progressiveman1

Does anyone know how accurate the results are from several year long studies, such as this one(citation at bottom) when they just do checkups every few years? It seems like there would be a large room for error. And also in that study, they predict the effects of a certain variable after making an adjustment from other risk factors. Can that be an accurate way of measuring effects of that variable? For example, they say "adjustment for smoking, glucose intolerance, bmi... did not materially change the results." JAMA. Vol. 278 No. 24, December 24, 1997

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1998;18:441-449. One author: Ginsberg. Time for the nail in the coffin, so to speak. All variables controlled in this study, with the only difference in each controlled group is saturated fat intake. The results are consistent with the two previous studies I just mentioned. Total cholesterol:HDL ratio increased in correlation with lower saturated fat intake. Meaning, the less saturated fat one ate, the more their TC:HDL ratio increased. Triglycerides also increased noticeably more on the low saturated fat diets. Lp(a) significantly rose as well on the low saturated fat diets.

For the people who don't know where to find these studies, the study in a couple posts back and the study in last post. They both show a high fat intake lowers total cholesterol:HDL ratio.

JAMA, Nov 1995; 274: 1450 - 1455 I found another solid study, which focuses on high fat/cholesterol vs low fat/cholesterol diet. The subjects started the study by eating a high fat/cholesterol diet and then switched to a low fat/cholesterol diet. When switched to the low fat/cholesterol diet, their total cholesterol/HDL ratio increased by 14.6% and triglyceride levels increased by a staggering 47%. This was during weight maintenance.

Did you get a chance to look at this last study? See anything wrong with its method?

I should point out that since this studys' objective wasn't to measure the effects of saturated fat specifically, the difference in fat for each group is going to be with multiple fat types such as poly, mono, and saturated fat as well. I understand this studys' objective wasn't to focus solely on SF, but if it was then they should have controlled total fat, carb, and protein intake and just varied SF in each group.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Nov;82(5):957-63; quiz 1145-6. One author: Lefevre. I found a study that shows the effects of fat intake on cholesterol levels. All variables seemed to be controlled, except it doesn't mention exercise amounts(just "free-living"). The results show that the only group with noticeable improvements in total cholesterol/HDL ratio was the highest fat group, while the other two lower fat groups stayed the same. I calculated the total cholesterol/HDL ratios to be: AAD- 4.63 to 4.50, Step 1- 4.63 to 4.63, Step 2- 4.63 to 4.62. Another stat is how the diets effected triglyceride levels: AAD- 96.57 to 93.91, Step 1- 96.57 to 106.32, Step 2- 96.57 to 108.09.

I just read his article and it's very good. Masterjohn also pointed out that besides a higher amount of vitamin E in safflower oil than coconut oil(which you seem to agree could be a main contributor to anti-inflammation), that the high saturated fat group actually had less impaired flow-mediated dilation than the lower saturated fat group after their meals, based on the regression of the mean concept. However, the numbers he provides on flow-mediated dilation(33% higher at baseline for CO, 9% higher, 29% higher) I think means the CO group decreased more but they started off much higher, which could affect the results. Thanks for responding.

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Aug 15;48(4):715-20. Epub 2006 Jul 24. Nicholls is one of the authors. This is a study that tried to prove that eating just one high saturated fat meal "reduces the anti-inflammatory potential of HDL and impairs arterial endothelial function," which is what their conclusion came to be after the study. The problem with their method was that in the high saturated fat meals carrot cake and a milk shake were the foods eaten. Both of them are filled with a high amount of sugar which could possibly be the main influence to the conclusion they came to. There are other factors that could be involved as well, such hydrogenated oils in the cake. They made a huge assumption just so they could write the conclusion they wanted.

So you're saying instead of finding studies that prove that the mainstream scientists are right on the issue, I have to find studies that prove them wrong? Forget I said anything about mainstream scientists and lets stick to the specific issue of saturated fat and cholesterol. Is their proof that they cause heart disease? Or are you just saying they do because that's what is generally accepted by the main health organizations? Also, I have access to hardly any actual studies, like most people..

Are you looking for one?

I meant that even though it's known that fat and cholesterol clog arteries, that doesn't necessarily mean it's from eating fat and cholesterol, and also that the statement doesn't clarify specifics. This would be a good time for you to pull out the study(s) that you know of that shows eating saturated fat and/or cholesterol contributes significantly to plaque or a disease.

I agree, it is a big leap. However, finding specific studies isn't exactly easy, espcially a valid one. Because it's too vague. For cholesterol, is it HDL or LDL? What type of HDL or LDL? Ingested cholesterol or self-produced? When eaten with sugar? For fat, I don't know if it's poly, mono, saturated, unsaturated, trans, or just triglycerides which doesn't necessarily have to do with eating fat. Etc, etc...

I was basing my conclusion on logic, that since the arteries are more narrow then it would slow or block blood flow. What type of study am I supposed to find? I knew what the physical nature of arterial stenosis was before, but I didn't want to go any further before figuring out how I know each of these things is true. Otherwise I'll just be repeating what the scientists say without knowing how they know it. I mean, I can tell you that arterial stenosis can be caused by plaque, which consists of fatty substances, cholesterol, cell waste. I don't have any studies if that's what you're expecting though.

I don't know. Am I supposed to show you a study that proves it? Can you just explain how you know it so then I can learn from that?

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).

You wish. 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.

DavidOdden, did you find the study showing the harm of saturated fat and/or cholesterol?

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.

Yeah.

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? 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).

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. If that first one doesn't convince you, here's another study showing that more saturated fat resulted in less progression of heart disease. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/8...&view=short Say uncle.