It is frightening to think that such a fundamental piece of public policy is based on the "correlation is not causation" fallacious thinking.
Is there no one in power who is in the habit of actually thinking before approving actions?
Add to that the fact that recommendations are based on erring on the side of caution, and that tight correlations do become predictors of an outcome, then you have a recipe for these recommendations. Nothing bad is going to happen by reducing saturated fat intake, for the most part, but there is a chance of it if intake is excessive, and in fact saturated fat intake is a fairly strong predictor of future heart incidents.
From what I've read, it depends on what you eat instead. For example, as the article says:
"a JAMA study revealed that a 'low fat' diet showed the greatest decrease in energy expenditure, an unhealthy lipid pattern, and increased insulin resistance (a precursor to diabetes) compared with a low carbohydrate and low glycaemic index (GI) diet."
heart disease correlated with total cholesterol
then
total cholesterol correlated with saturated fat consumption
Industry lobbying as a theory lacks predictive power.
Smoking, cocaine, stress, these things cause heart disease. Saturated fat probably isn't even a minor issue as it relates to heart disease. Every day, millions of Americans take a pill to reduce cholesterol when it's not even an issue. But don't expect that to ever change no matter how many doctors start saying saturated fat isn't the major issue.
I'm on the fence on saturated fat, but it is an issue that is being debated by people who on both sides want to discover the best diet for preventing disease and lengthening life.
Also, I said nothing about them wanting to cause disease, I said they wanted to prescribe a pill to fix it, glossing over the known issues with the pill (statins in this case) in populations with no elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. I don't have any hard evidence of this other than the fact that in 2005, 29.7 million people in America purchased statins.
Why are you on the fence? What evidence have you seen that causes you doubt that saturated fats are unrelated to heart disease?
http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st205/s...
Doctors (in Australia at least) prescribe when your risk (calculated on your cholesterol, smoking, stress, exercise, etc) is lowered by reducing your cholesterol, and dietary restriction hasn't worked (i.e. your liver just isn't as good as it used to be). Is that not how its done in the U.S?
It's becoming difficult to find products with "all" the fat (vs "low/reduced" fat). Prime example for me: chocolate milk. It's pretty rare nowadays that I ever see anything over 1% milk used in it -- and of course the label touts the low fat formulation, but doesn't mention there's more sugar pumped in it than a can of soda.
Even if this was healthier than full-fat/less sugar chocolate milk, I'd still resent it. Chocolate milk is a treat, not a dietary staple. People should know that. Make it that way, market it that way.
But it's starting to look like it isn't healthier. Which makes the marketing more misleading and the formulation pretty ironic.
The effect is basically the same but I find it easier from a discipline perspective to focus on including more high fibre foods (even in "treats" and dessert foods) thank I do to "cut out" things that I enjoy.
I also really dislike sweet things, so I'm with you 100% on the rest of the content too. I'd probably like chocolate milk if it weren't so nauseatingly sugary.
http://theconversation.com/its-not-even-debatable-saturated-...
eg. "This cause and effect is now beyond reasonable doubt; science shows (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8043072) that high levels of cholesterol cause arterial damage and this, in turn, causes coronary heart disease."
The linked paper and the comments to that paper disputing the findings completely contradicts the author's "beyond reasonable doubt" argument.
I don't have a "team" in this debate, personally I wish scientists would put their pride aside, stop the furious debating and find a definitive answer. I'm just pointing out an obvious flaw in this response.
http://garytaubes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Science-The...
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
---
Edit: Wed->Thu
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/professor-says-abc-cat...
Was this piece supposed to be science or it is entertainment-journalism? The latter, I think. (I.e. it is not the abstract of any particular research study.)
I'm not saying the anti-anti-saturated fat recommendation is wrong. I'm saying this piece is just another opinion, which adds nothing to my understanding. Obviously the vast majority of educated and well-intentioned physicians disagree with their recommendation.
Traditionally for centuries people in India have been consuming coconut oil, ghee, etc which are supposed to be high in saturated fats and never had problems. After globalization (1992), the food industry in here changed a lot as well. The business promotion and the usage of refined oils increased which is good for business, nevertheless not for health. These days, diabetes, heart attacks and other such illness are very common even among 20+ and 30+. The Indian food industry is one in which India (as a society) failed to nurture and preserve its rich, diverse and healthy food culture.
Aloo curry over white rice - nothing healthy about that, whatever oil you use to cook it in.
The clinical Mediterranean diet is low in saturated fat. In one of the landmark papers measuring the effects of the Mediterranean diet on CVD risk, the "prudent" Western-style diet used as a control has 11.7% of calories from saturated fat, while the experimental Mediterranean diet has 8.0% of calories from saturated fat [1]. This diet is actually within the 10% limit the article references as out-of-date advice from the 1970s.
Another large intervention study has the calories from saturated fat on a Mediterranean-style diet falling from 13.7% before intervention to 8.0% after intervention [2], again below the 10% limit.
I am not at all suggesting that the Mediterranean lowers the risk of CVD because it is low in saturated fat. It just seems odd to use it as an example of saturated fat not being linked with CVD risk without addressing the fact that the Mediterranean diet is relatively low in saturated fat, and that intervention studies using the Mediterranean diet typically reduce the % calories from saturated fat in the intervention group.
It also seems odd to use the Mediterranean diet as an example in an article that paints refined carbohydrates as a major CVD risk factor. While the Mediterranean diet is relatively higher in whole-grain carbohydrates [2], it still includes lots of refined-carbohydrate foods (think pasta), and it introduces so many other dietary changes, particularly a vast increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables [2], that one can't assume that the increase in whole grains particularly is the source of the diet's protective effects against CVD risk.
[1] http://www.drhirani.com/Assets/lyonfinalreport.pdf
[2] http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=199488
This show was quite interesting. Makes a very similar case: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm
Adopting a Mediterranean diet after a heart attack is almost three times as powerful in reducing mortality as taking a statin, writes Malhotra.
choose one
