Article: Saturated Fat As Bad As Sugar??
- Thread starter The Press
- Start date
Type O Hero
Banned
So no more sugar crusted bacon? ****ING **** MY ASS **** ****!!!
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Lol.
I like the point he makes. Low fat and low saturated fat diets didnt hurt people, its when they replaced it with refined carbs and simple sugars, duh.
This has been a well know fact for years though, unfortunately, 90% of the population doesnt know this.
Replaces fats with whole starchy carbs, not refined carbs and lay off the sugars and ur good. Protein, starches, and veggies...and we're right back to the 1940's diet again.
Type O Hero
Banned
All we need now are some fancy hats.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Excessive amounts have never been healthy. Suckers are hard to burn off once they accumulate as "white fats".
I mean, 5-10% of ur daily value in them is probably acceptable for those greater than 10- 12% bf. They dont offer much for us folk on TRT. The hormonal benefit they provide, however important, is still negligible in the realm of muscle building and fat burning.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
I dunno. Go get ur cholesterol checked to see. That is largely genetic. Both sides of my family have had heart trouble from mid 40's on so I tend to watch my saturated fats, because they do increase cholesterol.
Eggs dont impact the cholesterol number, but last I checked they do speed up arteriosclerosis. Still, u need to be eating a hefty amount to make a difference over time I think. Eggs are a dang good source of protein.
Johnston
Active member
Sorry, not true, but a common myth. Dietary cholesterol has very little impact on blood cholesterol levels in about 75% of the population. The remaining 25% are called “hyper-responders”, for whom dietary cholesterol does modestly increase both LDL and HDL, but it does not affect the ratio of LDL to HDL or increase the risk of heart disease. SOME studies have shown that saturated fat intake raises blood cholesterol levels, but they are almost always short-term, lasting only a few weeks. Long term studies have not shown an association between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol levels.
There will be some people who suffer from hypercholesterolemia, which is a genetic condition that reduces the clearance of LDL particles from the blood. Such people would certainly do better on a diet with less saturated fat.
fueledpassion
Well-known member
Then explain why the Ornish diet is still the most effective diet at lowering cholesterol.
Here is a study from Harvard that takes a fair look at those meta studies that bros on this board like to claim to.
Invalid Link Removed
Read the part particularly speaking into fats and cholestetol effects. Make sure to read the whole thing too. Dont just stop reading when u get to ur part.
Johnston
Active member
Absolutely, that is a key factor.
I'm actually flabbergasted that the recommendation they make there is to eat MORE canola, sunflower oil, and not only that but to COOK with it. My god. And regards the Ornish diet, one of its main principles is that it rigidly minimizes refined carbs, sugars, and processed flours/starches, in ADDITION to low saturated fat. So how do we know that the cutting out of these foods isn't what makes the biggest difference?
At the end of the day, as 'Whacked' points out, total cholesterol levels as a whole really mean nothing... it's the components of it that make ALL the difference.
The problem is, there isn't one approach fits all with nutrition. I'd say everyone would benefit from getting their bloods checked out, trying different approaches and finding out what works best for THEM! But of course that won't happen... we're generally just too lazy and far too eager to jump on the bandwagon of the latest miracle diet craze. I'd say that applies less to people on this forum, but more the population as a whole.
JXiiXViii
Member
I stopped reading that article when they recommended canola, corn, soy, and other seed oils. They immediately discredited themselves there.
Regarding your comment about the Ornish diet being the most effective at "lowering cholesterol", that doesn't say much at all.
As Whacked and Johnston already pointed out, there is far more to it than just your total cholesterol number. There are actually plenty of studies that link people with low cholesterol numbers to higher incidences of degenerative brain diseases due to fat and cholesterol's vital role in brain health, but I digress.
LDL-P, VLDL, Hemoglobin A1C, HDL to LDL ratio, Triglyceride ratios, C-reactive protein, fasting insulin and fasting blood sugar levels are all MUCH more accurate measurements of not only CHD risk, but overall metabolic health.
All of those numbers get thrown off in part by consuming a diet high in not only refined sugars, carbs, and trans fats, but also the precious crop oils (corn, soy, cotton, canola, etc.) that are being touted as healthy because they "lower cholesterol". Sure you can give someone a high dose of Omega 6 fats from crop oils and make their cholesterol numbers look better on paper, but the problem is, as I already pointed out, looking at just total cholesterol (like most labs do) is far from showing the whole picture and is wildly inaccurate at predicting CHD.
squidwardsabz
New member
It appears from most of these studies refined carbs are worse than saturated fat. It probably stands to reason that a moderate amount of saturated fat isn't what's giving people heart attacks, at least by itself.
JXiiXViii
Member
Nothing wrong with saturated fat:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
I think the author of the article hit it right on the head - there's much more to it than any one particular food.
The SAD is higher in saturated fat, but it's also high in refined carbs, trans fats, and crop oils and low in fruits and vegetables. So of course if we look at someone consuming the SAD and their high incidences of cardiovascular problems, you can link it to any of the above if you wanted to.
The only difference is, the latter two have all been proven to be harmful to our health. Saturated fat on the other hand, has not.
If someone were eating an unbalanced diet extremely high in just saturated fats and no fruits or vegetables, then maybe things would be different, I have no idea. But nobody eats that way so it's irrelevant.
On a related note, spinach is toxic in extremely high amounts too due to the oxalic acid (defense mechanism of the plant). You would have to eat like 15 pounds of it to have an effect, but should the media now put an article out that spinach is bad for us? No, because nobody in their right mind is going to eat 15 pounds of spinach in one sitting.
If they look and try hard enough, people can contrive evidence that ANY food is bad for us.