I was talking with a friend about Taubes book and mentioned that Taubes is saying eating fat makes us thin. My friend believes that saturated fat is bad for us (because a doctor friend and Agatston say so). Taubes thinks this is a myth, so I'm now wondering why the CW (conventional wisdom) is that saturated fat is bad.

My impression is that they have two main reasons:
1. It raises cholesterol
2. Fat has almost 2x as many calories per gram as carbs or protein.

BTW, my rebuttal to these arguments are:
1. The only kind of cholesterol that matters for heart disease/bad health are the VLDLs and they are raised by carbs, not fat.
2. Calories per gram don't matter for overweight -- it is a metabolic problem, not a thermodynamic one. That is, what matters is how one's body processes the foods it gets, not how many calories there are in a bite.

Can people tell me what reasons you know of for the fear of fat in the conventional wisdom?

Thanks, Beth

One major new book with lots of media hype (vs. years of hearing that sat. fat is bad-) isn't going to change my opinion that saturated fat is nasty. Maybe not bad for us, (i think it is though; cite 10 more books/ major studies on it and i might start to change my mind-) but it isn't something i enjoy putting in my body. Then again, i personally don't like eating lots of heavy fat, i prefer the flax/ olive oil side of the spectrum. I would guess someone who enjoys putting heavy fat in their body might easier believe that saturated fat is not bad for them. There's my very non scientific CW opinion for you...
I also am not too sure about the "calories don't matter for overweight" argument, but i guess that's for another thread.

It started with Ancel Keys and his 7 Countries study. Unfortunately, by the time that the information became available that he 'cherry picked' his data to support his assertion that saturated fat caused heart disease, it had become grafted into common medical dogma and once dogma is established, it's very hard to get rid of even with clear evidence to the contrary.



This isn't the first time Taubes has been in the news with his views on saturated fat and heart disease and he's not the only reputable scientist who disagrees with the 'cholesterol/heart disease theory' and CW:

THINCS

Taubes is, I believe, a journalist and not a scientist.

True, a science journalist, to be exact, and a bad mofo that has kicked the 'nads of the convential dietary wisdom up between it's own ears.

True -- he is a person who has the job of understanding what the scientists say well enough to be able to explain it to the educated layperson (he writes for Science, which is no small potatoes).

He is also a person who has read and digested mountains of scientific data, which is more than most scientists who work in the various sub specialties have done -- so he says and I believe him. I have enough trouble keeping up with my tiny area of technology, so I can well believe that there isn't as much cross talk between disciplines as would be useful.

Finally, with all due respect -- understanding science is a matter of putting in time and study, and one does not need to be in a degree program to do it. What I learned in school and what I've learned out of school mainly differ in the amount of study, which is a function of the time I had available, not my innate ability to understand. [Of course, I literally read textbooks for pleasure, presently one on evolution. :-) ]

You are welcome to your opinion, and I doubt anyone here is going to start urging you to eat sat fats against your will.

But it might help if you realise that the only studies "proving" sat fats to be "bad," are those where the subjects were also eating sugars and starches.

You might like to look through the info on this page. There's a lot of good, scientific info at the Weston Price website.

Rosebud

Since sooo many people still eat sugars and starches as a part of their daily diet, I'm gonna have to keep the opinion that saturated fat is bad (for the masses...) I guess the miniscule amount of serious lowcarbers are the lucky few? Hmmm.
That looks like an interesting website! I'm gonna look through it when i have a good chunk of time.

Which begs the question: was it the satfats that caused the problem or the sugars and starches?

High Triglycerides are thought to be a marker for heart disease risk more so than overall cholesterol. Triglycerides are raised by: too much carb/sugar in the diet, too much transfat in the diet and too much alcohol in the diet.

I think it has alot to do with the name "fat". We call the excess on our bodies "fat", so in the minds of some, you shouldn't eat "fat". I think some people equate that if you eat fat, it adds fat onto your body, which is just not the case. If I eat pork, I don't begin oinking or growing a curly tail, right? A good friend of mine has fear of fat grams in her food. She actually thinks it's what adds the fat onto her body and will not listen to what I try to tell her to make her understand, meanwhile she continues to gain weight. Just yesterday, she voiced her frustration about her weight gain and said "all I had for lunch was a turkey sandwich and baked potato chips, so why am I gaining weight".

So do you understand that perhaps the studies attributed the issues those subjects had only to part of their diet? You could prove nearly anything in that case. Miniscule amounts of low carbers aren't a lucky few, they are an educated few. You are buying dogma simply because it has been sold to you so well and for so long.

It makes no sense at all for you to say saturated fat is "bad" because people eat so much sugar and starch. That's like saying jumping rope is bad because so many people climb rocks.

Saturated fat is bad for the masses when combined with sugars and starches. A diet that eliminates saturated fat does not seem to have any health related benefits (see the massive study on women released last year...they tried to find a benefit and couldn't).

To paraphrase... "Since people eat A and it is bad for them I'm going to have to say B is bad, too, because if they eat B they will be eating A with it."

You know, I had to read it right here on these forums before I really appreciated why there was so much fodder for Good Calories, Bad Calories.

One book with numerous scientific studies and personal experience from thousands/millions of low carbers on this forum(vs. years of hearing that sat. fat is bad and no scientific evidence) isn't going to change my opinion(which is based on years of hearing that sat. fat is bad and no scientific evidence ).

Maybe not bad for us (i think it is though(based on my opinion, (which is based on years of hearing that sat. fat is bad and no scientific evidence ) ; cite 10 more books/ major studies on it and i might start to change my mind(which is based on years of hearing that sat. fat is bad and no scientific evidence).



Heavy fat?................................



So if I enjoy eating chocolate, Mcdonald's, beer, shooting heroine and mercury in my body, it might be easier for me to believe they're not bad for me? maybe.




Calories do matter, if calories don't matter, then why not not put 100 people on zero carb diets with 10,000 calories a day?

Calories do matter, if not, why not "eat" 10 calories a day and live well?

Counting calories, does not matter on a zero carb/carnivorous WOE with appropriate physical activity and rest, for health and appereance, but adjusting macros and including micros do.

Stop bashing me! I gave the OP my OPINION! Which i was hoping would help solve her confusion! My thoughts correlate to how the mainstream thinks about saturated fat, which was part of her question.

Ummm CVH, i KNOW calories matter. I track them everyday.

kyrasdad- What I meant (which no one seemed to understand) is that if people on high carb diets are becoming unhealthy combining saturated fat with the other sugars/ starches, etc., that they eat, then it's bad for them!!! It's subjective, do you get it? If they have to cut 1 thing out of their diet (and don't choose to switch to low carb,) then it should be the saturated fat. Now that's my opinion (!) Opinion because i haven't read up on saturated fat in a long time, much like the mainstream naysayers. Part of the reason i answered this thread is that she was curious as to why CW still thinks sat. fat is bad- I don't know much about the new studies, but the "CW" is pretty much ingrained in my thinking, and that, IMO, is part of the reason sat. fat is still generally thought of as bad-- many people have a hard time accepting otherwise.

Jeeeesus you guys (as in men) are mean. Thanks for letting me know not to post my opinions here, and that this is the place you guys go to say whatever incredibly condescending and hurtful thing you want to someone. Thanks, but no thanks. There's ways to express your opinions without putting others down.

Honestly I wasn't bashing. You seemed confused and I was trying to help you understand.



No question about that. But then we get to...



You got the issue right, but the solution is one that has been extensively tried, and has extensively failed. Think about it. You are recommending cutting whole foods like chicken and beef from your diet so you can eat sugar and starches, which aren't whole foods. That's your opinion and it is a health disaster waiting to happen. You'd drop nutritious foods for empty starch calories. Even many of the low fat adherents have realized that you can't do it that way, that simple carbs are the least healthy thing in the American diet. They still won't admit that saturated fat isn't unhealthy, but Atkins dragged them kicking and screaming into the realization that simple carbs, the kinds in white rice, bread, sugars, potatoes, are extremely unhealthy. (On low carb, you can eat quite a lot of complex carbohydrate - mostly veggies).

All on the basis of spurious, correllary studies that have never been corraborated by causal evidence. After decades of low fat, they still cannot state "saturated fat does X within the metabolic system, and that causes Y." Can't do it. Can't establish a causal relationship. And God love 'em, they have tried.

I do indeed have trouble accepting that people think saturated fat isn't healthy, and that's because I have read about it. Knowing about it for me, at 350+ pounds when I began, was life and death.


I wasn't aware that disagreeing with you was being mean. You have an opinion. You expressed it on a public forum. You should expect someone to argue against it when they believe you are wrong.

Can you point out something in anything I wrote that was mean, or demeaning? Or is disagreement itself mean? I don't mean to condescend, and apologize if you take it that way. But I've dropped 100+ pounds and kept it off for four years with this "dangerous" substance that mankind has eaten ever since it figured out how to kill animals.