.

[Ego]

Interesting article on saturated fat:

http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-and-butter/

A few things:

1) About the author from his website:

Kris is a nutrition researcher with a Bachelor’s degree in medicine. He has spent years reading books, blogs and scientific studies on nutrition. Evidence-based nutrition is his passion and he plans to devote his career to informing people about it. He stays fit by lifting weights, taking walks and eating real food.

I have to admit, I didn't know there was such a thing as a a bachelor's in medicine. He sells access to his "members area" of the website at $5 a month.

2) Regarding saturated fat, he quotes the two studies that the Harvard researchers say were flawed because they substituted saturated fat with simple carbs. Yes, both are bad. He then quotes a study that shows what he calls a small improvement if you substitute saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat. He then turns around and says,

"Overall, the evidence seems pretty clear that saturated fat is not bad."

What? In the sentence before that he links to a study that says it IS bad. Hum.

3) According to the lead of the Harvard study, “Our research does not exonerate saturated fat,” said Hu. “In terms of heart disease risk, saturated fat and refined carbohydrates appear to be similarly unhealthful.”

4) The problem is that there may be more immediate, externally-obvious benefits like those mentioned by GandK that result from saturated fat intake, but evidence is showing that the increased intake come with long-term costs.

Instant gratification is tempting. I prefer the long view.

[Chad]

Oh, he is definitely questionable. I should have been clearer. I was posting it for the middle part with the linked studies, which are interesting. Though, they aren't perfect, as you point out.

[Chad]

The website is backup so, here is the podcast about saturated fat and LDL I was talking about earlier:

https://foundmyfitness.com/news/s/egkyx ... ined_carbs

He was also part of the Chori bar study (I've mentioned the study before). Here is some background info on him:

http://www.chori.org/Principal_Investig ... rview.html

This research seems much more realistic than the research demonizing saturated fat, as it backs up my own experience. I changed my diet this year to a higher fat/protein and lower carb. Roughly 25% carb, 40-45% fat, and 30-35% protein. The fat make up is mostly from olive oil, macadamia nut oil, and high fat dairy/butter (not more than 1 tablespoon a day, but usually about 2/3 tablespoon), while the carbs are almost all from vegetables and fruit (virtually no grains, even high fiber ones). This was a change from a 40% carb, 30-35% fat and protein diet, which included grains. This improved my blood markers and let me lose weight. (Note: I usually have a cheat day a week for social activities.)

I'm very skeptical of researchers still supporting the higher carb diets. This doesn't seem to match modern research or my direct experience.

[Ego]

The website is backup so, here is the podcast about saturated fat and LDL I was talking about earlier:

https://foundmyfitness.com/news/s/egkyx ... ined_carbs

He was also part of the Chori bar study (I've mentioned the study before). Here is some background info on him:

http://www.chori.org/Principal_Investig ... rview.html
.

I've been trying to download the podcast today with no success. I'll try again tomorrow. I did read the study he quotes.

While googling him I found his resume online.

http://www.wcir.org/WCIR_CV/Krauss_Ronald_CV.pdf

Page 3, Major Grant Support is interesting reading: I only included a few below.

Principal Investigator, National Dairy Council/Dairy Management, Inc., DMI #1875, “Association of Dairy Consumption with Lipoprotein Subfractions and Cardiovascular Disease in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study,” 2009 – 2010

Principal Investigator, National Dairy Council/Dairy Management, Inc., DMI #01719, “Changes in LDL and HDL with Increased Intake of Saturated Fat from Dairy Foods in Individuals with Atherogenic Dyslipidemia and LDL Subclass Pattern B,” 2008 – 2010

Principal Investigator, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association “Lipoprotein Effects of Substituting Beef Protein for Carbohydrate,” 2007-2009

Back in the late 1980s before he was funded by Cattleman and Dairy groups, he published a study critical of high fat diets...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3024477

In the early 2000's he started speaking at dairy and meat industry events. Would someone get paid for something like that?

The study quoted in the podcast was funded by The National Dairy Council.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/mar/krauss2.htm

....and was pummeled in the same journal...

pdf. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.full.pdf

His institute at UCSF http://livercenter.ucsf.edu/members/rkrauss.html

Funded by the National Dairy Council since 1989, the overall objective of our Institute is to delineate genetic and metabolic factors responsible for individual variation in susceptibility to the effects of dairy fat on cardiovascular disease risk.

[Chad]

Good catch on his sponsor. Though, it's exceedingly difficult to find any researcher who doesn't have some factor biasing them, but it's a very valid point.

The criticism in the journal seems to suggest we need to confirm all this and expand it to other factors. Isn't that the issue with every health study? Isn't that why we don't just have one a hard answer?

For instance:

Do these traits predict CHD risk independently of established major metabolic risk factors such as adverse total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), body mass, and hyperglycemia/diabetes?

All good questions, but would seem difficult to answer in any one study. Though, there seems to be a lot of studies supporting the loss of body mass and reduction of glucose readings by increasing fat and decreasing carbs. I know that's personally the case for me, as I have been measuring my body composition and blood markers over the last 8 months (BP, resting pulse, HDL, LDL, triglycerides, glucose, etc.). My diet* changes also coincide with increased exercise, so obviously there are multiple variables at work. If I had to rate which ones impacted my health the most it would be:

#1 - Calories consumed
#2 - Exercise
#3 - Higher fat ratio diet. Though, not Atkins or Paleo level. I kind of describe it as a cross between Mediterranean and Paleo.

I am going to continue to track everything going forward. It will be interesting to see how the blood markers fare over the long-term. While, I'm not that interested in the weight loss part of it, as I'm extremely confident that will continue until I hit a lower body fat level.

Some further studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734

Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.

One question from this one would be the amount and ratio of poly to saturated fat. Also, it should be mentioned that slightly higher chlosterol may not be bad if it's higher HDL and higher LDL large particle, which is what other studies have suggested saturated fat does.

As a side note, this review of studies suggests the correlation of high saturated fat to heart disease isn't strong even in the studies that suggest the correlation.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... rease.html

One of the longest-running, most comprehensive and most highly cited observational studies, the Framingham study was organized by Harvard investigators and continues to this day. When investigators analyzed the relationship between saturated fat intake, serum cholesterol and heart attack risk, they were so disappointed that they never formally published the results. We know from multiple sources that they found no significant relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol or heart attack risk***.

This one basically backs up the study in my previous post. Yes, it's funded by organizations with an interest in saturated not being demonized.
https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/st ... -in-blood/


*I wanted to break my diet down further than just the "25% carb, 40-45% fat, and 30-35% protein." That 40% in fat isn't all saturated fat by any means. Though, I did replace any non/lowfat dairy with the full fat version and I use about a tablespoon of butter every day at dinner. I usually hit around 30g of saturated fat a day. Though, the day or two a week I eat beef bumps that up to high 30s in saturated fat. So, obviously I'm not eating a ton of saturated fat in the 45% fat portion of my diet.

[IlliniDave]

*I wanted to break my diet down further than just the "25% carb, 40-45% fat, and 30-35% protein." That 40% in fat isn't all saturated fat by any means. Though, I did replace any non/lowfat dairy with the full fat version and I use about a tablespoon of butter every day at dinner. I usually hit around 30g of saturated fat a day. Though, the day or two a week I eat beef bumps that up to high 30s in saturated fat. So, obviously I'm not eating a ton of saturated fat in the 45% fat portion of my diet.

This is very close to the "Zone Diet", where in terms of calories its about one-third each for protein/carbs/fat. Like you, I do personally better with a somewhat fewer carbs and near elimination of grains and starchy veggies. Had large improvements in blood lipids and BP when I made the switch. My MD thought I was lying about having thrown out the cholesterol meds she'd prescribed, even though my improvement was 2-3x anything she'd ever seen with the drug in question. This switch came right on the heels of 6-months fastidiously adhering to the American Heart Association nutrition guidelines for at-risk patients (during which I got worse). That experience is why I am unwilling to blindly accept scientific "consensus" on a topic. Those guys were trying to kill me in order to maximize their revenues from my drug consumption! Always follow the money.

Dr. Sears (Zone guy) is sort of anti-saturated fat (favors fish oil, nuts, olive oil omega-3s). But his book is 20+ years old and he may have modified due to newer research. Don't remember the source but I remember reading that there's some sort of optimum with about 50% of fat from saturated animal fat, and 50% fat from the various "healthy" unsaturated sources (fish, olive, nuts, etc).

[jennypenny]

Sort of related ... Last spring, the FDA went after KIND bars for having too much fat to call themselves "healthy."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/15/news/co ... index.html

"Nuts ... contain nutritious fats that exceed the amount allowed under the FDA's standard," the company said in a blog post. "This is similar to other foods that do not meet the standard for use of the term healthy, but are generally considered to be good for you like avocados, salmon and eggs."

[Ego]

@Chad, So it sounds like we agree that refined carbs should be avoided because they cause heart disease. No question. Also you said, "As a side note, this review of studies suggests the correlation of high saturated fat to heart disease isn't strong even in the studies that suggest the correlation". The new study I quoted above says the effect is similar to that of refined carbs.

It seems this is where we disagree. We agree that evidence shows that saturated fat is correlated with heart disease. We disagree on just how bad it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[Chad]

@IlliniDave
I guess it is kind of close to the Zone Diet. Though, that wasn't actually the basis for the creation of my current diet. I created mine based on some overall rules/guidelines, such as:

- Fat is fine to eat, even saturated fat. Just make sure it's from good sources (olive oil, nuts, seeds, grass fed beef, eggs, fatty fish, etc.).
- Keep calories roughly in the 2000-2500 per day range. This prevents over eating of the above, as nuts and seeds can add up quickly.
- Eliminate low nutrition foods. This basically eliminates grains, even multi-grain products with little processing. Obviously, it eliminates processed foods. It also means carbs are fine if they are from vegetables and fruits, which means the total amount of carbs will be low. Though, I do stay away from potatoes, but I do have a sweet potato every now and then. They actually have a significant amount of nutrition.

These rules along with my personal tastes and my blood work led me to my current diet.

I had the same improvement in my blood work like you had with your cholesterol. I went from high in almost every marker to low-middle in every marker in about 3 months (could have been sooner, but didn't have my blood tested before that). Luckily, my doctor was supportive of the dietary changes even before my good blood work came in. Very supportive.

@jp
Yeah, I don't have any doubt the old food pyramid is debunked. It seemed to be created to focus on food that can be easily stored for long periods of time and easily produced. Not what actually provided nutrition.

[Chad]

@Ego
Yeah, we are probably closer than further apart on this issue. Though, I don't think a normal/non-extreme amount of saturated fat is bad for you at all. I actually think it's good for you. I don't think that only eating eggs, beef, cheese, etc., like Atkins, is good either, but most extremes of any kind aren't.

I also don't think that most health studies are very well managed. Including the ones I actually rely on. They leave too many other variables out of the equation. Though, I do think we can glean bits and pieces from these studies. For example, the study done with Chori bars, which I have mentioned in the past. Taking very unhealthy people and just adding in a bar with high nutritional value improved their blood work and caused weight loss. This seems to suggest the nutritional value of the food should be a primary guideline in what to eat, which means not just the macros. Also, even though he was funded by the dairy industry, Krauss's conclusions about saturated fat improving the particle size of LDL is significant.

I do think you could eat the low processed grains (multigrain with high fiber naturally occurring not falsely added in) in a diet and be ok. It's just that they are very easy to overeat, as a piece of bread is less filling, less nutritious, and has more calories than an apple, orange, bell pepper, etc. Plus, if you have grain with every meal there isn't a lot of room left for vegetables and fruit with actual nutrition.

Part of my strong stance on saturated fat, and fat in general, is how stupidly demonized it has been. So, I probably go a little over board in support.

[IlliniDave]

Chad, don't know your degree of familiarity with the Zone diet. I encountered it first because it is the generic nutrition recommendation they teach new Crossfitters (not "Paleo", as some like to think). I followed it initially just because it made sense (I already knew I had issues with grains, sweets, and factory food). Later I read one of the books about it.

The mechanism Sears points to as its linchpin is insulin regulation, and it seemed to make a lot of sense in light of how I reacted to it. I don't think it's the be-all, end-all, as you're an example of there being many roads to Dublin. It's rigid enough that following it to the letter is tedious, and I really think it's advantageous to experiment and tailor nutrition to the individual, which I did over the course of a couple years.

These days I only follow it loosely, and bias my macro intake towards protein (insulin suppressing) and fat (insulin neutral) for reasons similar to those you state. As long as I'm in the ballpark of 1/3 or fewer calories from carbohydrates, my "numbers" stay pretty consistent, so I adjust it to taste and convenience. The sheer bulk of many healthy vegetables I'd have to eat to get 1/3 of my calories consistently can make me feel a little like Mr. Creosote (not to mention the whole greenhouse gas thing).

[Chad]

I'm not hugely familiar with the Zone Diet, but I knew of it. Though, I couldn't have told you the exact ratios of the macros he recommended. I did know it was roughly 1/3rd for each with a little more focus on one or two of them. I couldn't of told you which ones before I looked at the diet.

Interesting that he used insulin regulation as the linchpin, as it was one of the reasons I made some changes to my diet. A lot of studies suggest insulin is a major component of weight gain, health, longevity, etc.

I agree, we need to tailor nutrition to the individual. The averages are good to get us in roughly the right area, but then we need to experiment to see what works.

These days I only follow it loosely, and bias my macro intake towards protein (insulin suppressing) and fat (insulin neutral) for reasons similar to those you state. As long as I'm in the ballpark of 1/3 or fewer calories from carbohydrates, my "numbers" stay pretty consistent, so I adjust it to taste and convenience. The sheer bulk of many healthy vegetables I'd have to eat to get 1/3 of my calories consistently can make me feel a little like Mr. Creosote (not to mention the whole greenhouse gas thing).

That's kind of where I'm at, but without the gas (almost none). I don't really even pay attention to the macros that much anymore, as the way I eat almost automatically hits these rough percentages. It's hard to eat too many carbs when you remove the grains and processed foods.

[IlliniDave]

Chad, I don't know the exact ratios in terms of calories either. But it is built on "blocks" consisting of 10g carbs, 7g protein, and 3g fat, with the number of blocks/day scaled for gender, age, activity, and such. IIRC, for a typical moderately active adult male of average stature, intake would be about 14 or 15 blocks/day, at 3-4 blocks/meal. He's big on keeping to those ratios any/every time you eat, because the combination/proportion is the recipe to regulate insulin on a continuous basis. Like I said, I found it tedious to follow, and learned that if I just eliminate the "bad" carbs, consume protein/fat according to appetite, and then add good carbs up to whatever my mood allowed, I was pretty good.

[GandK]

From the journal of the American Academy of Neurology (published yesterday): Mediterranean diet and brain structure in a multiethnic elderly cohort

Among older adults, MeDi adherence was associated with less brain atrophy, with an effect similar to 5 years of aging. Higher fish and lower meat intake might be the 2 key food elements that contribute to the benefits of MeDi on brain structure.

[jennypenny]

From the NYTimes: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

Related from same: The Mediterranean Diet: Is It the Food or the Lifestyle?

[Chad]

Study suggests full fat dairy might be better than low/non fat:

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/146/1/81.abstract