We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER diet controversy in the news.
Frequently in recent years we’ve heard competing reports of how saturated fat may or may not be causing heart disease. In the era of fake news it’s no wonder that the public is confused.
Who could blame people for switching off from official guidelines when it seems like those who are meant to be “in the know” can’t even agree on how one nutrient affects our health?
The latest controversy started with the publication of an article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine by three doctors. They boldly declared that “saturated fat does not clog arteries” and that the answer to avoiding heart disease was in fact to eat “real food”, exercise more and not get stressed. Simple. Or is it?
Do these claims stand up?
These headline-grabbing claims certainly caught people’s attention but do they stand up?
While promoted in some quarters as “new research” the article was actually an opinion piece containing no new evidence. Opinion does not equal fact.
The handful of studies referenced in the article were cherry picked to support the authors’ view and have already been debunked by trustworthy bodies several times. The claims being made are actually misleading and just add to the confusion in people’s minds.
To complicate matters, not all evidence is created equally. The studies included in the article were generally of a poor standard. While realising that most people are not scientists, it’s helpful to realise that scientific studies vary hugely in quality. We can all appreciate that research in lab rats for a week or two may not directly translate to us humans.
Nutrition research is particularly complex
However, nutrition research is really complex for lots of reasons. We don’t eat nutrients on their own but as part of a package in food so it’s hard to tease out exactly which nutrient has a certain effect.
Also, we’re looking at people’s dietary behaviour and unsurprisingly, no matter how well research is designed, participants in these studies don’t always tell the truth (or at least the whole truth).
Top quality studies of tens of thousands of people worldwide over decades have proven the link between diets high in saturated fat and high levels of blood cholesterol. They have also clearly shown that high blood cholesterol levels significantly increase our risk of heart disease.
What even is “real food”?
So, what about the call to eat “real food”? On the surface it may sound like sensible advice. But what is real food? There is no definition. It implies that there are also “fake foods”.
Is fruit “real” but cake is “fake”? This description is really unhelpful and feeds into the current trend for clean eating, vilifying certain foods or nutrients while holding others aloft as symbols of virtue.
This message judges people for the foods they choose but in fact all food choices are valid. Food is about so much more than nutrition. We eat it not just for fuel but for pleasure, and for social, cultural and emotional reasons too.
Food and nutrition guidelines need to be grounded in robust science but also in the context of a positive healthy relationship with food and our bodies.
Janis Morrissey is a registered dietitian and has an Honours BSc in Human Nutrition and Dietetics from DIT Kevin St/Trinity College Dublin and a MSc in European Food Regulatory Affairs from the University of Ulster. She is a member and past president of the Irish Nutrition and Dietetic Institute, the professional body for dietitians. She is Head of Health Promotion and Community Presence with Irish Heart.
Isn’t this an opinion piece? Opinion does not equal fact.
@Sandra Turner: thought same – she states that these studies were not of good quality whilst that may be true it’s subjective and she’s stating it as fact rather than opinion.
I do agree that there is fact that show high cholesterol and sat fat = heart disease and lesser life
@Sandra Turner: It’s not her opinion that the “saturated fat does not clog arteries” piece was an opinion piece.
That’s a fact.
@Chris Finn: Sorry its all fake. Cheap processed oil replaced real animal fat which was healthy. Remember Lard years ago. Now they replaced with cheap Rape seed oil. The farming industry makes a fortune using rape so they are not going to tell you the damage its doing. Then put hydrogenated fat into the mix and you have massive toxic food. Oil is liguid but to make it solid they squirt hydrogen into it then its sets like butter, They add colouring and flavouring and sell it as healthy margarine or flora or even butter. Next time you pick up any brand butter look at the back. I bet you ten to one its say vegetable oil is the most percentage. In other words cheap oil not butter. The butter you buy in tubs is not real butter. The stuff in the tin foil is real butter. Utterly butterly and all those misleading labels are all lies. Its processed margarine posing as butter and people don’t even know it. Don’t believe me look at the label. You’ll see its mostly oil. The food industry is based on massive lies.
@Christopher Gardiner: sensible comment
@Christopher Gardiner:
“Then put hydrogenated fat into the mix and you have massive toxic food”
Granted, trans-fats have been heavily linked with coronary heart disease – you should avoid those (often an ingredient in margarine). However, if you can get trans-fat free margarine it can be healthier than regular butter (which is mostly saturated fat).
This is because trans-fat free margarine will contain unsaturated fats rather than saturated fats (the latter being linked with major LDL rise and therefore atherosclerosis).
Eat natural unprocessed food. Margarine is poison
@Malachi: Transfats are illegal in the EU. Why are you advocating “get trans-fat-free margarine”? Margarine is poison. Your comment is contradictory and basically rubbish. Atherosclerosis is not the result of consumption of saturated fat.
@Chris Finn: this is the first time that I actually wanted the red thumbs back….
@Declan McArdle: “Transfats are illegal in the EU. Why are you advocating “get trans-fat-free margarine”? Margarine is poison.”
Trans fats aren’t illegal in the EU – someone’s been telling you porkies. They’re capped at 2%. That’s why I’m saying to avoid them – what’s hard about that?
As for margarine being “poison” – do you have any evidence that trans-fat free margarine is any worse for you than regular butter?
“Atherosclerosis is not the result of consumption of saturated fat.”
Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the topic, including the 2015 Cochrane review, say otherwise.
@Sandra Turner: agree, I think the authors goal might be better served if she provided a fact / study based article herself- instead of just another ‘opinion piece’ which she concedes is only adding to the public confusion , there are so many conflicting views about diet and vested interests promoting research studies that it is really not helpful if the articles are only more ‘opinion’ instead of facts
@Sandra Turner: Its her opinion as a dietician, or should that be nutritionist or healthfood provider some other ‘profession’ making a living from the lucrative advice industry. Maybe she is right, but their study was a largescale meta analysis, it deserves professional consideration before being shouted down. She offers no contrary evidence to their findings, so it is, as you say only anther opinion.
You have to work out what is best for you as an individual.
I had extremely high triglyceride levels, high blood pressure and am in a high stress occupation.
I followed medical advice. I reduced all dairy produce. I elimated all red meat from my diet. I ate more vegetables and salads. I had an almost fat free diet. I experienced a slight increase in all bad indicators.
A friend suggested to me that I might have too much sugar and starch in my diet. So, I took a different approach. I eliminated refined starches from my diet. I gave up all sugars, sucrose, dextrose, fructose and glucose.
I went for slow realise and unrefined fresh foods. In order to keep the hunger pangs under control, I increased dairy produce, eggs, red meat and foods with saturated fats.
Something odd happened. My triglyceride levels plummeted, my hyper tension started a steady improvement, I had more energy, I started to lose significant weight and no longer had gnawing hunger pangs. My health has improved immensely.
My GP thinks that I am a freak of nature. He thinks that this strange diet of higher protein and higher fat, including saturated fats combined with lower carbs suits me for some odd reason. My fasting blood sugars are those of a young and healthy person. He accepts that all aspects of my health have undergone huge improvement.
The price is no spuds, no white bread, no white rice, no white pasta, no cakes and buns, no confectionary.
So, it may be that generalisation is bad. It may be that different matobolisms and different life styles react differently to different foods.
@Tony Daly: You are normal and proof that the late Dr. Atkins was correct. Also as the late Dr. Nelligan a cardiologist from the Mater Private said “half our cardiac patients have high cholesterol and half had low cholesterol” go figure…
When supermarkets have the solution you know it’s BS.
@Tony Daly: I’m not surprised at all Tony that’s exactly the diet Dr David Perlmutter recommends he’s a leader American Neurologist and a New York Times bestselling author. Google him his books are on Amazon I’ve read them he also has a website blog under his own name. I’m the same lost lots of weight more energy etc
Our Grannies and Grandads ate whatever the hell they wanted and enjoyed their food. Nowadays people are having panic attacks if they read food labels!
@Paul Radburn: You got it in one and they ate all fatty foods. They didn’t eat fake hydrogenated vegetable oil like we are.
@Paul Radburn: if it has more than 5 ingredients, don’t buy it. If it has ingredients you can’t even pronounce, never mind spell, don’t buy it.
@Paul Radburn: It might seem that way on the surface but there are some key differences between the generations. They didn’t have access to as much cheap fast food as we have. Meat was also much more expensive, so people are less of it. The additives in foods have changed in that they weren’t surounded by processed foods high in trans fat or added sugar or ready-made meals with other unhealthy additives. They didn’t even shop in supermarkets. They also weren’t as aware of the harm foods and lifestyles have on the body. Men dying of heart attacks in their 50′s was seen as part of life. Our generation expects to live to 75 or 80 at least.
So food and lifestyle choices carry more weight than they did 50 or 60 years ago.
@Declan McArdle: “If it has ingredients you can’t even pronounce, never mind spell, don’t buy it.”
That rules rules out ‘quinoa’ for most people, then.
Yep, when I was a kid, we were constantly being told to eat up the fat, that that was the best part.
@Harry Whitehead: Keen wha’?
@Christopher Gardiner: yes, but their food wasn’t contaminated in the same way it is now. Reading the labels shows that
Low fat diets have not worked and we have unprecedented levels of obesity. It’s time to revise and let go of the old myths. Vested interested who have been teaching the low fat creed aren’t the people to ask for an unbiased judgement .
@Catherine Sims: I followed a very low fat diet. It did not work.
I went for a high fat diet and lowered sugars and refined starch foods. It was a radical improvement.
I am only one individual. I may be unique. The point is that I respond well to fat and protein. I respond very poorly to sugars and refined starches.
I feel more and more hungry the more sugars and refined starches I take. I feel satiated by proteins and fat. Strange but true.
Of course, it might not work on 99.99999% of the population. It works on me.
@Tony Daly: I don’t think you are unique. I’ve lost a lot of weight cutting sugars but keeping high fats and so have many other people. I have very elderly relatives who ate high fat diets and never had heart issues in their late 80s and 90s. Sugar is the real enemy .
@Catherine Sims: “Low fat diets have not worked and we have unprecedented levels of obesity.”
This is a non-sequitur. The reason we have unprecedented levels of obesity is precisely because people keep eating ridiculously high-fat diets.
@Tony Daly: I eat all fatty foods and cut sugar as much as possible and I am losing more weight now then I did when I went to the gym.
@Malachi: low fat diets tend to be very high in sugar because much increased sugar levels are used to compensate for decreased palatability as a result of low fat.
As for health, I think that the mistake is making a one size fits all. Certain fats are essential to brain function. Small babies need high fat percentages. Humans will not thrive in very cold environments unless they have a high fat component in diet. The beneficial impact of the Mediterranean diet partly derived from olive oils and fatty nuts.
I suspect that diet has an individual component. Prescribing a low fat diet for everyone regardless of individual impact is favouring theory over practice.
We need to assess individual impacts and check out how individuals actually respond to different individual diets.
Diets which produce for an individual healthy blood sugar levels are likely suitable for that individual.
One thing to hear in mind. Fats don’t directly make you fat.
@Tony Daly: “low fat diets tend to be very high in sugar because much increased sugar levels are used to compensate for decreased palatability as a result of low fat.”
This is what you call a bad diet. I’m saying that if you cut down fats and don’t replace them with a terrible high sugar diet, you’ll benefit.
“One thing to hear in mind. Fats don’t directly make you fat.
True-ish. I’d be more worried about the risk of atherosclerosis (and thus heart attack/stroke) associated with eating a diet very high in fat. Even if you’re not outwardly getting fatter, you can be building up plaques on the lining of your arteries.
@Malachi: you are quite incorrect. People have eaten low fat diets for years and still ended up with heart disease and were obese.People were given bad advice. Eat that low fact yoghurt that’s actually loaded with sugar. Natural sugars are still sugars !!! My sons consultant told me specially to cut his carbs and let him have fats to keep his weight down. My son has a condition that means he has a tendency to be overweight despite regular exercise. You can the low fat establishment can continue to advocate all you like but it won’t make any difference. What individuals have know since Dr Mackarness and Atkins is that sugar is the problem. Not fat.
@Catherine Sims: ” People have eaten low fat diets for years and still ended up with heart disease and were obese.”
Obesity is probably more to do with caloric surplus than fat intake, sure. As for heart disease, I’m afraid the evidence is strongly linking certain fats (including animal fats) to high LDL and thus aterial plaque buildup, i.e. a form of heart disease.
I’ve already cited the studies that demonstrate the link between saturated/transfat intake and high LDL below if you would like to challenge your own opinions on the subject with medical evidence.
@Malachi: idiot. wrong
@Tony Daly: Honest to ballubas, where do we start? Of course your body does not respond well to sugars and starch, you are a human, you are a carnivore!
@Malachi: stop spouting rubbish please!
@Malachi: stop mixing up a carnivore diet and side-effects of trans fats
@Declan McArdle: Are you going to insult me or refute the studies I’ve cited that back my comments up?
The journal accusing another publication of having headline grabbing articles!
At least the other publication has an article which backs up the headline and not clickbait like the journal.
@stoned.walled: In fairness, this is a news article, not a research piece, and is geared towards the typical reader who is not qualified or focussed enough (at the time) to properly critique the article if it was actually written to proper research standards.
For this reason, it’s value and quality should be weighed against its peer, ie the news article that reported the proposal, not the actual research piece that it referred to.
The term ‘clog’ is misleading. Fat doesn’t just flow into our veins. Its processed and there is no link between fat and heart disease. Surgeons have been saying it for years in the US. Sugar is the demon that causes the damage. It caused oxidation which damages artery walls. So cut down big time on sugar and ignore the fat. You’ll find it extremely difficult as sugar is put into all processed foods. 5mgs is one tea spoon so look at your labels and judge for yourself. Its the so called food industry is poisoning us en masse. Why? Because sugar is cheap. Its cheap and it preserves food on the shelf longer so they can get more profits. Health is not their concern. They don’t care if we die. All they care about is profits.
@Christopher Gardiner: “there is no link between fat and heart disease”
That’s just not true. Disregarding the studies that prove the correlation for a minute, we know that certain types of fats will raise LDL levels, and cholesterol/triglyceride plaque buildup will occur in the arteries, narrowing the arterial lumen (WBC inflammatory response) and hardening the arterial walls. This decreases blood flow to the heart causing cardiac damage as it works harder to make up for low blood perfusion.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021915086900997
The evidence of this mechanism is quite strong.
They put sugar into everything now because it’s highly addictive and thus great for business. The food industry are now largely the equivalent of drug pushers, aided and abetted by corrupt political leaders, those who are supposed to protect us from this kind of thing, but who have been lobbied and bribed into turning a blind eye. It’s up to us as individuals now, you simply cannot rely on or listen to those who stand to make money on this issue. I personally, wouldn’t listen to any Americans on this issue – the state of their populace both mentally and physically is pretty damning. If you’ve become unhealthy and ill because of your diet and are confused by all the conflicting advice, the simplest thing I would recommend to do is just try and mimic your great grandparents lifestyle – more exercise, fresh air, longer periods of fasting, etc. Diet wise, stick to things like porridge, kippers, homemade veg soups or veg and meat broths, homemade soda bread, kerrygold butter, apples and meat/fish and two veg dinners. Drink milk, water and tea. I’ve also found that there’s no point in having a treat now and again these days either, because everything like that now is absolutely laced with highly addictive sugars, you’ll just start down the slippery road again and end up back where you started.
@TehJurolan: I forget eggs and cheese they’re both great too.
@Malachi: cholesterol is a fireman. You are causing your own blockages by eating processed carbs and sugar.
@Malachi: plaque is degraded cholesterol – the repairman – if you still eat marmalade on toast instead of bacon and eggs for breakfast your inflamed area will not get better. Stop blaming witnesses and focus on the perpetrator!
@Declan McArdle: What are these childish analogies for? The way you’re going on you’d swear homer simpson taught you physiology.
I’ve already gone into detail on the medical evidence, either address what the literature says or don’t bother – a million analogies about plasterers and firemen doesn’t affect the studies done linking fats to LDL rise and atherosclerosis.
@Malachi: Your so called “Evidence” has been soundly debunked by newer scientific evidence and studies. Try to keep up and keep
your mind open. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
@TehJurolan: you saw that video too? I am thin. Always was. So there for “can eat what I like”. My gp did bloods on me and he told me that my blood sugars were high. Total addiction to Coke and lucozade. He told me to watch a video the link below. He told me to watch it basically on how sugar works and what it causes.The video is shocking beyond belief. Low fat products do not work. They are full of sugar. I’ve never been on any diet or really consumed low fat products but am slowly learning to read the sugar content on labels and it’s frightening. Most of the sugar is in low fat stuff. That’s coming from me who hadn’t a clue really. The video is worth 35 mins of everyone’s time. Forget the candida part if you like. The rest is frightening.
I watched a Ch4 programme last week about obesity on the Pacific Island of Samoa rated to be the most obese people in the world. Perhaps doctors should then look at what Samoaan diet consists mainly of ie, sugar drinks and fatty meat. Not many Samoans these days grow or eat fresh vegetables it seems and diabetes is common in people from an early age. In fact life expectancy in Samoa is around the age of fifty. Even the undertakers say that a thirty five stone person needs a coffin twice the size of an ordinary person.
@Chris Kirk: You’ve answered you own question: sugar drinks.
@Declan McArdle: it wasn’t really a question, I was just referring to a television programme showing the affects of an unhealthy diet.
Fat intake does not equal cholesterol especially the bad type LDL (which in used in arterial plaque laydown). The majority of cholesterol in the body is manufactured by the body itself and little to do with fat intake. Its creation is all linked to inflammation in the body. What causes inflammation? Toxins, Refined carbohydrates, foods with high glycemic index, stress are among some of the main causes. Little to do with fat in your diet. In fact, eating animal protein along with the fat regulates the rate of digestive breakdown and blood sugar spiking. Go figure. Buts lets demonize fat in the diet because the food industry says so…….
@Ian Oh: “Fat intake does not equal cholesterol especially the bad type LDL”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Cholesterol is not a LDL – LDLs are low density lipoproteins, which carry cholesterol and other lipids in the blood. Cholesterol is a lipid, not a protein. Where are you getting your info?
Fat intake has indeed been strongly linked to cholesterol levels in the body:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
@Malachi, Of I have no idea what I am talking about. We can delve into science as deep as we want. Either way, Cholesterol has 2 main components. LDL and HDL which as you say are lipoproteins. LDL levels in your cholesterol have all to do with arterial plaque. I don’t think anyone disputes this. Where did I say Cholesterol is protein? Above I said: “In fact, eating animal protein along with the fat regulates the rate of digestive breakdown and blood sugar spiking.” ie when we eat meat, we should eat it all together, lean and fat as nature intended. Our breakdown, digestive processes and metabolism all work better if we do. In response to: “Fat intake has indeed been strongly linked to cholesterol levels in the body”, I would say yes according to flawed tobacco industry quality science from the 70′s, but of course I know nothing Mr. Pedantic Nit Picker..
@Ian Oh: “Cholesterol has 2 main components. LDL and HDL which as you say are lipoproteins.”
Again, what are you talking about? LDL and HDL are not components of cholesterol. They are not even the same type of biomolecule as cholesterol.
You said in your last comment: “Fat intake does not equal cholesterol especially the bad type LDL” – what did you mean by this? LDLs are not a type of fat, and they’re not a type of cholesterol.
“LDL levels in your cholesterol have all to do with arterial plaque.”
Grand. Now that we’re on the same page;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC372684/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2943062/#Sec2title
Saturated fat (which you’ll get from animal fats) will raise LDL relative to the same amount of any other nutrient except trans fats. So you’d agree that if saturated fats increase LDL levels, and LDL levels are associated with plaque buildup on the arterial walls, and thusly atherosclerosis, then eating too much saturated fat is dangerous? Yes? Great.
“we should eat it all together, lean and fat as nature intended.”
Nature doesn’t really plan for us living past reproductive age (see: natural selection), which is when atherosclerosis due to lipid plaque buildup is likely to cause problems. Not really a valid argument.
Your body already produces all the LDL you need to function – anything else is surplus to requirements and is dangerous as we’ve agreed.
“according to flawed tobacco industry quality science from the 70′s”
Er, no. That’s not how it works. Could I “debunk” the link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer by saying “oh it’s just environmentalists pushing their agenda with bad science” – but you need to actually show flaws in the study methodology for that argument to hold any water.
Could you please demonstrate why the studies I linked above that show a relationship between saturated fat intake and LDL levels are flawed? Thanks in advance.
@Malachi: @Malachi: Errr: flawed tobacco industry quality science from the 70′s refers to when the tobacco industry used medical science to “prove” that cigarette smoking was good for your help with the full asisstance and cooperation of medical doctors. http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62a7-fe6e-4c5b-9fed-a33cc6e4bd7c%7D/cigarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved.
@Malachi: Much like the myth of saturated fats being bad for you from flawed studies. You love links to studies so here’s an article with plenty of backup. https://authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/ And as pubmed says in a concluding report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20888548 “The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy.” So there you have medical sciences own conclusion.
@Malachi: Of course there are bad fats, but they are the very ones that have been promoted as healthy for years which was simply untrue, ie margarine, vegetable oils, all spreads and hydrogenated oils to name the main offenders. Natural butter and coconut oil are excellent saturated fats which are good for your health. I’m not going to bother listing links. You can look up the many studies on the health benefits of coconut oil, but here’s a taster: http://www.well-beingsecrets.com/health-benefits-of-coconut-oil/. All from a saturated fat, horror of horrors!
@Malachi: You said: “LDL and HDL are not components of cholesterol.” but then agree that “LDL levels in your cholesterol have all to do with arterial plaque.” I think the above adequately displays how pedantic you are, so I’ll say no more about that. It speaks for itself. I don’t think the public care.
@Ian Oh: meant to say Fat intake does not equal high cholesterol……..etc.
@Ian Oh: meant to say Fat intake does not equal high cholesterol……..etc.
@Malachi: Wrong. Your liver will create whatever extra cholesterol you need if you haven’t had an eggstra few eggs or prawns this week. (see what I did there).
@Malachi: Of course fat and cholesterol are linked: long-chain fatty acids. (Honest to God, where do we get them from?)
@Ian Oh: The reason I agreed with your statement about “LDL levels in your cholesterol” was because I thought I’d already pointed out your incorrect terminology.
I wasn’t going to be overly “pedantic” and correct you twice on the same point. I understand what you were *trying* to say, but I was pointing out that you have no understanding of the physiology/biochemistry involved in heart disease because you’re using all of the terms completely incorrectly.
Your quote from pubmed is fair, studies will often differ but if you take them as a whole, fats (saturated and trans) have been implicated in LDL rise. Outlier conclusions don’t change that. If one study failed to find a correlation between smoking and lung cancer but tens of others did, would you throw out the conclusion of the latter?
@Declan McArdle: Where did I say fats and cholesterol weren’t linked? Cholesterol is a lipid – I’ve already stated that.
I said cholesterol wasn’t a type of LDL as has been implied here numerous times. Did you mix up cholesterol and LDLs as well? No worries.
@Malachi: So what do you do with the conclusions of the 2 studies mentioned in this article http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/01/15/two-major-studies-conclude-that-saturated-fat-does-not-cause-heart-disease/ which conclude SFA’s dont cause heart disease? Just ignore them and stick to the 50 year old mantra?
@Malachi: The word “cholesterol” is universally used. It can be used very specifically as its lipid component, or in a broader way to include its carrier protein components of LDL and HDL, hence lipo-protein. Doctors do this universal interchange with the word cholesterol all the time. Which context it is spoken about makes little difference to the context of this articles claim, so really on your part it’s just a ruse to dismiss me as “no understanding of the physiology/biochemistry involved in heart disease because you’re using all of the terms completely incorrectly.” I say Wup dee doo!! However I think I just may have a lot better understanding of fats good and bad at a metabolic level than you do even if I say so myself. Your tired mantra is outdated and obsolete at this stage.
@Ian Oh: “I think I just may have a lot better understanding of fats good and bad at a metabolic level than you do”
Doubtful. You can backtrack all you like on the cholesterol thing, I’ll take your word for it that you misspoke – more importantly you’re ignoring the meta analyses and systematic reviews that have been carried out (more recently than the supposedly “new” 2010 study you cited from the AJCN) that acknowledge that replacing SFAs with PUFAs leads to reduction in incidence of CHD in a population.
(I linked the two more studies from the AJCN that admit such but I think thejournal limits the amount of links I can post – I can get them for you if you’re interested)
A Cochrane review was done on the subject, which I highly recommend you look at if you are interested in excellent science – I’m not alone in considering Cochrane reviews to be gold standard work.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737/full
As I said, if you read the conclusions of nearly any study on this topic they will acknowledge the large body of evidence that shows replacing SFAs with PUFAs is beneficial in terms of CHD avoidance – even if the studies are skeptical of a SFA-CHD link.
Newer meta-analysis:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252
Cholesterol is the plasterer who comes along when your kid has punched a hole in the kitchen wall. He puts some splat on the wall and says: “I’ll be back in a few weeks, don’t do that again”. If you continue with sugar, processed carbs, frankenwheat, the cholesterol breaks down into gunk (plaque) and plastering again to try and repair it won’t work. This is why cholesterol (broken down) is found at the site of a cardiac event. This was observed repeatedly 50+ years ago and that’s why we are where we are today. It’s like blaming the firemen for every fire because they’re always there. [This article was referenced in the Irish Times last week, so there are bound to be a few new keyboard warriors with their own opinions cropping up] (Yes, here they are!)
Janis: But what is real food? There is no definition. It implies that there are also “fake foods”.
Well, yes in fact there is “Fake Food”.
Fake Food not Fast Food is the problem.
Trans Fats used extensively in processed food is fake food. It is artificial. It is industrially produced and is a fake fat not the same shape or molecular structure of natural fat.
US citizens consume 4.6 lbs / 2.2Kgs of this fake food every year.
Canadian study showed 6% of human breast milk was Fake food – trans fats!!
Banning Fake Food (Trans fats) from your diet can completely reverse Diabetes Type 2 in 7 months. Not easy to do, I admit, because Trans fats are in lots of processed foods … making them “fake food”.
Denmark banned Trans Fats in 2006
Switzerland banned Trans fats in 2009.
US will ban them from 2018 onwards.
Ireland …still counting trolleys!
Look at the DT2 stats for Denmark and Switzerland v high Trans Fats countries …
Fake Food not Fast Food is the problem. Ban Trans Fats …. watch the health budget tumble …
Real food – grown with the least interference from man, pesticides incl.
Fake food – too many to elaborate on as not open a can of warms…
A man eating only takeaways for month in en experiment didn’t feel all that well after only few days in. Sat. fat or something else entirely, you can’t go wrong with vegetables at any stage
Not the best quality but we’ll worth watching till the end
So the registered dietician and publicist disagrees with the Doctors. Enough said.
@John R: No. These doctors disagree with a lot of other doctors who agree with the dietician.
Nice try, though.
The low carb, high fat movement is gaining (bigly).
Anyone with an interest / weight or health issue should read Gary Taubes or Nina Teicholtz.
Dietician. Meh. Killjoy
@Kevin Slater: Right – what has medical evidence on nutrition ever done for us? Those silly dieticians and their facts.
My late great father always said ‘too much of anything is good for nothing’. . which I interpret, with all this daily changing “expert” opinion as, keep it varied, take it handy and dont get obsessed by anything!
@Declan Murray: as they say in Cork: “no feckin’ pockets in a shroud boy!”.
Arterial inflammation. Inflammation.
What makes the fat stick to the arteries is the effect of the protein on the arteries from the meat but what really clogs up the arteries is sugar.
Vegetarians are suppose to have the healthiest hearts?
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
Non-TCF/GVL Vendors
have your say