Saturated fat is still considered bad for the heart and this may be why. A recent study showed that when consuming excess calories, that is, far more than required to maintain energy balance, there's a large difference in the effects of saturated vs. polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as omega-6.
Subjects who consumed 750 excess calories per day in the form of saturated fats had them stored primarily in the form of abdominal fat deposits, including visceral fat and more liver fat. In contrast, those who consumed their 750 excess calories in the form of polyunsaturated fats from sunflower oil (which is high in omega-6 containing 59% linoleic acid) gained more muscle mass and not nearly as much abdominal and total fat.
This study resolves some long standing controversies. First, it shows that saturated fat can be dangerous to the extent that it tends to increase abdominal obesity more than polyunsaturated fats. The fact that it also raises cholesterol may be merely coincidental. On the other hand, this effect only seems to happen when there's a positive energy balance, which suggests dietary saturated fat may not be harmful as long as energy balance is zero or negative.
It also explains why large studies don't show an association between heart disease and saturated fat intake when they include countries where there's no overconsumption of calories, as there is in many western countries.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/63/7/2356
Thanks for the link. The study participants here were young, lean and healthy, characteristics which have become increasingly uncommon in nutrition studies. There is at least as much to be learned from studying dietary impacts on healthy individuals as there is to be gained from trying to fix the metabolically dysfunctional.
@Doug Rife:
Both treatment groups in the study received their excess calories in the form of "muffins", e.g. refined carbs with either refined SFAs or refined omega-6s added. The word "overfed" implies that both groups were purposefully overeating past their natural satiety signals.
In contrast, naturally fatty foods containing SFAs among other nutrients (meat, fish, eggs) are inherently satiating to the appetite. One is much less likely to overeat, and more likely to achieve energy balance, when eating such satiating foods.
The title should clarify that it may aid the "male heart"....
Isn't both the ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 oils (as well as the amounts of each), really at the "heart" of the matter?
1
Does anyone know if eating foods with high amounts of Omega-6 causes high levels of Omega-6 in the blood? Sounds obvious but it seems like a crucial part of this study.
5
Hello LT. Yes, especially intake of the major omega-6 fatty acid, linoleic acid, correlates well with blood linoleic acid levels. So if you eat more foods that have high amounts of omega-6 fatty acids, linoleic acid levels in blood go up and vice versa.
1
I wouldn’t be surprised if minimally processed foods like nuts and seeds have a different effect on health than heavily processed vegetable oil.
2
Well, I'm glad that the news article included a link to the research article reported -- but it's behind a paywall, so unless I want to pay $44 to read it online, I'm out of luck. And that is too bad.
2
It's impossible to evaluate this study because we don't know the dietary sources of linoeic acid for these Finish men.
In America, the largest source of linoeic acid comes from processed foods: chicken, grain-based deserts, potato chips, corn chips, pizza, white bread, french fries, etc.
In Finland, the largest source may be fish.
5
Hello Josey. This is mentioned in the article, but unfortunately it is not openly available. In this study population a major source of linoleic acid was actually vegetable margarines. However, unlike in the USA, vegetable margarines even in the 1980s didn't contain significant amounts of trans fat in Finland.
Who paid for the study? What was their agenda?
7
Hello Scott. There wasn't any specific funding for this study, not from the industry or from any other source. Most authors are faculty of the University of Eastern Finland.
1
This just in, uncovered from the annuals of ancient texts found in Africa.
Stone Age people found out that eating everything in moderation is good for your health whether it be lard from slain animals to tasteless roots and berries they found.
The lard seemed to give them heartburn if they ate too much whereas the berries did not, so they adjusted their diets accordingly.
6
Paragraph 2, "It has been believed that omega-6s generally increase inflammation." Nobody with an ounce or a gram of nutritional knowledge believes that.
To quote from Dr Michael Colgan's "Little book of fat loss", "Omega-3 and omega-6 essential fats are essential because they are the only two forms of fat your body cannot make. You have to get them from your diet. Living omega-3 and omega-6 fats are required for oxygen uptake, formation of hemoglobin, insulin metabolism, and the structure of all cell membranes."
2
Would you agree that we should NOT get omega 6 from vegetable oils?
2
@Svirchev:
One of those essential functions of omega-6 fatty acids is to make inflammatory chemical signals. One of those essential functions of omega-3 fatty acids is to make anti-inflammatory chemical signals. This is widely-known biochemistry, contrary to your assertion. They compete for the same enzymes in some pathways, so it is a plausible (but not proven) mechanism by which an excess of dietary omega-6 could cause inflammation.
2
The key point you miss sir is the ratio of the two. Healthy =1:1; most modern diets it’s 20:1 with elevated Omega 6 upregulating hormonal signals lead to a host of inflammatory diseases.
3
OK, I have an honest question here...about peanut butter. Where I come from (Europe), peanut butter is considered absolute junk because it is high in Omega-6 fatty acids and most people already have more than enough of that in their diets. Here in the U.S. it is considered healthy. I know that a lot depends on the overall make-up of one's diet but does anyone have any thoughts on this?
5
Most of the common brands of peanut butter in the U.S. are loaded with sugar.
Give the no sugar or salt-added almond butters a try--they are a step up from peanut butter, albeit more expensive.
Almond butter sandwiches are what I pack for the airport--they don't spoil and they stick to one's ribs.
3
Peanuts are legumes and thus high in protein and fiber. They are healthy for me, since I eat a low carb diet due to my diabetes. Given that the other legumes are healthy for people, I'd expect peanuts to be healthy for most people.
I buy unsweetened peanut butter, no need to add sugar of any kind to such a tasty treat.
And really, I think the only truth about nutrition that seems to hold up is eat lots of plants.
17
I agree with you. Total junk and dangerous.
This isn't new information....It's like a new study proving the Earth goes round the Sun.
Plant based diet = Good for you.
Junk / processed food = Bad for you.
You should have just asked me. I could have saved you going to all this trouble.
5
99% of plants will kill you.
99% of animal based will not.
I agree with you on Junk/processed.
Vegetable Oil alters your DNA.
2
You are basically right Tom but I would adjust it slightly, eating more than a small amount of junk food is bad for you.
Eating it in moderation is pure heaven.
2