saturated fats are good now...

[SamuraiSid]

Saturated fats are good they say now!!!! - Canada Bodybuilding - Canadian Bodybuilding Canada Forum


The conclusion that dietary intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increase in coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease was reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition this past February, 2010.

This study accumulated data from almost 350,000 subjects in twenty-one different studies. The data from these study subjects showed the development of approximately 11,000 cases of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) or stroke. However, there was no link established between the subject's saturated fat intake and the incidence of CHD, stroke, or Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), and this did not change when the researchers focused their research to consider age or sex, or the quality of the study.

"Our meta-analysis showed that there is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD," wrote the researchers, led by Dr Ronald Krauss from the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California.

"[However,] nutritional epidemiologic studies provide only one category of evidence for evaluating the relation of saturated fat intake to risk for CHD, stroke, and CVD. An overall assessment requires consideration of results of clinical trials as well as information regarding the effects of saturated fat on underlying disease mechanisms, as discussed elsewhere in this issue. Nonetheless, a summary evaluation of the epidemiologic evidence to date provides important information as to the basis for relating dietary saturated fat to CVD risk," the researchers said.

The study, funded by the US National Dairy Council, Unilever, and the National Institutes of Health, challenges the mainstream majority thinking that saturated fats are detrimental to heart health.

The old "lipid hypothesis" tried to show a direct relationship between the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in the diet and the incidence of coronary heart disease. This lipid hypothesis for heart disease received a huge amount of publicity and public favor, in spite of the fact that other studies showed this hypothesis to not be true many years ago.

In the last 50 years, big food processing companies jumped on the bandwagon and pushed the lipid hypothesis even further into the mainstream. Oddly enough though, prior to the 1920's, coronary heart disease was very rare in America. Americans ate lots of lard, butter, beef and cheese, but heart attacks and strokes were uncommon.

While vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats were pushed as the "healthy choice" over saturated fats for the next forty years, the incidence of coronary heart disease actually increased dramatically, so much so that today, heart disease remains a primary cause of death in the U.S. With the advent of the revised food pyramid, grains and carbohydrates pushed those numbers up even higher.

If heart disease had any connection to saturated fats in the diet, how could it be that the use of saturated fats has gone down, while the use of processed vegetable oils like margarine, shortening, and trans fats-as well as sugar and grain-based processed foods have increased dramatically?

Clearly something has been amiss here.

Oils like canola, corn, soybean, and sunflower have been pushed as the healthy substitutes over saturated fats. It is these oils, though, that contribute to inflammation in the body, and upset the ratio of Omega 3 fatty acids and Omega 6 fatty acids.

Diets high in vegetable oils -especially hydrogenated vegetable oils, cause a variety of health problems, including inflammation. This inflammation leads to an increased tendency to form blood clots, which leads to heart attacks and strokes, now at higher than ever levels in the U.S.

Most of the fat in our bodies and in the food we eat comes in the form of triglycerides, which are made of three fatty-acid chains attached to a glycerol molecule. Elevated triglycerides in the blood are usually linked to a higher than average potential for heart disease, but triglycerides do not come directly from dietary fats. Triglycerides are made in the liver from sugars that have not been burned for energy. Excess sugars in the body are from starchy carbohydrates, particularly refined sugar and white flour. It appears that triglycerides and vegetable oils and excessive Omega 6 fatty acids are causing much of the problem.

So you see, saturated fats are not the villains they have been portrayed to be, nor are they the cause of today's diseases; in fact quite the opposite is true.

Saturated fats play an important role in the body in several ways:

• Saturated fatty acids make up at least 50% of the cell membranes. They give cell walls their necessary stiffness and integrity.

• Saturated fats are extremely important for bone health. For calcium to be effectively utilized in our bones at least 50% of dietary fats should be saturated--so skim milk will not help your bones.

• Saturated fats are vital to the liver and help protect it from toxins such as alcohol and other drugs.

• Saturated fats strengthen the immune system.

• They are needed for the proper utilization of other essential fatty acids - Omega 3 fatty acids are better retained in the tissues and utilized by the body when the diet is rich in saturated fats as well.

• The fat around the heart muscle is actually highly saturated. The heart draws on this reserve of fat in times of physical stress.

• Saturated fats lower a substance in the blood called Lp(a), or Lipoprotein(a), that indicates a tendency towards heart disease.

• Short- and medium-chain saturated fatty acids have important antimicrobial properties. They protect us against harmful microorganisms in the digestive tract.

The scientific evidence is beginning to pile up and does not (and never did) support the assertion that saturated fats clog arteries and cause heart disease.

So while saturated fats have not yet been exonerated in the mainstream public, the tide is beginning to turn. You as an educated consumer, and your own health advocate know the truth about saturated fats vs. the evils of vegetable oils and refined foods. Enjoy your grass fed steaks, butter, cheese and lard and know you are doing your body good.


References:

Mary G. Enig, PhD, and Sally Fallon, "The Skinny on Fats", Weston A. Price Foundation, Jan, 1999.

Stephen Daniells, "Saturated Fats Not Linked to Heart Disease: Meta Analysis", Food Navigator.com, February 2010.

P.W. Siri-Tarino, Q. Sun, F.B. Hu, R.M. Krauss, "Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, February 2010.

 

[crazyfool405]

Awesome. The last reference was the one that was discussed mainly correct?

 

[crazyfool405]

Awesome. The last reference was the one that was discussed mainly correct?

 

[Flaw]

Since when were they bad?

 

[crazyfool405]

Since ada and aha declared them bad. They all have good effects on cholesterol levels in the right amounts

However in ketogenic diets I recently saw a increase in LDL from the high intake of saturated fats. The study I posted in "keto masters please chime in"

 

[Flaw]

Since ada and aha declared them bad. They all have good effects on cholesterol levels in the right amounts

However in ketogenic diets I recently saw a increase in LDL from the high intake of saturated fats. The study I posted in "keto masters please chime in"

ADA, are your referring to the American Dietic Association or the American Diabetic Association? Any link or article or post?

What's interesting is anyone with a strong nutrition background should know the importance of saturated fats, it's the over OVERCONSUMPTION of saturated fats with cholesterol that can cause issues. That's what they are worried about most and what most americans do. They overconsume saturated fats. The bad fat has always been the synthetic trans fats brought by the hydrogenation process which should be avoided as much as possible. The Good benifets of saturated fats has never been a secret it's just people only paid attention to the negative effects of overconsuming them. They blew it up just like they did with carbs, saying carbs are bad. Carbs aren't bad, they are our bodies main source of energy, we need them, again, it's the overconsumption of them that can cause many unwanted side effects.

 

[Nitrox]

What's interesting is anyone with a strong nutrition background should know the importance of saturated fats, it's the over OVERCONSUMPTION of saturated fats with cholesterol that can cause issues. That's what they are worried about most and what most americans do. They overconsume saturated fats. The bad fat has always been the synthetic trans fats brought by the hydrogenation process which should be avoided as much as possible. The Good benifets of saturated fats has never been a secret it's just people only paid attention to the negative effects of overconsuming them. They blew it up just like they did with carbs, saying carbs are bad. Carbs aren't bad, they are our bodies main source of energy, we need them, again, it's the overconsumption of them that can cause many unwanted side effects.

+1

Unfortunately the majority of the population is either too lazy or does not have the required analytical aptitude to learn big picture nutrition. Consequently, agencies have to dumb down recommendations to the point that they are oversimplified and contextual. Most of these recommendations are no longer valid once they are taken out of context.

 

[lilnardey]

Interesting thread. In my nutrition class we just started a unit on fats. The teachers approach so far has been that sat fats are unhealthy and there is no proven science showing any positive benifits of them. All she said about them was that their consumption has a positive correlation to LDL cholesterol. Do you guys think thats only because this is relatively new knowledge?

 

[SamuraiSid]

+1

Unfortunately the majority of the population is either too lazy or does not have the required analytical aptitude to learn big picture nutrition. Consequently, agencies have to dumb down recommendations to the point that they are oversimplified and contextual. Most of these recommendations are no longer valid once they are taken out of context.

I dont think thats entirely fair. People nowadays are much to busy to study nutrition in their off time.

We are all interested in nutrition as bodybuilders, amateur bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts(sp?). Im sure if this were an H&R Block forum, you could make the same arguement that people are either too lazy or stupid not to do their own taxes.


However, as you were saying about agencies having to dumb down reccomendations to the point were they become invalid... I fully agree. But its not just nutrition, its all over, in every industry, even the media does it. But how else can you tell 300,000,000 americans, all with different backgrounds, genetics, ethnic backgrounds, tastes, wants and needs what to consume?

Our system aint perfect, not by a long shot, but this is all we have to work with, so lets challenge the status quo in a constructive manner.

 

[SamuraiSid]

Interesting thread. In my nutrition class we just started a unit on fats. The teachers approach so far has been that sat fats are unhealthy and there is no proven science showing any positive benifits of them. All she said about them was that their consumption has a positive correlation to LDL cholesterol. Do you guys think thats only because this is relatively new knowledge?

Absolutely. The original study was publish in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in February 2010.

 

[The Dooeug]

haha wow looks like ill be using more saturated fat now lol

 

[lilnardey]

Excellent. Ill bring up the article in class, hopefully it doesnt start a heated battle where I look like an idoit haha

 

[The Dooeug]

Excellent. Ill bring up the article in class, hopefully it doesnt start a heated battle where I look like an idoit haha

i'm sure it will stir up some ruckasss but you have the scientific evidence to throw in deerdreas snatch :drive:

 

[hardknock]

+1

Unfortunately the majority of the population is either too lazy or does not have the required analytical aptitude to learn big picture nutrition. Consequently, agencies have to dumb down recommendations to the point that they are oversimplified and contextual. Most of these recommendations are no longer valid once they are taken out of context.

To lazy is kinda BS imo. There are too many responsibilities in today's society for the average person to sit down and engulf themselves in a nutrition book. Some people are lazy, yes, but to say the population is either one or the other is not true at all.

If i would take what I learned from my earlier years when I had nothing to do but study, read, and research, it totally trumps what I have time to research now as my profession is not in the diet and nutrition field. I learn what I do because i have a great foundation on health and nutrition and just add tidbits along the way.

I think the term "people are just lazy" is way overused and has become an excuse for us active people to use because we cannot understand how life affects others in certain ways.

On another note (totally independent of the above): I hate when articles and studies like these rear. The reason, people instantly think that they can choke down potato chips and cookies just because the label says low-fat and 0 trans fats. This is entirely untrue by far. Every time I am at the gym I hear some guy saying they eat McDonalds because satfats are healthy.

 

[hardknock]

haha wow looks like ill be using more saturated fat now lol

^^^Prime example number one

 

[hardknock]

I think people are to lazy to understand microchip engineering, but i dig it like a chick....any platform can be spun and swayed to whatever side.

There are reasons for people not doing certain things, some are lazy, some unmotivated, and some have serious reasons (mental, physical, feeding their damn kids)

 

[Nitrox]

I dont think thats entirely fair. People nowadays are much to busy to study nutrition in their off time.

We are all interested in nutrition as bodybuilders, amateur bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts(sp?). Im sure if this were an H&R Block forum, you could make the same arguement that people are either too lazy or stupid not to do their own taxes.

However, as you were saying about agencies having to dumb down reccomendations to the point were they become invalid... I fully agree. But its not just nutrition, its all over, in every industry, even the media does it. But how else can you tell 300,000,000 americans, all with different backgrounds, genetics, ethnic backgrounds, tastes, wants and needs what to consume?

Our system aint perfect, not by a long shot, but this is all we have to work with, so lets challenge the status quo in a constructive manner.

I think that you have read in more criticism than I intended.

IMO most people have the option of moving their health higher up on the priority list. Often people would rather not give up Tevo, Playstation, or the bigger house that comes with a big mortgage and the longer work hours required to pay it. What I am saying is that most people have a choice in how 'busy' they are.

Nutrition is a science and some people do not have a scientific mind. That does not make them stupid but it does make education more challenging for those people.

Also I was not criticizing the system. If I were to be critical, it would be of the people that give those agencies a hard time for not presenting universal and completely accurate information. Since most people are not inclined to track food portions or calories, the recommendation to reduce fat intake and sugars way back when, was, in their minds, the next best thing.

 

[hardknock]

I think that you have read in more criticism than I intended.

IMO most people have the option of moving their health higher up on the priority list. Often people would rather not give up Tevo, Playstation, or the bigger house that comes with a big mortgage and the longer work hours required to pay it. What I am saying is that most people have a choice in how 'busy' they are.

Nutrition is a science and some people do not have a scientific mind. That does not make them stupid but it does make education more challenging for those people.

Also I was not criticizing the system. If I were to be critical, it would be of the people that give those agencies a hard time for not presenting universal and completely accurate information. Since most people are not inclined to track food portions or calories, the recommendation to reduce fat intake and sugars way back when, was, in their minds, the next best thing.

I think it was more the fat-backs, pork chops and fried chicken which is the reason why people decided to call back fats. Not to mention Granny and Jed Clampett's hog jowls...

 

[Nitrox]

Not to mention Granny and Jed Clampett's hog jowls...

Lolz... Showing your vintage there.

 

[Nitrox]

There are a couple other thing that influence mainstream nutrition beliefs.

One is that it takes time for new concepts to catch on. IIRC there was no intial distinction between natural, un-hydrogenated fats, and trans fats. Since they all were saturated with H ions, they were all lumped into the same category. Of course since then, research has discovered that trannies:silly: are the main culprit but it takes time for everyone to catch on.

Second is the tendency to reason digitally (aka in black in white). Since too much saturated fat can lead to health problems, it should be eliminated. No. It just needs to be moderated. This is the same tendency that lead to the 'chromium supplementation is good for diabetics. Since a chromium deficiency cause high blood sugar problems then supplementation must universally lower it. XXX!. Thanks for playing...

 

[Flaw]

Interesting thread. In my nutrition class we just started a unit on fats. The teachers approach so far has been that sat fats are unhealthy and there is no proven science showing any positive benifits of them. All she said about them was that their consumption has a positive correlation to LDL cholesterol. Do you guys think thats only because this is relatively new knowledge?

It's not new knowledge. It's how they teach what saturated fats does. If they teach only the negative effects of the saturated fats then that's all you will see. Kind of like when they teach history and you only get a one sided story and you think that's exactly how it happend If you find literature about how the body uses saturated fats you will see all the positive benifets.

A big problem with society is when you teach one way for so long they have a difficult time processing learning another way as if it's even possible. Same goes for new discoveries. A biologist or archaelogist could discover something new and everyone is in line and ready to dispute their find. Not till a "big" name or enough people come forward to support the find does the person get any credit. This makes it a problem when what they find or what they know is fact and no one is listening and this can go on for many many years and false teachings can be taught for many years, even centuries.

 

[crazyfool405]

Interesting thread. In my nutrition class we just started a unit on fats. The teachers approach so far has been that sat fats are unhealthy and there is no proven science showing any positive benifits of them. All she said about them was that their consumption has a positive correlation to LDL cholesterol. Do you guys think thats only because this is relatively new knowledge?

NO PROVEN

just "strong" correlations

not definitive cause and effect

 

[crazyfool405]

It's not new knowledge. It's how they teach what saturated fats does. If they teach only the negative effects of the saturated fats then that's all you will see. Kind of like when they teach history and you only get a one sided story and you think that's exactly how it happend If you find literature about how the body uses saturated fats you will see all the positive benifets.

A big problem with society is when you teach one way for so long they have a difficult time processing learning another way as if it's even possible. Same goes for new discoveries. A biologist or archaelogist could discover something new and everyone is in line and ready to dispute their find. Not till a "big" name or enough people come forward to support the find does the person get any credit. This makes it a problem when what they find or what they know is fact and no one is listening and this can go on for many many years and false teachings can be taught for many years, even centuries.

the thing is even a diet you try and keep super low in sat fats, will always have saturated fats, you cannot void the diet of them intentionally unless you do not eat fat.

Saturated fats are important but its a good idea to stay within a certain range of total calories

 

[fitnessbyalex]

Everything in this industry tends to get blown out of proportion. It is no new news that saturated fats in conjunction with the right minerals and nutrients can improve things like testosterone production. However this is no excuse to eat a few pounds of 80% ground beef and a liter of whole milk per day. Having one lean red meat meal or omega-3 egg meal will provide many of the benefits of having some saturated fat in ones diet without causing the plethora of health issues that excessive saturated fat can cause.

 

[hardknock]

Everything in this industry tends to get blown out of proportion. It is no new news that saturated fats in conjunction with the right minerals and nutrients can improve things like testosterone production. However this is no excuse to eat a few pounds of 80% ground beef and a liter of whole milk per day. Having one lean red meat meal or omega-3 egg meal will provide many of the benefits of having some saturated fat in ones diet without causing the plethora of health issues that excessive saturated fat can cause.

That's the whole problem. It's like telling a dope head that one crack rock won't make him a crack head. No, it wont, but continuous overuse will.

When the uneducated start playing with dynamite, people die, simple as that.

 

[fitnessbyalex]

That's the whole problem. It's like telling a dope head that one crack rock won't make him a crack head. No, it wont, but continuous overuse will.

When the uneducated start playing with dynamite, people die, simple as that.

I agree. Its important to get a firm understanding of an issue before blindly promoting it. Such a thing leads to great over-exaggeration and things become misapplied

Alex

 

[bmcjames]

Is it me or does it seem the more they do scientific research on diet and nutrition the more they are pushing for our basic prehistoric human diet IE: eating fatty meats, drinking whole milks, etc...

I find it funny that we had our diets down pat several thousands of years ago and now that they have "technology" they are finding out that all those "advances" we have made are just doing us more harm than good....

 

[Nitrox]

Is it me or does it seem the more they do scientific research on diet and nutrition the more they are pushing for our basic prehistoric human diet IE: eating fatty meats, drinking whole milks, etc...

I find it funny that we had our diets down pat several thousands of years ago and now that they have "technology" they are finding out that all those "advances" we have made are just doing us more harm than good....

Pretty much. Evolution gave us a preference for fatty and sweet foods because those foods usually contain the most calories. Food calories are very good for preventing death by starvation. However this preference developed when food supply was limited. Now that the food supply in the developed world is basically unlimited, this biological trait is a liability - hence the obesity epidemic.

 

[hardknock]

Is it me or does it seem the more they do scientific research on diet and nutrition the more they are pushing for our basic prehistoric human diet IE: eating fatty meats, drinking whole milks, etc...

I find it funny that we had our diets down pat several thousands of years ago and now that they have "technology" they are finding out that all those "advances" we have made are just doing us more harm than good....

...i can't say surely but I tend to do what works for me. Since all of the new "technology" started hitting the airwaves in the early 90s, I've just tried to keep it basic.

I don't know but I've had success in all departments. I once was 232ish, and stayed 10-14 per bodyfat.

I've been as small as 165ish at 9 per bf, right now around 200ish 13 per bf. I think it is, as mentioned above, getting where things work for you and make small adjustments as needed.

I mean, why would a person radically change a diet which has allowed them to gain muscle, lose fat, and gain strength as they please? Makes no sense. For those that struggle, I suggest learning the basics and building a solid foundation before tweaking your protocols.

 

[fitnessbyalex]

Pretty much. Evolution gave us a preference for fatty and sweet foods because those foods usually contain the most calories. Food calories are very good for preventing death by starvation. However this preference developed when food supply was limited. Now that the food supply in the developed world is basically unlimited, this biological trait is a liability - hence the obesity epidemic.

fattier foods are fine. But think of nature as it exists without processing of food.

-fruits= high sugar, low/no fat
-meats we ate (paleo) were fattier and higher calorie, but carb-less

**paleo diets were quite low carb
**other people in more tropical regions may have eaten a lot of fruit but less meat/fat.

**start processing foods with unnatural fat/sugar ratio's etc etc and therein lies the problem

 

[hardknock]

Pretty much. Evolution gave us a preference for fatty and sweet foods because those foods usually contain the most calories. Food calories are very good for preventing death by starvation. However this preference developed when food supply was limited. Now that the food supply in the developed world is basically unlimited, this biological trait is a liability - hence the obesity epidemic.

...
I concur, eating PERIOD, is of most importance when your stomach is touching your back. However, when there is an abundance, we must alter our thought patterns somewhat.

My parents were born in the 20s/30s, it was about survival, end of story.

 

[Nitrox]

fattier foods are fine. But think of nature as it exists without processing of food.

-fruits= high sugar, low/no fat
-meats we ate (paleo) were fattier and higher calorie, but carb-less

**paleo diets were quite low carb
**other people in more tropical regions may have eaten a lot of fruit but less meat/fat.

**start processing foods with unnatural fat/sugar ratio's etc etc and therein lies the problem

Agreed. The next factor in diet decline was the identification of the profitability of tickling people's taste buds with foods having higher fat, sugar, and salt content.

Also good point on higher carb diets in some regions. I think some people focus too much on the 'caveman' or Inuit diet and too quickly discount whole food carb sources.

 

[fitnessbyalex]

Agreed. The next factor in diet decline was the identification of the profitability of tickling people's taste buds with foods having higher fat, sugar, and salt content.

Also good point on higher carb diets in some regions. I think some people focus too much on the 'caveman' or Inuit diet and too quickly discount whole food carb sources.

yes. People like to focus on polar extremes. In a high carb environment like those seen in more tropical regions, protein and fat requirements are low (carbs are very protein sparing etc). In a lower carb environment, fat intake should be higher and protein as well because the body will mobilize these resources for energy and glycogen etc).

Since fitness/bodybuilding etc has specific nutritional requirements (carbs + protein and some fat) it is best to be understand how the body handles these nutrients in combination. Eating a high fat/saturated fat diet with plenty of carbs (or even sugar) is going to yield high triglycerides, cholesterol and other issues. Choosing leaner meats, with a higher carb intake form starchy complex carbs is the better alternative. When having fattier meats, consume them with low or even no carbs and stick to things like veggies. Often before bed is a good time to have a fattier meat source with some veggies. keeps the calories up, provides an alternative slow burning energy source for the night (fat), and you get fiber from the veggies to stay satiated longer as well.

-Alex