one (journal name, year and a few clues as to authors could be enough).

The first citation is found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...t_uids=16467232

If that doesn't work: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2006 Feb 8;295(6);629-42. I think a few of the authors are Prentice RL, Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Patterson R, Kuller LH, Ockene JK, Margolis KL, Limacher MC, Manson JE, Parker LM, Paskett E, Phillips L, Robbins J, Rossouw JE, Sarto GE, Shikany JM, Stefanick ML, Thomson CA, Van Horn L, Vitolins MZ, Wactawski-Wende J, Wallace RB, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Whitlock E, Yano K, Adams-Campbell L, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Beresford SA, Black HR, Brunner RL, Brzyski RG, Ford L, Gass M, Hays J, Heber D, Heiss G, Hendrix SL, Hsia J, Hubbell FA, Jackson RD, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, LaCroix AZ, Lane DS, Langer RD, Lasser NL, Henderson MM.

Don't forget you still have to refute the other study too.

As for your uncle, I note that although I whupped your ass on the refined foods claim, you have yet to admit it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. We didn't even go into detail on that topic yet. I have several studies that I can pull out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your uncle, I note that although I whupped your ass on the refined foods claim, you have yet to admit it. I relish the opportunity to again give you the thrashing that you so richly deserve. I will use the Mozaffarian et al article if that is what's necessary, but I would appreciate the opportunity to refute your claim using both of your citations.

Do you know for a fact that his position is wrong, or are you just trying to pick apart the studies he provides for its own sake? Because it almost seems like you have already decided to refute those articles despite the fact that you had just said that you couldn't find it on the web link he provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that doesn't work: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2006 Feb 8;295(6);629-42.
Okay, I have it, and I'll get back to you later.
Don't forget you still have to refute the other study too.
Referring to the Mozzafarian et al paper? If I refute your claim using the JAMA paper, I don't need to consider the second paper. So we'll see how that goes.
I have no idea what you're talking about. We didn't even go into detail on that topic yet. I have several studies that I can pull out.
I refuted the claim "The first study suggests that those specific refined carbohydrates are the cause of heart disease" in post 22. The "refined carbohydrates causes heart disease" claim is now dead and buried, so currently we're addressing the "high cholesterol and saturated fat is better than low cholesterol and saturated fat" claim. I'm now engaging in an open-ended correction of your scientific errors, I am only providing you with the essential information that you need to understand why your claims are scientifically invalid, and really the only important point is that you have embraced a contradiction by declaring the invalidity of science for resolving these matters while trying to support your claim with... science??

Perhaps I should wait for your consession on the Enns et al. paper, since I think it is important for you to understand why you were wrong, and if you don't recognise the source of your error, there is little point in repeating myself with a different study

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know for a fact that his position is wrong, or are you just trying to pick apart the studies he provides for its own sake?
You're right, it does help to know in advance that he is wrong, and something about why he is wrong. It's just that to actually give the refutation, you have to access the actual article, which is why I needed the citation. There is a deeper issue, about the scientific method, which is important but of course the big picture questions about the methods that man uses to reach rational conclusions tend to get swept aside in favor of feeling happy that X is the correct conclusion, in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...t_uids=16467234

This is a study that took place over 8 years with one group on a low-fat diet and the other not. In the end, it was concluded that heart disease wasn't effected by the low-fat vs. high fat consumption.

To begin with, you claimed that there is substantial experimental evidence showing that cholesterol and saturated fat contribute to good health, and in post 3 said that a high saturated fat and cholesterol diet is better than one with a low amount. I asked you for evidence to support that conclusion, and this was supposed to be your answer. This study does not show that. It also does not even look at heart disease, it looks only at breast cancer in post-menopausal women, and the study does not differentiate the type of fat consumed by the subjects. Your inability to actually read and comprehend these studies is horrifying.

I think since your full attention is not on this question, there's no point in further engaging in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin with, you claimed that there is substantial experimental evidence showing that cholesterol and saturated fat contribute to good health, and in post 3 said that a high saturated fat and cholesterol diet is better than one with a low amount.

Honestly, I don't want to spend hours looking through these studies trying to support my claim, because I know that possibly every study is flawed since there are so many factors involved. My conclusion came from the general evaluation I received as I have been reading through this topic. The main thing I wanted to do was make people aware of the possibility. Since you seem to already know the answer, just show me the studies now and get it over with.

I asked you for evidence to support that conclusion, and this was supposed to be your answer. This study does not show that. It also does not even look at heart disease, it looks only at breast cancer in post-menopausal women, and the study does not differentiate the type of fat consumed by the subjects.

It shows that a high fat diet is more beneficial to those women. And if it's a low-fat controlled group vs. a high-fat controlled group, most likely the high-fat group will have a higher saturated fat intake as well. Of course, that also means there is more poly- and monounsaturated fats, which could be the main influence. You're right, they weren't specific enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your inability to actually read and comprehend these studies is horrifying.

Where can one dig up these studies?

Are there any free online sources?

Do you work in the academia or some sort of research think tank? Because those are the only places I can think of where one would be able to easily get their hands on scientific journal databases (that or a very well stocked university library).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This study(Mozaffarian) does not show that. It also does not even look at heart disease, it looks only at breast cancer in post-menopausal women, and the study does not differentiate the type of fat consumed by the subjects. Your inability to actually read and comprehend these studies is horrifying.

I just realized you're not talking about the same study I linked, or intended for you to look at. This is the study you looked at?: Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB, Herrington DM. Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80:1175-84

(or click down there)

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/8...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know in a debate between two opponents, it's annoying to have a third wheel roll in, but there's just something that's been bugging me as I've been trying to read along with this debate.

I'll give you an example: the study linked to in Progressive Man's latest post, #34. It doesn't prove a link of any sort between those food components and coronary atherosclerosis. It shows that something was happening, but it doesn't actually prove that A causes B, or more importantly, how. It's this same kind of logic that leads to a new report in the paper every other week:

"Scientists have found a new danger-food - Cauliflower. That's right, cauliflower linked to cancer!! BEWARE CAULIFLOWER!!

In a murder, if we found someone in the same room as the dead body, we would say they are 'linked' to the murder, but we wouldn't say they were the murderer, until we could prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not aware of the validity of your sources - I'll leave that up to the man who can actually look up all of your sources, but as of yet, I'm unaware of a paper that you've linked to that actually proved that saturated fat and cholesterol are good for you (good in what way?) and the process by which they do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't want to spend hours looking through these studies trying to support my claim, because I know that possibly every study is flawed since there are so many factors involved. My conclusion came from the general evaluation I received as I have been reading through this topic. The main thing I wanted to do was make people aware of the possibility. Since you seem to already know the answer, just show me the studies now and get it over with.

And I think this is exactly the issue David has with your claim and your method. Yes, studies may have flaws in them, but those flaws in general need to be regarding side issues. What they cannot have in them are flaws related to the main contention at hand and the "general evaluation" that you claim. That is basic science. General evaluations and conclusions are not some sort of intuitive guessing game that one engages in by simply reading over the studies and then getting a general "hint" at the possiblity of a conclusion. They come directly from the relevant facts of the studies.

This is where David (and I for that matter) have an issue with your using science to refute other scientific conclusions. It is an issue of method.

Your statement above already clearly indicates that you've skipped a pretty important step to be so confident in your conclusions, especially asking for David's or anyone elses, concenssion that the matter is closed. My suggestion would be that you better get to spending "hours looking through those studies" as it clearly shows that you've skipped a critical step. If not having done this, how do you know that David isn't going to come back with a stunning refutation of your claims?

You're too sure of yourself to be simply "making people aware of the possibility". This really goes to basic epistemological method, and the Objectivist ideas of certainty, causation, the possible vs. the arbitrary, etc. The idea is not "possible" until you have something that actually shows causation. Before that it is "arbitrary". A study that someone draws a conclusion from does not automatically switch something from the arbitrary to the possible unless it is shown that the conclusion drawn from the study is actually a valid conclusion. You haven't actually shown the possible yet.

Do you work in the academia or some sort of research think tank? Because those are the only places I can think of where one would be able to easily get their hands on scientific journal databases (that or a very well stocked university library).

If you follow the link in his profile, you'll see that he's a university professor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't want to spend hours looking through these studies trying to support my claim, because I know that possibly every study is flawed since there are so many factors involved.
All I have to add to what Kendall said is this. I understand that science is hard, and that it is especially challenging to figure out what the facts are when you are faced with contradictory claims in an area that requires masses of specialized knowledge. I don't know how you should live your life, and I would be the last person to argue that you should not have a nice juicy steak for breakfast, lunch and dinner, if in fact your body can handle it. What I do know is that if you start from the position of rejecting science because you don't like the conclusions that it yields, you can't then embrace science to support contrary positions. You have to learn to distinguish the known from the unknown. Your claims that refined foods are bad and that high cholesterol and saturated fat are particularly egregious claims because they are simlpy not supported.

You're using the wrong weapon in your crusade. Rather than repeated 360 degree shotgun blasts in the hopes of hitting something, I would suggest picking something manageable, and using precision scientific tools. Especially focus on the question of causal mechanisms. For example, investigate the physical nature of atherosclerosis, and how lipoprotein transport mechanisms work, why HDL could be good, and how LDL is created. We have made scientific progress on this and other topic by boldly setting forth precise empirical hypotheses and the supporting evidence, and seeing whether other studies replicate of contradict the results. If there is a contradiction, that means there's some variable that wasn't controlled, and we need to figure out what that variable is. This only happens when scientists take their claims serious and literally, and don't randomly change them just so that they can appear to have been right all along.

The "refined foods" claim is particularly bad, because it's meaningless and implausible to boot. If there is any connection between health and "refined foods", it's not the refinement, it's a consequence of certain type of refinement, for example, a decrease in soluble fiber content or the addition of dextrose that you probably would not have bothered with if you made the food yourself. The underlying idea of attributing dietary problems to refining is fundamentally mysticism, the beliefe that man is evil and he disturbs the natural order of things, so foods that are unnatural and processed are bad for you. If there's a problem arising from Hostess Twinkies because there is little dietary fiber on one of those velvety sweet tubes, then take a bloody psyllium pill and have a Twinkie. Excess amounts of sucrose will be bad whether it's highly refined or unrefined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I didn't provide adequate evidence so far that saturated fat and cholesterol can be beneficial, I'll change my stance for now. Will you show me the studies that show saturated fat and cholesterol are harmful to humans? Will you explain why they are harmful?

If there is any connection between health and "refined foods", it's not the refinement, it's a consequence of certain type of refinement, for example, a decrease in soluble fiber content or the addition of dextrose

From my understanding(which I've proven implicitly isn't much), is that refined carbohydrates are harmful because they are changed into such a simple carbohydrate that the body digests it very quickly, causing a high insulin spike. And from my understanding(again, which isn't very much), constant insulin spikes are a major factor in causing diabetes later on since your body becomes insulin resistant(producing too much insulin in relation to glucose).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that science is hard, and that it is especially challenging to figure out what the facts are when you are faced with contradictory claims in an area that requires masses of specialized knowledge. ... You have to learn to distinguish the known from the unknown. Your claims that refined foods are bad and that high cholesterol and saturated fat are particularly egregious claims because they are simlpy not supported.

The above gave me an epiphany, which is why I've quoted it.

I'm a layman; a trained engineer, but not a biologist or chemist or doctor or even a university professor. If I see someone claiming that saturated fats aren't the evil the mass media makes it out to be, and can name some studies and papers and dig around within those studies to pick apart their methods, that's good enough to convince me (once I've checked out their line of reasoning). However, it doesn't give me the tools to convince anyone else -- other than to say "go read the same stuff that I read." Once I've read enough material, I have a fairly well-formed opinion, but I'm not qualified to write a journal article on the subject.

I think 99% of the people on this forum think that saturated fat is bad for you, based upon the fact that mass media and school teachers think so. I wouldn't call that knowledge. When I posted previously in this thread, those people were my audience.

You've stepped up the standard here a notch. You're asking us to do something akin to writing a journal article. I'm willing to step up to that, but this is something I do in my spare time. So, I'll just list a serious of contentions, and go from there. I don't want to just dump some random points, though; I want to state well-formed claims. I'll post again "real soon now," and probably in the biosciences forum.

Edited by Heresiarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding(which I've proven implicitly isn't much), is that refined carbohydrates are harmful because they are changed into such a simple carbohydrate that the body digests it very quickly, causing a high insulin spike. And from my understanding(again, which isn't very much), constant insulin spikes are a major factor in causing diabetes later on since your body becomes insulin resistant(producing too much insulin in relation to glucose).

That's the hypothesis, but it's not nearly that simple. Glucose control and proper metabolism is certainly a possible issue, especially given the cardiac issues that late stage diabetics have. But the direct link between poor insulin control and insulin resistance has not really been shown yet.

I suspect that the answer will lie at the intersection of these contributing factors, not an out and out reversal of previously built up knowledge. That is, it may be a combination of carbohydrate and lipid control that is the really potent cause of cardiac problems. There certainly is a linkage between the two, but it is not a "fat is now good, sugar is bad" sort of conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There certainly is a linkage between the two, but it is not a "fat is now good, sugar is bad" sort of conclusion.

Aside from diabetes, carbohydrates(especially high-glycemic) are a major factor in causing obesity. Since refined carbs causes a huge insulin spike, this sends the message to store fat and burn glycogen as energy. But with a high-fat/low carb diet, it starts burning fat for energy instead. Refined carbs are unhealthy in the sense that it makes it more difficult to manage your weight, particulary when a person gets older and their metabolism slows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refined carbs are unhealthy in the sense that it makes it more difficult to manage your weight, particulary when a person gets older and their metabolism slows.

Now there is probably more direct evidence that this is a big contributing factor. 20 yrs ago, removing fat from the diet was considered the only issue. Today, balancing carbs with fat, and shifting carb load to complex carbohydrates is also important. Note the emphasis on also. I think the Atkins diets and low carb craze - were shown to have issues of their own. Most of the rational diets today all involve some balance of food groups.

Ultimately, total calorie count, is what is going to be critical to managing weight, and since fats are much more concentrated it's still easy to overload on total calories from sources that are higher in fats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidOdden, did you find the study showing the harm of saturated fat and/or cholesterol?
I'm sorry, I didn't see that you had replied, so I thought you had dropped out. Since we don't have to quarrel over "harm", do you accept the conclusion that arterial stenosis causes CVAs and TIAs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so I thought you had dropped out.

You wish.

Since we don't have to quarrel over "harm", do you accept the conclusion that arterial stenosis causes CVAs and TIAs?

I have absolutely no idea. I'm going to have to study that for at least a day or two. See ya then.

Edit: Nevermind, it wasn't as complex as I thought. Yes, I accept that arterial stenosis causes CVAs and TIAs.

Edited by progressiveman1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arterial stenosis is the narrowing or blockage of blood flow in the arteries(from atherosclerosis), which can lead to an interruption of blood flow to the brain(CVA or TIA).
Remember the most important point, though, about method. How do you know that this is so? We all know how often mainstream scientists are wrong and now they evade reality time and time again, so I'm looking for a new way to understand reality.

Now the follow-up question would be, what is the physical nature of arterial stenosis (i.e. bone, metal, rubber bands...).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...