It is your responsibility to pull out a mainstream study which you claim makes erroneous claims to support your attack on science.
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.
Finally you’re aimed in the right direction, although your emotional psychologisation – “They made a huge assumption just so they could write the conclusion they wanted” – is an instance of you making a huge assumption just so you could write the conclusion you wanted. Your criticism comes down to saying that they failed to distinguish between two conclusions, both consistent with the data. The first is the one that they drew, and the second is “when combined with __ amounts of sugar” (the foods did not have “high” levels of sugar; note that this was an isocaloric meal); and in fact there are other hypotheses to consider, for example “when in the presence of protein”. While you could not deny the harmfulness of saturated fats in foods containing sugar, you might not be certain whether that carries over to sugar-free foods. Thus you would conduct a follow-up study to test that hypothesis, by controlling that variable.
Here’s another variable that they didn’t control: the color of the shirt that the patient wore on the day in question. One good reason why that variable is not controlled and reported is that we know enough about human physiology to know that that would be irrelevant. Since I’m not a cardiologist, I don’t know whether it’s reasonable to think that the effect would only be present when sugars are also consumed, so we’ll have to leave that up in the air, until an actual expert can weigh in. If it would be unreasonable, given our knowledge of human physiology, to expect sugar content to be relevant, then it would be unreasonable to demand that separate tests be conducted to test the effect of sugar (that is, scientific tests don’t procede by pairing all 100 imaginable variables and looking at the power set of factors). For now, I will accept that there is some chance that the effect is due to an interaction between sugar and saturated fat, which might require a refinement of the conclusion, when some facts are presented to support the claim. You should test your hypothesis by eliminating the sugar content and otherwise replicating the test – but you do have to come up with a palatable food, i.e. shoving a cup of coconut oil vs. safflower oil down someone’s throat will not be tolerated. At any rate, you might try to sell your idea to someone who runs medical experiments for a living.
A different kind of error is reported in a reply by Christopher Masterjohn in JACC 49,17: 1825 who observes that “safflower oil contains 77 times the alpha-tocopherol, more than 100 times the gammatocopherol, and 73 times the total tocopherol". That is a more telling criticism, because he notes the known relationship between Vitamin E and ICAM-1 and VCAM-1; he rightfully calls for control of this contribution.
A different kind of error is reported in a reply by Christopher Masterjohn in JACC 49,17: 1825 who observes that “safflower oil contains 77 times the alpha-tocopherol, more than 100 times the gammatocopherol, and 73 times the total tocopherol". That is a more telling criticism, because he notes the known relationship between Vitamin E and ICAM-1 and VCAM-1; he rightfully calls for control of this contribution.
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.
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 mentioned Fumento in an earlier post. Here’s an article by him, about fat in diets.
HT:HBL
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 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.
Did you get a chance to look at this last study? See anything wrong with its method?
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.
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.
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.
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
Greetings from Argentina!
I think it is interesting to note that my own doctor has told me that diet can, at best, lower your cholesterol by 10%. I hope to find a source or support for that. I believe the Atkins people say that as well.
My father who is turning 74 this January, is a lifelong carnivore and saturated fat junky. As ranchers in Canada our main source of protein was beef, but we also ate a lot of pork which we also raised. My dad is famous for eating the drippings from beef sausages and bacon out of the pan after dinner with some homemade bread. He has only developed a slight case of cholesterol since retiring a few years ago, and probably it is due to his much more sedentary lifestyle.
As far as high fat, low carb diets go, there is a book that really deserves much more attention. It is called “The Ketogenic Diet”. You can read more about it here. The author, Lyle McDonald, studied hundreds of medical journals and diet experiments around the world and this book is the result. For those of you looking for support for your claims, this would obviously be a great place to start.
http://ketogenicdiet.lylemcdonald.com/
When I was living on a high protein/high fat diet with minimal carbohydrate intake, my blood cholesterol and blood sugars went down. I have known this to be the case with almost everyone who has gone on such an eating plan for either slimming or healther reasons.
Keep searching for good information, but especially, enjoy eating and being alive!
Michael
(borodinalex)
He has only developed a slight case of cholesterol since retiring a few years ago, and probably it is due to his much more sedentary lifestyle.
I think this very likely is the hammer meeting the proverbial nail-head straight on, and is probably the most significant under-controlled variable in all of these studies.
I think this very likely is the hammer meeting the proverbial nail-head straight on, and is probably the most significant under-controlled variable in all of these studies.
Are you saying you picked up flaws in the methods from the studies I recently provided?
I found a study that contradicts the results from the last 3 studies I provided. The lowest saturated fat diet reduced TC:HDL the most. However, similar effects were seen in HDL, LDL, total cholesterol, triglycerides- they were just to different extents. These studies show that a diet high in saturated fat raises HDL and LDL stays the same or goes up slightly. Low fat intake relates with lowering of both HDL and LDL.
Now it’s up to me to figure out why these numbers differed to extents. It appears to me at this point that these 4 studies control variables in a similar fashion, so possibilities for the difference may not be related to diet unless I just haven’t picked up on the specific factor. Individual reactions may also be the cause of the difference.
Journal of Lipid Research, Vol 29, 963-969, Copyright © 1988 by Lipid Research, Inc
I think it’s a commonly held belief that fat consumption leads to obesity. But is it true? Based on the valid studies I’ve seen, a high fat diet does not have this effect. See for yourself.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 30, 160-170, Copyright 1977
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 3, 668-673, September 2004 They ate on average 200 calories lower on the low fat diet, which accounts for the 1kg weight loss difference.
I have not seen any studies that show a higher fat intake has adverse effects on body weight.
I think it’s a commonly held belief that fat consumption leads to obesity. But is it true?
No. Eating more calories than you burn leads to obesity. However, where did you get the idea that this is a commonly held belief? Looks like a strawman to me.
However, the following is true:
Fat is more calorically dense than carbs or protein (2x calories per weight). Eating both foods that are high in fat as well as foods that are made almost solely of carbohydrates (like pasta) means that if you eat the same amount of food but made of solely of these materials, you will consume more calories than if you ate the same amount of lets say vegatables. Sooo it would tend to follow that people who eat high fat or high carb diets will have a better chance of consuming more calories than they burn, and hence be obese.
I have not seen any studies that show a higher fat intake has adverse effects on body weight.
Have you seen any studies that show higher fat intake has other negative effects? If so, then those effects have to also be weighed in considering the amount of fat you take in. The obvious one is the one already discussed in this thread I believe.
No. Eating more calories than you burn leads to obesity. However, where did you get the idea that this is a commonly held belief? Looks like a strawman to me.
Personal observation. Either way, for whoever does believe that, I wanted to share the studies I came across on this topic.
Fat is more calorically dense than carbs or protein (2x calories per weight). Eating both foods that are high in fat as well as foods that are made almost solely of carbohydrates (like pasta) means that if you eat the same amount of food but made of solely of these materials, you will consume more calories than if you ate the same amount of lets say vegatables.
But eating the same amount of vegetables won’t cap hunger as well as fat or high calorie carb foods, because hunger seems to be controlled by the amount of calories as opposed to mass.
Sooo it would tend to follow that people who eat high fat or high carb diets will have a better chance of consuming more calories than they burn, and hence be obese.
Are you saying it’s ideal for weight loss to not eat a high fat or high carb diet, but instead a high protein diet? I’m not following your reasoning though.
Have you seen any studies that show higher fat intake has other negative effects?
I recently posted valid studies showing the effects fat/saturated fat has on cholesterol levels. 3 of the 4 show that fat didn’t have a negative effect on this.
But eating the same amount of vegetables won’t cap hunger as well as fat or high calorie carb foods, because hunger seems to be controlled by the amount of calories as opposed to mass.
The comparison was for illustrative purposes, not to propose a diet of vegetables. THere are many factors that control hunger. Time is a very well known one. Proteins and complex carbs also both alleviate hunger cravings.
Are you saying it’s ideal for weight loss to not eat a high fat or high carb diet, but instead a high protein diet? I’m not following your reasoning though.
I was simply illustrating for you a mechanism by which “fat consumption leads to obesity”.
I was simply illustrating for you a mechanism by which “fat consumption leads to obesity”.
Sorry, I’m not picking up what you’re illustrating. Can you possibly rephrase it?