Hip Redux
New research finds that the current level of evidence does not support guidelines restricting saturated fatty acid consumption to reduce coronary risk nor does it support high consumption of polyunsaturated fats -- such as omega 3 or omega 6 -- to reduce coronary heart disease.
An international research collaboration led by the University of Cambridge analysed existing cohort studies and randomised trials on coronary risk and fatty acid intake. They showed that current evidence does not support guidelines which restrict the consumption of saturated fats in order to prevent heart disease. The researchers also found insufficient support for guidelines which advocate the high consumption of polyunsaturated fats (such as omega 3 and omega 6) to reduce the risk of coronary disease.
Linky
Diets low in saturated fat don't curb heart disease risk or help you live longer, says a leading US cardiovascular research scientist. And current dietary advice to replace saturated fats with carbohydrates or omega 6-rich polyunsaturated fats is based on flawed and incomplete data from the 1950s, argues the author. Dietary guidelines should be urgently reviewed and the vilification of saturated fats stopped to save lives, he insists.
There is now a strong argument in favour of the consumption of refined carbohydrates as the causative dietary factor behind the surge in obesity and diabetes in the US, he says.
And while a low fat diet may lower 'bad' (LDL) cholesterol, there are two types of LDL cholesterol. And switching to carbs may increase pattern B (small dense) LDL, which is more harmful to heart health than pattern A (large buoyant) LDL, as well as creating a more unfavourable overall lipid profile, he says.
Linky 2
Oh jeez, really now?? I thought one thing that was pretty much agreed upon was more saturated fat --> higher cholesterol level --> increased risk of heart disease. This is in my head with every bite I put into my mouth. What the hell do they definitively know anymore?
Dave
I know, right?This actually came up a little bit ago with one of my coworkers (we have a food research group) and she contacted someone who has been involved in policy development at the American Heart Association and she agrees to the above as well. The original interpretation of the 1950s data looks to be crumbling.
I have so trained myself to eat a (relatively) low-fat diet, specifically for this reason, that I'm not sure I could untrain myself.
So does this theory then also conclude that statins are useless - if cholesterol does not increase risk of heart disease, there's no reason to lower it?
Caretaker/Overlook Hotel
Well, you better GET to untraining.
It's on!!
Randy
I have so trained myself to eat a (relatively) low-fat diet, specifically for this reason, that I'm not sure I could untrain myself. So does this theory then also conclude that statins are useless - if cholesterol does not increase risk of heart disease, there's no reason to lower it?
No, I don't think so. I think what they are saying is that what they were wrong in what causes high cholesterol. Bad LDL is still bad, if I am understanding things right.
Former Bad Ass
Whenever I tell my husband about a new study, he rolls his eyes and bitches about another study that will be contradicted by a future study. To him, until this shit is on the medical magazines (the real ones like the Journal of Family Medicine, etc.) his standards for fat consumption recommendations will remain the same.
Damaris
Well, both articles are from peer-reviewed medical journals. That doesn't really mean anything. Single studies always have biases. The first article however is a study of a bunch of randomized trials and cohort studies - so a study on a group of studies, which is more statistically relevant, typically (if well designed).
Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2014; 160 (6): 398-406 DOI: 10.7326/M13-1788
The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or -6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong? Open Heart, 2014; 1 (1): e000032 DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2013-000032
Compared to a lot of the "we studied 14 people and here are the shocking results" crap studies that get publicity, this study actually at least has a large dataset:
There were 32 observational studies (530, 525 participants) of fatty acids from dietary intake; 17 observational studies (25, 721 participants) of fatty acid biomarkers; and 27 randomized, controlled trials (103, 052 participants) of fatty acid supplementation.
Well, both articles are from peer-reviewed medical journals. That doesn't really mean anything. Single studies always have biases. The first article however is a study of a bunch of randomized trials and cohort studies - so a study on a group of studies, which is more statistically relevant, typically (if well designed). Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2014; 160 (6): 398-406 DOI: 10.7326/M13-1788 The cardiometabolic consequences of replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates or -6 polyunsaturated fats: Do the dietary guidelines have it wrong? Open Heart, 2014; 1 (1): e000032 DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2013-000032
There are so many medical journals, they don't really mean anything. He only follows guidelines that come out of the real journals, whichever those are, LOL.
But the doctors are like that. Until it is approved and commented by the AMA, it's only one more study that does not prove something 100%. Or is disproven soon thereafter.
Smaller By The Day
What did I say in the thread about protein? This stuff changes constantly. Moderation goes a long way. Eat a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and don't stress yourself into a heart attack.
Improvements
Weight 100 pounds lost
5K 31:02 Sept. 2012 / 23:36 Sept. 2013 (Same Course)
10K 48:59 April 2013
HM 2:03:56 Nov. 2012 / 1:46:50 March 2013
MARATHON 3:57:33 Nov. 2013
Sure, it would be pointless for a doctor to change his mind with every study. lol
That said, there's a good deal of evidence and the American Heart Association is taking notice, so I have to wonder if things will change soon (soon being relative to how fast things things actually do change, of course).
I don't condone the binging on bacon, in either case.
Nothing changes. It's just that lots of people design crappy studies and then think it proves something when it doesn't.
mmmmm. Bacon.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).