Saturated fat and cholesterol good for you

Psychology and Self Improvement
21

These studies are all from this site: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html

All the graphs on the website.

  1. Framingham Heart Study: they measured cholesterol intake and compared it with blood cholesterol. As Table I shows, although subjects consumed cholesterol over a wide range, there was little or no difference in the levels of cholesterol in their blood and, thus, no relationship between the amount of cholesterol eaten and levels of blood cholesterol was found. (Although it is interesting that women who had the highest levels of cholesterol in their blood were ones who had eaten the least cholesterol.) Next, the scientists studied intakes of saturated fats but again they could find no relation. There was still no relation when they studied total calorie intake. They then considered the possibility that something was masking the effects of diet, but no other factor made the slightest difference.

After twenty-two years of research, the researchers concluded:

“There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group.”

On Christmas Eve, 1997, after a further twenty-seven years, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) carried a follow-up report that showed that dietary saturated fat reduced strokes. As these tend to affect older men than CHD, they wondered if a fatty diet was causing those in the trial to die of CHD before they had a stroke. But the researchers discount this, saying:

“This hypothesis, however, depends on the presence of a strong direct association of fat intake with coronary heart disease. Since we found no such association, competing mortality from coronary heart disease is very unlikely to explain our results.”

In other words, after forty-nine years of research, they are still saying that they can find no relation between a fatty diet and heart disease.

Here’s the site explaining the details of the Framingham Heart Study: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/

  1. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial

One of the largest and most demanding medical studies ever performed on humans, The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (known in the medical world, by its initials, as MR. FIT) involved 28 medical centres and 250 researchers and cost $115,000,000. The researchers screened 361,662 men and deliberately chose subjects who were at very high risk to ensure that they achieved a statistically significant result. They cut cholesterol consumption by forty-two percent, saturated fat consumption by twenty-eight percent and total calories by twenty-one percent. Yet even then they didn’t succeed. Blood cholesterol levels did fall, but by only a modest amount and, more importantly, coronary heart disease was unaffected. Its originators refer to the results as “disappointing” and say in their conclusions:

“The overall results do not show a beneficial effect on Coronary Heart Disease or total mortality from this multifactor intervention.”

Here’s the site explaining the details of the trial: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/deca/de…tions/mrfit.htm

  1. The Tecumseh Study attempted to correlate blood cholesterol levels measured one day with the amounts of fats eaten the previous day - but found none. Interestingly, Table II demonstrates that the people who ate the least cholesterol had the highest levels of blood cholesterol. Although not looking for it, this study also found that blood cholesterol levels were quite independent of whether the dietary fats were saturated or unsaturated. Thus another ‘diet-heart’ hypothesis, that only saturated fats are to blame, was invalidated.

More details: http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm

  1. WHO European Coronary Prevention Study

The results of the World Health Organisation’s European Coronary Prevention Study were called “depressing” because once again no correlation between fats and heart disease was found. They had cut saturated fats down to only eight percent of calorie intake daily, yet in the UK section there were more deaths in the intervention group than in the control group.

  1. The North Karelia Project: North Karelia, which had Finland’s highest rates of heart disease, was compared with neighbouring Kuopio in The North Karelia Project. In North Karelia, risk factors were cut by seventeen percent over the period of the study. As Table III shows, in North Karelia there was a reduction in both CHD mortality and total mortality. Table III also shows, however, that in Kuopio, the control group, where there were no restrictions, there was an even bigger decline in both CHD and total mortality. These figures suggest that adopting a ‘healthy’ lifestyle may actually have inhibited the decline in heart disease. They certainly give it no support.
22

The first study suggests that those specific refined carbohydrates are the cause of heart disease.

Now let’s see what the study actually says. It is a re-packaging of data on food-intake trends from a USDA survey from 1994-6, which contains no medical assessment of the relationship between food consumed and health effect. This is unsurprising given that the USDA is not a medical research organization. These results are entirely compatible with the claim that the highest incidence of heart disease was in the sample with the lowest intake of unrefined carbohydrates. Note, in fact, that the words “heart”, “coronary” or “cardiac” do not even appear in the article. There is also no control over the distinction “refined” and “unrefined”, so the reported increase in consumption of grain products could be entirely in fluffy white bread. Similarly the rates for consumption of sugars does not distinguish molasses and raw sugar from table and powdered sugar. So you study give no evidence for even being concerned with the refined / unrefined distinction (a meaningless one, which is why they would not have bothered), and your study does not show that there were any correlations between patterns of consumption of carhohydrates and cardiac health.

Thus we can dispose of the “refined foods cause heart disease” hypothesis; I’ll wait until tomorrow to see what study you think establishes that high cholesterol and saturtated fat is medically beneficial.

I’m linking refined carbohydrates to diabetes because that is one of my other claims.

I just want you to focus on the heart-related claims that you started with, before drifting off to some other topic. Let’s keep the issues separate.

23

I’ll wait until tomorrow to see what study you think establishes that high cholesterol and saturtated fat is medically beneficial.

I posted them above whenever you’re ready.

24

I posted them above whenever you’re ready.

Okay, give me the citation for the (actual) study that you claim shows that high cholesterol and saturated fat has a health benefit. Give me the most convincing study.

25

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.

26

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.

27

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.

28

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.

29

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

30

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.

31

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.

32

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.

33

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).

34

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

35

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.

36

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.

37

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.

38

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).

39

Will you show me the studies that show saturated fat and cholesterol are harmful to humans?

Possibly. Let’s first determine whether there is any common ground. Do you agree that TIAs and CVAs are harmful to humans? If so, we can inspect their causes.

40

Do you agree that TIAs and CVAs are harmful to humans?

Yeah.