PDA

View Full Version : Saturated fat is not the major issue


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Demi
Wed, Oct-23-13, 00:56
From The BBC
London, UK
23 October, 2013

Saturated fat heart disease 'myth'

A UK cardiologist is calling for a change in public health advice on saturated fat.

Dr Aseem Malhotra says the risks have been overstated, with other factors such as sugar intake being overlooked.

It is time to "bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease", he writes in an opinion piece in the British Medical Journal.

The British Heart Foundation says reducing cholesterol through drugs or other means does lower heart risk.

Studies on the link between diet and disease have led to dietary advice and guidelines on how much saturated fat, particularly cholesterol, it is healthy to eat.

Millions of people in the UK have been prescribed statins to reduce cholesterol levels.

Dr Malhotra, a cardiology registrar at Croydon University Hospital, London, says the "mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades".

He says saturated fat has been "demonised" and any link with heart disease is not fully supported by scientific evidence.

The food industry has compensated for lowering saturated fat levels in food by replacing it with sugar, he says, which also contributes to heart disease.

Adopting a Mediterranean diet - olive oil, nuts, oily fish, plenty of fruit and vegetables and a moderate amount of red wine - after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing mortality as taking a statin, writes Dr Malhotra.

However, Prof Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, says studies on the link between diet and disease frequently produce conflicting results.

Unlike drug trials, it is difficult to carry out a controlled, randomised study, he says.

"However, people with highest cholesterol levels are at highest risk of a heart attack and it's also clear that lowering cholesterol, by whatever means, lowers risk."

Cholesterol levels can be influenced by many factors including diet, exercise and drugs, in particular statins, he adds.

"There is clear evidence that patients who have had a heart attack, or who are at high risk of having one, can benefit from taking a statin.

"But this needs to be combined with other essential measures, such as eating a balanced diet, not smoking and taking regular exercise."

Statins are a group of medicines that can help lower rates of cholesterol in the blood.

Cholesterol can also be reduced by eating a healthy, balanced diet, maintaining a healthy weight and doing regular physical activity.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24625808



From the British Medical Journal:

Saturated fat is not the major issue

Aseem Malhotra, interventional cardiology specialist registrar, Croydon University Hospital, London

Scientists universally accept that trans fats—found in many fast foods, bakery products, and margarines—increase the risk of cardiovascular disease through inflammatory processes.1 But “saturated fat” is another story. The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades.

Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks. Furthermore, the government’s obsession with levels of total cholesterol, which has led to the overmedication of millions of people with statins, has diverted our attention from the more egregious risk factor of atherogenic dyslipidaemia.

Saturated fat has been demonised ever since Ancel Keys’s landmark “seven countries” study in 1970.2 This concluded that a correlation existed between the incidence of coronary heart disease and total cholesterol concentrations, which then correlated with the proportion of energy provided by saturated fat. But correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, we were advised to cut fat intake to 30% of total energy and saturated fat to 10%.”3 The aspect of dietary saturated fat that is believed to have the greatest influence on cardiovascular risk is elevated concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Yet the reduction in LDL cholesterol from reducing saturated fat intake seems to be specific to large, buoyant (type A) LDL particles, when in fact it is the small, dense (type B) particles (responsive to carbohydrate intake) that are implicated in cardiovascular disease.4

Indeed, recent prospective cohort studies have not supported any significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk.5 Instead, saturated fat has been found to be protective. The source of the saturated fat may be important. Dairy foods are exemplary providers of vitamins A and D. As well as a link between vitamin D deficiency and a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, calcium and phosphorus found commonly in dairy foods may have antihypertensive effects that may contribute to inverse associations with cardiovascular risk.6 7 8 One study showed that higher concentrations of plasma trans-palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid mainly found in dairy foods, was associated with higher concentrations of high density lipoprotein, lower concentrations of triglycerides and C reactive protein, reduced insulin resistance, and a lower incidence of diabetes in adults.9 Red meat is another major source of saturated fat. Consumption of processed meats, but not red meat, has been associated with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus, which may be explained by nitrates and sodium as preservatives.10

The notoriety of fat is based on its higher energy content per gram in comparison with protein and carbohydrate. However, work by the biochemist Richard Feinman and nuclear physicist Eugene Fine on thermodynamics and the metabolic advantage of different diet compositions showed that the body did not metabolise different macronutrients in the same way.11 Kekwick and Pawan carried out one of the earliest obesity experiments, published in the Lancet in 1956.12 They compared groups consuming diets of 90% fat, 90% protein, and 90% carbohydrate and showed that the greatest weight loss was in the fat consuming group. The authors concluded that the “composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories.”

The “calorie is not a calorie” theory has been further substantiated by a recent JAMA study showing that a “low fat” diet resulted in the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern, and increased insulin resistance in comparison with a low carbohydrate and low glycaemic index diet.13 In the past 30 years in the United States the proportion of energy from consumed fat has fallen from 40% to 30% (although absolute fat consumption has remained the same), yet obesity has rocketed.

One reason: when you take the fat out, the food tastes worse. The food industry compensated by replacing saturated fat with added sugar. The scientific evidence is mounting that sugar is a possible independent risk factor for the metabolic syndrome (the cluster of hypertension, dysglycaemia, raised triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, and increased waist circumference).

In previous generations cardiovascular disease existed largely in isolation. Now two thirds of people admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction really have metabolic syndrome—but 75% of these patients have completely normal total cholesterol concentrations.14 Maybe this is because total cholesterol isn’t really the problem?

The Framingham heart study sanctified total cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary artery disease, making statins the second most prescribed drug in the US and driving a multibillion dollar global industry. In the United Kingdom eight million people take statins regularly, up from five million 10 years ago. With 60 million statin prescriptions a year, it is difficult to demonstrate any additional effect of statins on reduced cardiovascular mortality over the effects of the decline in smoking prevalence and primary angioplasty.15

Despite the common belief that high cholesterol is a significant risk factor for coronary artery disease, several independent population studies in healthy adults have shown that low total cholesterol is associated with cardiovascular and non-cardiac mortality, indicating that high total cholesterol is not a risk factor in a healthy population.16 17 18

A recent “real world” study of 150 000 patients who were taking statins showed “unacceptable” side effects—including myalgia, gastrointestinal upset, sleep and memory disturbance, and erectile dysfunction—in 20% of participants, resulting in discontinuation of the drug.19 This is massively at odds with the major statin trials that report significant side effects of myopathy or muscle pain in only one in 10 000.

A meta-analysis of predominantly industry sponsored data reported that in a low risk group of people aged 60-70 years taking statins the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one cardiovascular event in one year was 345.20 The strongest evidence base for statins is in secondary prevention, where all patients after a myocardial infarction are prescribed maximum dose treatment irrespective of total cholesterol, because of statins’ anti-inflammatory or pleiotropic (coronary plaque stabilising) effects. In this group the NNT is 83 for mortality over five years. This doesn’t mean that each patient benefits a little but rather that 82 will receive no prognostic benefit.21 The fact that no other cholesterol lowering drug has shown a benefit in terms of mortality supports the hypothesis that the benefits of statins are independent of their effects on cholesterol.

Adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing mortality as taking a statin. The recently published PREDIMED randomised controlled trial was stopped early after it showed that in high risk people the Mediterranean diet achieved a 30% improvement over a “low fat” diet in terms of cardiovascular events.22

Pharmacotherapy can assuage the symptoms but can’t alter the pathophysiology. Doctors need to embrace prevention as well as treatment. The greatest improvements in morbidity and mortality have been due not to personal responsibility but rather to public health. It is time to bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease and wind back the harms of dietary advice that has contributed to obesity.

Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f6340

Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; peer reviewed.

References
01.↵Wallace S, Mozaffarian D. Trans-fatty acids and non lipid risk factors. Curr Atheroscler Rep2009;11:423.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science02.↵Keys A (ed). Coronary heart disease in seven countries. Circulation1970:41(supp):s1-211.03.↵Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Diet and cardiovascular disease: report of the panel on diet in relation to cardiovascular disease. 198404.↵Musunuru K. Atherogenic dyslipidaemia: cardiovascular risk and dietary intervention. Lipids2010;45:907-14.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science05.↵Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr2010;91:535-46.Abstract/FREE Full Text06.↵Alonso A, Nettleton JA, Ix JH, de Boer IH, Folsom AR, Bidulescu A, et al. Dietary phosphorus, blood pressure and incidence of hypertension in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study and the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Hypertension2010;55:776-84.CrossRef07.↵Sacks FM, Willett WC, Smith A, Brown LE, Rosner B, Moore TJ. Effect on blood pressure of potassium, calcium, and magnesium in women with low habitual intake. Hypertension1998;31:131-8.CrossRef08.↵Geleiijnse JM, Kok FJ, Grobee DE. Blood pressure response to changes in sodium and potassium intake: a metaregression analysis of randomised trials. J Hum Hypertens2003;17:471-80.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science09.↵Mozaffarian D, Cao H, King IB, Lemaitre RN, Song X, Siscovick DS, et al. Trans-palmitoleic acid, metabolic risk factors, and new-onset diabetes in US adults: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med2010;153:790-9.MedlineWeb of Science10.↵Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta analysis. Circulation2010;121:2271-83.Abstract/FREE Full Text11.↵Feinman R, Fine E. A calorie is a calorie violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutr J2004;3:9.CrossRefMedline12.↵Kekwick A, Pawan GL. Calorie intake in relation to body-weight changes in the obese. Lancet1956;271:155-61.MedlineWeb of Science13.↵Ebbeling CB, Swain JF, Feldman HA, Wong WW, Hachey DL, Garcia-Lago E, et al. Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance. JAMA2012;307:2627-34.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science14.↵Champeau R. Most heart attack patients’ cholesterol levels did not indicate cardiac risk. UCLA Newsroom. 2009. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/majority-of-hospitalized-heart-75668.aspx.15.↵British Heart Foundation. Trends in coronary heart disease, 1961-2011. 2011. www.bhf.org.uk/publications/view-publication.aspx?ps=1001933.16.↵Nago N, Ishikawa S, Goto T, Kayaba K. Low cholesterol is associated with mortality from stroke, heart disease, and cancer: the Jichi Medical School Cohort Study. J Epidemiol2011;21:67-74.CrossRefMedline17.↵Bae J-M, Yang Y-J, Li Z-M, Ahn Y-O. Low cholesterol is associated with mortality from cardiovascular diseases: a dynamic cohort study in Korean adults. J Korean Med Sci2002;27;58-63.18.↵Simes RJ. Low cholesterol and risk of non-coronary mortality. Aust N Z J Med1994;24:113-9.Medline19.↵Zhang H, Plutzky J, Skentzos S, Morrison F, Mar P, Shubina M, et al. Discontinuation of statins in routine care settings. Ann Intern Med2013;158:526-34.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science20.↵Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators, Mihaylova B, Emberson J, Blackwell L, Keech A, Simes J, et al. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet2012;380:581-90.MedlineWeb of Science21.↵Newman D. Statins given for 5 years for heart disease prevention (with known heart disease). NNT. www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-known-heart-disease.22.↵Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, Covas MI, Corella D, Arós F, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med2013;368:1279-90.CrossRefMedlineWeb of Sciencehttp://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340

JEY100
Wed, Oct-23-13, 03:46
Brilliant...same doctor who has been testing Sam Feltham in his LC and HC 5000 calorie experiments and was quoted in the Daily Mail piece about it.

Also Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/22/butter-cheese-saturated-fat-heart-specialist

Butter and cheese better than trans-fat margarines, says heart specialist
Aseem Malhotra says saturated fat is not a problem, low-fat products are often full of sugar and statins are over-prescribed

Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian, Tuesday 22 October 2013

Butter is not as bad for the heart as has been maintained, says Aseem Malhotra. Photograph: Steve Teague/Alamy
Butter, cheese and even red meat are not as bad for the heart as has been maintained, a cardiologist has said in a leading medical journal, adding that it is time to "bust the myth" of saturated fat.

Aseem Malhotra, interventional cardiology specialist registrar at Croydon University hospital, London, also argues that statins have been over-prescribed because of the government's obsession with lowering cholesterol in an attempt to reduce heart disease – and that the side-effects outweigh the benefits for millions of people who take them every day.

Trans-fats found in many fast foods, bakery goods and margarine are indeed a problem, Malhotra writes in the British Medical Journal. But saturated fats in milk, cheese and meat are another matter.

The insistence that saturated fat must be removed from our diet has paradoxically, he says, increased the risk of cardiovascular disease. "Recent prospective cohort studies have not supported significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk," he argues. "Instead, saturated fat has been found to be protective."

He adds that it may depend on what sort of foods the saturated fat comes from. Dairy products contain vitamin D, a lack of which has been linked to increased heart disease, and calcium and phosphorus, which may have blood pressure lowering effects. Eating processed meat has been linked to higher rates of heart disease and diabetes, but not red meat.

Malhotra says people have wrongly embraced low-fat products thinking they are better for their health or will help them lose weight, when many are full of sugar. "Last week I saw one patient in her 40s who had had a heart attack," he told the Guardian. "She said she had gained about 20kg in the last six months. She had been drinking five low-fat drinks a day."

He calculated that each 450ml flavoured milk drink contained about 15 teaspoons of sugar, which meant she had consumed 75 teaspoons of sugar each day.

He tells his patients that butter and cheese – though not processed cheese – are better for them than low-fat spreads and that the odd steak will not hurt. Rather than take statins, he said, people with cardiovascular risks should eat a Mediterranean diet, rich in olive oil, fruit, vegetables, fish and nuts. He pointed to a recent study that showed that adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is three times more effective in preventing further illness than statins.

"In the UK eight million people take statins regularly, up from five million 10 years ago," he writes. "With 60 million statin prescriptions a year, it is difficult to demonstrate any additional effect of statins on reduced cardiovascular mortality over the effects of the decline in smoking and primary angioplasty [a technique used by doctors to widen the arteries]."

In the original trials carried out by drug firms, only one in 10,000 patients given statins suffered a minor side-effect. But among 150,000 patients in a "real world" study – people who had been routinely given statins by their GP – 20% had side-effects that were so unacceptable to them that they stopped taking the pills, including muscle pains, stomach upsets, sleep and memory disturbance, and erectile dysfunction.

Neither Public Health England nor the British Heart Foundation agreed with Malhotra's argument. Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Studies on the link between diet and disease frequently produce conflicting results because, unlike drug trials, it's difficult to undertake a properly controlled, randomised study. However, people with highest cholesterol levels are at highest risk of a heart attack and it's clear that lowering cholesterol, by whatever means, lowers risk."

"Cholesterol levels can be influenced by many factors including diet, exercise and drugs, in particular statins. There is clear evidence that patients who have had a heart attack, or who are at high risk of having one, can benefit from taking a statin. But this needs to be combined with other essential measures, such as eating a balanced diet, not smoking and taking regular exercise."

Alison Tedstone, director of diet and obesity at Public Health England, said: "PHE recommends that no more than 11% of person's average energy intake should come from saturated fats, as there is evidence to show increased levels of saturated fats can raise blood cholesterol levels, in turn raising the risk of cardiovascular disease.

"The government's advice is based on a wealth of evidence. The BMJ article is based on opinion rather than a complete review of the research.

"Evidence specifically linking sugar to cardiovascular disease is limited; however, on average the population needs to reduce its sugar intake. Eating more calories than we need, irrespective of whether they come from sugar or fat, over time leads to weight gain. Being overweight or obese increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes."

But Malhotra got support from those who think sugar is a leading cause of obesity and heart disease. Robert Lustig, paediatric endocrinologist at the University of San Francisco and author of Fat Chance: The Bitter Truth about Sugar, said: "Food should confer wellness, not illness. Real food does just that, including saturated fat. But when saturated fat got mixed up with the high sugar added to processed food in the second half of the 20th century, it got a bad name. Which is worse, saturated fat or added sugar? The American Heart Association has weighed in – the sugar many times over. Plus added sugar causes all of the diseases associated with metabolic syndrome.

Instead of lowering serum cholesterol with statins, which is dubious at best, how about serving up some real food?"

teaser
Wed, Oct-23-13, 05:24
However, Prof Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, says studies on the link between diet and disease frequently produce conflicting results.

Unlike drug trials, it is difficult to carry out a controlled, randomised study, he says.

"However, people with highest cholesterol levels are at highest risk of a heart attack and it's also clear that lowering cholesterol, by whatever means, lowers risk."


Lower cholesterol reduces risk, no matter how you got there, even though controlled, randomised (non-drug) studies are so hard?

VLC.MD
Wed, Oct-23-13, 09:40
Lower cholesterol reduces risk, no matter how you got there
Nope.

These are true:
People with high cholesterol are at the highest risk of heart disease. (note: it might not be the cholesterol itself that is the risk).
People taking statins lower their risk of heart disease.
If you have had a heart attack, and you take a statin for 5 years, you have a 1.2% chance (1/83) of avoiding another heart problem.
It is quite possible you statins don't work by lowering your LDL, but by their inflammation lowering properties.

TigerLily1
Wed, Oct-23-13, 10:31
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/top-heart-doctor-unprocessed-fatty-foods-may-actually-be-good-for-you-8897707.html

teaser
Wed, Oct-23-13, 10:50
I can't tell if you were misunderstanding me or not... I wasn't giving an opinion about whether or not lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease--only pointing out the logical hiccup of the Professor insisting that controlled trials were too hard to do with diet interventions--so that we can't know whether they will reduce the risk of heart disease--but then insisting that if we reduce cholesterol "by whatever method" (in context I think it's clear he intends this to include diet interventions that decrease cholesterol, unless the reporter has placed his words entirely out of context). So data from dietary interventions, when the dietary interventions lower cholesterol, is somehow valid in his eyes, where data from dietary inventions with an endpoint of heart disease somehow are not.

Of course, you can alter blood cholesterol with diet with a much shorter study than you'd need to alter measurable heart disease, so maybe he's right... but then you're left with a hypothesis--diet can decrease cholesterol, and thus heart disease--which, if you believe that quality long term diet interventions are impractical--can't be properly tested.

aj_cohn
Wed, Oct-23-13, 13:54
Thanks for the elaboration, Teaser. I, too, was puzzled by your initial comment.

ojoj
Wed, Oct-23-13, 14:10
Lower cholesterol reduces risk, no matter how you got there, That depends on whether high cholesterol is the cause or a symptom? Afterall, isnt it one of cholesterols jobs to repair damage.

Interestingly, the last time I had my cholesterol checked (about 8 years ago and 2 years into atkins) mine was very low, infact the doctor told me that he'd never seen such low triglycerides. He then went on to tell me that low cholesterol was a marker for cancer!!!!???!

Jo xxx

teaser
Wed, Oct-23-13, 15:17
I would like to point out the fact that I am currently on an egg-based diet. Really not worried about cholesterol here.

LarryAJ
Wed, Oct-23-13, 18:13
All the doctors/researchers seem to ignore this graph.http://forum.lowcarber.org/gallery/files/8/5/3/3/5/Cholesterol_vs_Deaths_newplot.jpg
Note the increasing mortality (vertical scale) as cholesterol (horizontal scale) gets lower.
I am sorry I just could not get the text on the graph to be any clearer.
This is an extraction from the original image that I did to just show the Noncommunicable diseases (solid red line)and Cardiovascular diseases (dashed red line).

Here is a link to the original PDF image. (http://renegadewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cholesterol-mortality-chart.pdf) You can blow up the image using the "+" button at the top of the page so the text is readable.

Cleome
Thu, Oct-24-13, 06:23
All the doctors/researchers seem to ignore this graph.

Could someone please publish this in a peer-reviewed journal?
Or have I missed a scientific publication?

aj_cohn
Thu, Oct-24-13, 11:54
I linked to this on an Amazon review of some book, and somebody shot back, "so, if I have a cholesterol reading in the sweet spot of the graph for 23 years, but have a reading in the danger zones the next year, I'm more likely to die?! I don't think so." I think that sh/e has a point.

Demi
Fri, Oct-25-13, 04:45
From The Guardian
London, UK
23 October, 2013

Butter is bad – a myth we've been fed by the 'healthy eating' industry

Medics are saying saturated fat may not be the devil incarnate. Just don't expect an apology from low-fat food purveyors

Joanna Blythman

Government and health charities have been doling out duff healthy eating advice for decades, but when are they going to admit it? That's the question raised by the remarks of cardiologist Aseem Malhotra (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/22/butter-cheese-saturated-fat-heart-specialist), who writing in the BMJ (http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340) has challenged the orthodoxy that the consumption of foods containing saturated fat, such as butter and red meat, causes heart disease.

Malhotra is brave and principled to speak out, yet he is far from a lone voice. In 2010, a major review of scientific studies on fat (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20071648/), published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concluded that contrary to what we have been lead to believe, "there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease". In the UK, other independent-minded nutritionists and medics, including John Briffa, Zoe Harcombe, and Malcolm Kendrick, have vociferously countered the biggest public health dogma of our times. It's the same story in the US, where influential voices, such as Garry Taubes, Michael Pollan and Robert Lustig, have all called time on the notion that saturated fat is the devil incarnate.

Why? Counter-intuitive though it might seem, there's no evidence that fat is fattening. Indeed by sating the appetite effectively, it may prevent overeating. To quote Kendrick (http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/tag/obesity-initiative/), "there is not one molecule of evidence to suggest that saturated fat consumption causes obesity". What's certain is that saturated fat is a key component of our cell membranes, and essential for the production of certain hormones. It also acts as a carrier for important vitamins, and is vital for mineral absorption, and many other biological processes. So why has the public health establishment so assiduously encouraged us to shun it?

Viewed charitably, public health advice is just like any other socially constructed wisdom in that it gains authority through endless repetition. And who can blame GPs and other well-intentioned purveyors of health guidance up and down the land, if they recycle and disseminate uncritically tablets of nutritional wisdom dispensed from above?

Viewed cynically, however, it would be naive not to notice how the anti-sat-fat message has been used effectively by food manufacturers and processors to woo us away from whole, natural foods, such as butter, which is only minimally processed, on to their products, which are entirely the opposite, such as margarine.

For decades now, processed food companies have been using low-fat labels to give a halo of health to their industrially manufactured, nutritionally compromised, food constructions; everything from low-calorie yoghurt and pizza, to breakfast cereals and ready meals. The motto has been, if you want to sell crap, make sure it's low-fat crap, because few people will look beyond the low-fat label to scrutinise the product's composition.

The fatwa on sat fat has been a fabulous boon for the sugar and cereals industries. It acts as a red herring, drawing our attention away from the much likelier cause of obesity: an overabundance of sugar and refined carbohydrates, which disrupt blood sugar and insulin levels, encouraging fat production and storage in the body. It has been bad news for livestock farmers, who produce dairy and meat, but they don't have the lobbying might of the carb and sugar corporations.

But it's hard to admit that we got it wrong. Reacting to Malhotra's remarks, health charities have defended their low-fat advice (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/22/butter-cheese-saturated-fat-heart-specialist) in the usual kneejerk manner, despite it becoming increasingly obvious that it's time for a paradigm shift.

Consider the fate of eggs, one of nature's most complete foods (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/mar/16/why-eggs-are-good-for-you). In the 1960s, the typical Briton ate five a week, then because they contained cholesterol, the nutritional establishment told us to eat no more than two. We dutifully acted on this guidance, and egg consumption slumped as we took in droves to eating nutritionally empty breakfast cereals. Three decades later, forced by unarguable evidence that eating cholesterol in eggs had no impact whatsoever on blood cholesterol levels, egg restriction advice was quietly ditched, and remodelled to say that eggs were part of a balanced diet.

Did we get an apology on eggs? Did we hell. So don't hold your breath waiting for a climb-down on saturated fat. The healthy eating establishment will choke on its low-fat cornflakes before it coughs that up.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/23/butter-bad-saturated-fat-healthy-eating-industry

JEY100
Fri, Oct-25-13, 04:51
The Guardian is hopping on this one. Outspoken commentary.

JEY100
Thu, Oct-31-13, 06:10
From Zoe Harcombe's Newsletter:

"The story behind the story.

You can't have failed to miss the big diet and health story from last week - Dr Aseem Malhotra's article in the BMJ was covered on BBC Breakfast and across UK media from The Guardian to The Express. It also reached the USA being featured in the LA Times and Aseem was asked to appear on CNN on the day the story was released (23 October 2013).

The Story

You can see the original article in the BMJ. It's less technical than many journal articles and well referenced. The title is a well chosen one, as Aseem is simply saying that "saturated fat is not the major issue". He suggests that sugar is.

The story is one that I presented in my book The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it? Indeed this was the book that first jolted Aseem out of what he'd been told at medical school into the alternative world of evidence based nutrition. He contacted me in March 2012 after coming across my book and we've been allies ever since.

What happened before

The journalists who receive this Monday note are very familiar with the press release process. Journalist get advance warning of an article about to be published (usually a day or so ahead, with an embargo date and time) and this then gives the media the chance to cover the story from different angles and to seek alternative views and inputs.

The BMJ article was published overnight on Tuesday 22nd October, enabling Aseem to appear on BBC Breakfast the morning after. Wednesday's papers were also full of the story.

Two organisations that were approached for input were the British Heart Foundation and Public Health England. The British Heart Foundation is a charity, founded in 1961, focusing primarily on research into heart disease. Public Health England was only established on 1st April 2013 - and no it wasn't an April fool! PHE exists to "protect and improve the nation's health and to address inequalities."

Neither the British Heart Foundation (BHF) nor Public Health England supported Aseem's view. The Guardian quoted Peter Weissberg, medical director at the BHF, as saying: "Studies on the link between diet and disease frequently produce conflicting results because, unlike drug trials, it's difficult to undertake a properly controlled, randomised study. However, people with highest cholesterol levels are at highest risk of a heart attack and it's clear that lowering cholesterol, by whatever means, lowers risk."

a) This is incorrect. The evidence for all 192 countries in the world show that the highest cholesterol levels correlate with the lowest risk of heart deaths and all deaths for men and women. [Links do not copy, here is this one: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2010/11/cholesterol-heart-disease-–-there-is-a-relationship-but-it’s-not-what-you-think/ ]

b) The BHF failed to declare their conflict of interest. Aseem was asked directly about butter vs. margarine in some of his many interviews on Wednesday and did not hesitate to recommend the real food butter over the substance that is apparently one molecule away from plastic. The BHF have a commercial relationship with Unilever - the makers of Flora - and should have declared this.

The Public Health England (PHE) response was quoted in The Guardian. Alison Tedstone, Director of Diet and Obesity, said: "PHE recommends that no more than 11 % of person's average energy intake should come from saturated fats, as there is evidence to show increased levels of saturated fats can raise blood cholesterol levels, in turn raising the risk of cardiovascular disease. The Government's advice is based on a wealth of evidence. The BMJ article is based on opinion rather than a complete review of the research."

As Aseem asked for my help on the defences coming in the day before publication, I had the opportunity to see the full PHE response behind this quotation...

PHE position on, and evidence against, saturated fat

The PHE position on saturated fat (quoted verbatim) was presented as follows:

"Public Health England advises that people should consume on average no more than 11% of their total food energy as saturated fat. This advice is based on recommendations made to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by an independent advisory committee, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) in 1994 and is in line with recommendations by the Institute of Medicine 2002, World Health Organization 2008 and European Food Safety Authority 2010."

The PHE evidence against saturated fat (quoted verbatim) was presented as follows:

"Advice to replace some saturated fat in the diet with unsaturated fats is also supported by evidence from meta-analyses of dietary intervention trials. Skeaff and Miller (2009) conducted a meta-analysis combining dietary trials modifying the amount of polyunsaturated fat to saturated fat in the diet and found that in studies which significantly lowered serum cholesterol by replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat, both heart attacks and deaths from heart disease were significantly reduced. More recently a Cochrane collaboration meta-analysis (Hooper 2012) reviewed the existing evidence and concluded that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat intakes reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 14%."

My response

PHE have failed to provide any evidence, let alone "the wealth of evidence" that they claim and here's why...

PHE says "PHE recommends that no more than 11 % of person's average energy intake should come from saturated fats, as there is evidence to show increased levels of saturated fats can raise blood cholesterol levels, in turn raising the risk of cardiovascular disease."

PHE therefore needs to provide evidence that a) increased levels of saturated fats can raise blood cholesterol levels AND b) that raised blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of cardiovascular disease AND (this is a critical point of logic) c) PHE need to provide evidence that the original advice on saturated fat intake was evidence-based at the time of introduction. If it cannot do this, it is into a retrospective attempt to post-rationalise a non evidence based message and it should admit this.

PHE states that the evidence is provided in the 1994 COMA report. I have a copy of the 1994 COMA report and it says that saturated fat intake should be "no more than about 10% of dietary energy" but provides no evidence as to why. There are just seven references at the end of the 1994 COMA report. One is the 1994 COMA report! You can't use a report to substantiate the same report! "We say this because we say this." Another reference is the 1984 COMA report (I have procured an out of print copy of this and I detail it fully on pages 130 onwards of my obesity book).

The only passage from the 1984 COMA report necessary to refute PHE's claim that the saturated fat message is evidence based is this one:

"There has been no controlled clinical trial of the effect of decreasing dietary intake of saturated fatty acids on the incidence of coronary heart disease nor is it likely that such a trial will be undertaken."

The 1994 COMA report does not try to claim that the study has been done. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) reconfirmed this to me in a letter in 2009: "The ideal controlled dietary trial for prevention of heart disease has not yet been done and it is unlikely ever to be done."

PHE thus need to provide evidence - not pretend that 20-30 year old documents had evidence in the first place. And that's just part a) PHE then need to explain HOW saturated fat can increase blood cholesterol levels - I mean how biochemically.

PHE then need to prove (b) that raised blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of cardiovascular disease. http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2010/11/cholesterol-heart-disease-–-there-is-a-relationship-but-it’s-not-what-you-think/

The attempt at post-rationalisation

The offering of Skeaff and Miller (2009) and Hooper (2012) as evidence for a dietary recommendation introduced in 1984 is, of course, absurd. This is why PHE fails (c) of the three part test.

Notwithstanding this, I am always amused and surprised to see Hooper as a 'witness for the defence', as this is the conclusion of the Hooper study:

Having reviewed 64,891 participants, experiencing 2,068 fatal or non fatal heart attacks, the Hooper study concluded "There was no clear effect of altering dietary fat intakes (compared to usual diet) on myocardial infarction. Neither was there any effect of any of the distinct dietary fat changes: modified fat intake; reduced fat vs usual fat intake; and reduced and modified fat vs. usual intake."

Plus - we can counter with another study - this one from 2010 where Siri-Tarino and colleagues reviewed 21 studies, covering 347,747 people, to conclude:

"During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD [Coronary Heart Disease] or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was NOT associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD [Cardio Vascular Disease]. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results". The overall conclusion was "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is NO significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."

As for Skeaff and Miller (2009), their conclusion was: "The available evidence from cohort and randomised controlled trials is unsatisfactory and unreliable to make judgement about and substantiate the effects of dietary fat on risk of CHD."

And that's the case for the defence? And 25 years too late?!

Until the next time

Zoë

For further information:
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/
http://www.theharcombedietclub.com/
"

keith v
Thu, Oct-31-13, 08:31
wow thanks Janet!
What would I do without this group?

Oh yeah.. I'd be racing towards the cliff with the rest of the lemmings...

JEY100
Tue, Nov-05-13, 04:38
6 graphs that show the war on saturated fat was a mistake.

New post by Kris Gunnars, the graphics won't copy...but interesting graphs of some studies in this thread.

http://authoritynutrition.com/6-graphs-the-war-on-fat-was-a-mistake/

teaser
Tue, Nov-05-13, 07:16
If you look at Ancel Key's 7 country study, or at the Kitivans, etc., you can see that it's possible for a population to eat less fat, or less animal fat, without succumbing to heart disease or obesity. This doesn't mean that a diet that's high in animal fat can't be protective against these. The Kitivan experience isn't an argument against the Inuit diet being healthy--it's only an argument against it being the only alternative.

Which is my indirect way of saying that I don't think these graphs show anything about the relative healthiness of a low animal fat diet vs a high animal fat diet--they only suggest that it's possible for a diet that's higher in animal fat to be better than a diet that's lower in animal fat, not that it's necessarily healthier by the single metric of animal fat intake.

Whole societies can have low rates of heart disease with low intake of fat, and whole societies can have low rates of heart disease with high intake of fat. I think we need more focus on what makes a low-fat diet healthy--in those cultures where it seems to work. And what makes a high-fat diet healthy--where it works. (Notice I couldn't help but put "seems" in with the low-fat diet. My bias is showing. :lol: ) Not just for bias, but I want the high-fat diet studies more, we've already had decades of excess focus on optimizing a wholesome, low-fat diet.

I don't want to know if I should eat a ketogenic diet. I want to know how I should eat a ketogenic diet. More saturated fat? More mono? Is omega 6 so dangerous in nut form, in a backdrop of low carbohydrate? Am I better off with a hundred grams of protein, almost no carbs, or 60 grams of protein, 30 grams of carb from spinach, peppers, colourful veggies?

SabreCat50
Tue, Nov-05-13, 10:28
I don't want to know if I should eat a ketogenic diet. I want to know how I should eat a ketogenic diet. More saturated fat? More mono? Is omega 6 so dangerous in nut form, in a backdrop of low carbohydrate? Am I better off with a hundred grams of protein, almost no carbs, or 60 grams of protein, 30 grams of carb from spinach, peppers, colourful veggies?

Great questions!

Glenn in Omaha

Liz53
Tue, Nov-05-13, 10:55
Great questions!



Yes, let's hope NuSi will address some of these questions in the studies they fund.