News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsSaturated fat goes mainstream
Arguably the most influential cardiology journal, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), published a paper from Dr. Ron Krauss, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Andrew Mente, and others. In it, the medical professionals call for a reassessment of the proposed “dangers” of eating saturated fat.
This is big. Really big.
“Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs, and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods,” the paper concludes.
Back in February, we wrote about a workshop with many of the same scientists. During this workshop, the clinicians concluded:
Meta-analyses of both adequately controlled randomized trials of saturated fatty acid reduction and observational studies have found no significant evidence for effects of dietary saturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease or total mortality.
This conclusion was big enough news to have esteemed mainstream scientists confirm that science does not support current guidelines that limit dietary saturated fat. But, for these scientists to then go further and have their paper published in the most mainstream journal, seems unprecedented.
Could this be a sign of a shifting tide?
The anti-saturated fat message is so deeply ingrained in medicine, and more specifically in cardiology, that I am not overly optimistic that beliefs will change quickly.
But articles, like this one published by the JACC, are crucial to help educate physicians about the evidence, or lack therefore, against saturated fats. Given that physicians have been misled for decades, it’s unlikely that their opinions on the matter will change overnight. But, for the sake of science and peoples’ health, we have to start somewhere.
As we have written before, large meta-analyses of saturated fat intake only find a minimal increased risk of heart disease with no difference in risk of dying. And this is without any of the nuances Dr. Krauss and colleagues call for.
Once you introduce the caveats of food-specific findings, the composition of the rest of a person’s diet, while also assessing small vs. large low-density lipoproteins (LDL — particles that transport lipids throughout the body), you can then see how the risk of saturated fat intake melts away.
This is the message we want to provide to more doctors, nurses, and nutritionists. This is the message we promote in our free CME course and in our evidence-based guide on saturated fat.
Please share them with your favorite clinician(s) today!
Thanks for reading,
Bret Scher, MD FACC
Earlier
Late dinner is worse for your health
Research shows higher-protein diets increase lean muscle mass
Low-carb diet (plus whey protein) improves health markers, study shows
Start your FREE 30-day trial!
Get delicious recipes, amazing meal plans, video courses, health guides, and weight loss advice from doctors, dietitians, and other experts.
Join now
9 comments
and we have seen the shenanigans over the curret dietary guidelines reviews: the lies, the evasion, ......... but one can just keep presenting the facts.
So they will keep denying; but please keep up the good work; if we can get mainstream doctors to gradually move; (by dog-leg education and following what their keto patients teach them!!!) ...... maybe we will make progress. all best wishes
The 1:1 Diet by Cambridge Weight Plan has been operating in UK for over 35 years. We make our own products which are high protein and low carbs with healthy fats. At last we now have the go-ahead from the NHS (National Health Service) who can recommend our diet and regime. :)
Thanks
This is linked in the opening sentence. If this isn't what you're looking for, let me know.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874
Funding by:
Danish Dairy Foundation
The European Milk Foundation
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/North Dakota Beef Council
Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Dairy Council
Dutch Dairy Organization
1. Research that reaches conclusions of any kind (e.g. pro or anti-fat) can be funded by organizations with vested interests. The funding per se does not invalidate the research. It’s only a problem if such funding - or organizational affiliations - are not disclosed, and / or if such interested parties tried to rig the results in their favor somehow.
2. It’s not just fat-validating studies that can get such support. The sugar industry has been shown to play a significant role in trying to get the health hazards of overconsumption of sugar downplayed or denied. Here is one example: https://time.com/3738706/the-sugar-industry-shaped-government-advice-...
So as long as A. All such industry ties are disclosed and B. It can be determined that the study itself was done properly, that is ultimately all that matters. (Along with assessing the research in terms of the hierarchy of evidence.)
The problem I see with plant-based diet / veganIsm / vegetarianism proponents is that they often are selective in pointing this out, even to the point of being counter-factual (for example, claiming with no evidence that Nina Teicholz is a shill for the meat industry).
There is also a certain nuance to the industry connections mentioned in the study, which I believe would also be lost upon (or willfully ignored by) plant-diet ideologues. To wit:
Co-author Anne Astrup does indeed engage in dairy industry-related work, as she rightly discloses. But she also notes the following.
“Advisory Board/Consultant for McCain Foods Limited and Weight Watchers.”
McCain Foods is (if we are to believe Wikipedia and the news article it cites) “the world’s largest manufacturer of frozen potato products.”
Weight Watchers has been trying sell the internal combustion engine model of human physiology (calories-in-calories-out), and promoting high carb consumption for decades:
https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/blog/food/pantry-staples
Co-author Dennis M. Bier had part of his expenses covered by Nestlé S.A, manufacturer of Kit Kat chocolate bars, Milo chocolate drink mix, and Buitoni pasta. So members of the carb-and-sugar industry are also related to the research, however indirectly. Those who would shout “Meat and dairy shill!” would need to engage in serious cherry-picking in order to try and make their case. (And they usually do.)
Another factor: Yes, corporate ties and NGO / NPO ties should be disclosed, but we also cannot pretend that government bodies are automatically disinterested actors who only have the good of the public in mind. So even research directly funded by government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) budgets is not inherently free of conflicts of interest. The USDA’s basic job is to protect the grain industry, and yet they are the ones supposedly qualified to tell us all what we need to eat or not eat to avoid getting cancer or heart disease. I’m not buying it. I agree with Tom Naughton on this point: Instead of “reforming the guidelines,” let there be a free flow of information so that people can make their own decisions. The study Dr. Sher has featured in this article is one part of the solution. Government agencies which promote politically motivated policies masked as “science” are part of the problem.
Of course being a child of the low fat generation it was hard or ME to get my head around.
It also leads into the "hottest" topic of low carb - LDL.
I can pretty much go to my doctor and argue with conviction and fact about the benefits of low carb.
The cholesterol LDL battle is a slightly tougher one when LDL goes up.
HDL and Triglycerides counts are a nice counter argument though.
I want to go to my Cardiologist (for AF) and argue to get off statins and accept a higher LDL level.
The last hurdle to the Low Carb maybe.
Love your work - Love DD.