Cooked fats are all kinds of unhealthy, period. There are no "healthy fats" from diet. They are either neutral or dangerous. The only fats, triglycerides. that are useful, are the ones you make, synthesize, yourself. Yes, like all the animals we too make fat.
@Oliver
Fats and fat-soluble vitamins are essential nutrients. You will literally die without any fat in the diet.
Lots of healthy populations and individuals out there who eat generous portions of naturally fatty foods.
1
Why would you call it “an otherwise well designed study” if there was a flaw in the design? If you didn’t like the conclusions you would have called a poorly designed study.
Nutrition is down to common sense, this week I’m home alone as rest of family are away and I KNOW I’m eating all the “wrong” things not to mention drinking 10x normal amount but next week back to sundried tomatoes, fruit and sparkling water and working out, my body “forgives” occasional excess, these scientific studies are a waste of time, tell us something we don’t already know please
Unfortunately I find these so called published studies have been paid for by a food company. Coconut oil has gotten a bad rap because canola oil producers were promoting their terrible oil as healthful. Coconut oil maybe saturated but is has many health benefits - sugar is the culprit. Combine sugar in the form of sugar or other carbs like bread, cookies, candy and you will have weight gain and health problems. Eat coconut oil with protein and vegetables and you will lose weight, gain energy, and improve your A1c and your brain.
8
I really feel I no longer know how to eat anymore. There are too many conflicting opinions, though I do respect Jane Brody and tend to agree with her opinion.
2
What's with the eternal over thinking in these articles and "studies". All that's needed is to look around. What do the obese folks have in their grocery cart? What do the obese folks eat at malls, airports, you name it? I observe sugary soda, the worst kind of processed snacks, burgers, fries, hot dogs and donuts. Basically, what you'll see as main offerings in average venues around the country. What fats are here? I bet you know.
Go ahead eat complex carbs including pasta. Add, in-season vegetables sauteed in EVO and, even a little cheese like Parmesan. Go wild with garden herbs and some toasted seeds and nuts as you please. You've got a year round, inexpensive meal that'll satisfy and keep you happy and healthy! If you're feeling giddy by now, there are some wonderful meat substitutes that with a bit of learning, opens another world of delicious and healthy options when you could use a little convenient meal. Yes, they are processed ( read labels to find the best ) ... they are a world away from the junk in those carts. And, if we're really getting carried away with options, you can learn to create amazing meals with, get ready, tofu! Mainstay of Asian culture.
Restaurants are culprits too, in this debacle of obesity and diabetes. They load up on the richest fats. And lots of it! Sure, once in awhile, but so many people are eating out as their main source for meals all year.
I've been doing this for decades. I expect to continue for several more!
7
This would have been nice to know before I got old and fat.
15
Never too late. Ditch sugar eat good oils like coconut, and olive. Lose sunflower and canola oil (and yuck what a nasty taste!)
Moderate protein and fresh vegetables. Need to lose weight stop eating beside obvious sugary foods -those with high carb count like pasta, bread, cereal, chips. Say it can’t be done? There are thousands doing it and when you watch weight melt off, and you lose ar5ritic pain, your A1c goes down, you don’t need blood pressure meds or diabetic medication. Trust me you will be a convert! You will feel like you’re a 30 year old! Try it now is the time to feel amazing!!
And again, not a single word about heating polyunsaturated fats, which are unstable when heated. They are healthy on a salad, but toxic in your fried vegetables.
9
What’s ironic is that most of the studies showing that saturated fat or red meat are bad don’t control well enough for the other foods eaten, either. Most of the studies that make a low fat diet sound great compare it to a high fat, high sugar, highly processed diet. Yes, they are plagued by confounding factors. I’ve also not seen any large enough studies to assess the quality of the saturated fats eaten (which varies even in a single food type like beef based on how it’s produced) — a huge confounding factor and one that could have a huge impact.
The fact is that we’ve jumped prematurely to guide American health based on conclusions made from data that’s incomplete. We continue to make the cholesterol mistake, that is, blaming something that seems obvious and right without fully understanding the mechanisms.
4
It is nice to read an article that moves us closer to understanding the effects of fat consumption, but there more to explore.
For example, while you touch on what is consumed to replace the calories contained in saturated fats, less is said about comparisons of diets where saturated fats (and, indeed another favorite of mine; drinking wine) are combined with fresh vegetables and fruits as opposed to with processed foods.
Our great diversity as individuals is also something that usually is given more lip service than real attention. So often it is mentioned, but then pushed back as exceptions are presumed to have genetic cause.
I hope we can do more nuanced research both to help make us healthier and to make the conclusions more believable to laymen such as myself.
As an example, I am 81 and my wife is almost 80 with no history of family longevity . We drink 4 to 5 quarts of whole milk, eat 2 dozen eggs (cooked in butter) and eat over a pound of cheese a week, and have for decades.
We, limit processed/preserved foods as mush as possible, and then to foods preserved by my wife. Our diet resembles those we found in Southern France and Northern Italy (with more red meat). The people there seemed to live longer and be more active when older. (BTW, my wife hasn't retired yet.)
So, to paraphrase Churchill (who "never drank before Noon, save Champagne") We are not at the beginning of the end, but at the end of the beginning in our knowledge.
7
I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised by the vociferous, angry denials of the research that is presented in this article. Food is an integral part of our cultural and personal identity.
People persist in pushing one miracle diet or another and using them to justify their bad eating habits.
I am reminded of the old pro- cigarette argument. “ I had an uncle who smoked to pack a cigarette a day and lived until he was 95“, ignoring that tens of thousands of people were dying prematurely of lung disease.
Or the deniers of climate change for that matter.
It should be plain, as many epidemiological studies have shown, that eating a diet that is rich in vegetables, fruits, nuts, and whole grains is far healthier than what has become the American diet: saturated fats, processed carbohydrates, meats and dairy.
14
@TomStuart
All those epidemiological studies are based on self-reported food surveys, and have never found a result as large as distinctive as the smoking-lung cancer link. Actual clinical trials, randomized controlled trials with human subjects, fail to find any harm from saturated fats, or find _benefits_ to high(er) fat, low(er) carb diets.
It is not "plain" that the low fat, whole grain diet produces health because many of us have tried it, in good faith, and it produced bad health and weight gain. Many of us lose weight and gain health by ditching grains and trying various versions of paleo/primal/low carb diets. Lived experience outweighs one-size-fits grain advocacy.
2
Reading the comments here I'm more convinced than ever that Diet is the new religion of the elite, a religion complete with gurus, high priests and fanatical adherents.
So what's the average person to do when one study contradicts the study that people were touting as gospel just last week and there's yet another in the works that's going to turn everything else upside down next week? Should you eat like a caveman, like an Eskimo or like a Greek fisherman?
My guess is that our Greek fisherman's ancestors had the right idea, Everything in moderation. Eat as wide a variety of the best fruits, beans and vegetables you can afford. Go easy on the starches and on the red meat. If you like fish eat it. As for fats, try to stick to stuff that someone's grandma--not necessarily your own--would recognize as food but go easy on the saturated fats. Don't dine out too often and try not to rely on processed foods at home.
Above all take all the dietary dictates with a grain of salt--but not too big a grain of course.
10
My wife and I find the back and forth sloshing of medical options of food benefits and hazards to be a source of endless amusement. Problem with all these statistical studies is that by careful test design many associations can be 'shown' and used to support whatever commercial incentives the study was funded for. The actual biological mechanisms are still left as a subject of mystery for a future project to be sure. I think it used to be called sympathetic medicine. Or perhaps marketing with the fear of not buying and consuming product 'x'...
1
What makes it worse for laypeople is when nutrition columnists and other such writers report from skimmed press releases and headlines, reporting results from “studies” as if all are equally established “fact”. Scientific method requires experimental method, final step of which is repeating the experiment to see if results are duplicated. If not able to duplicate results every time, further investigation is needed.
1
"Some studies may have failed to show a benefit from reducing saturated fats because participants substituted margarine and other ..."
That hypothetical contradicts the thesis presented here, which advises people to not disregard earlier studies and claims.
Finding trustworthy studies into the link between fat and heart disease does not seem to have been made easier by the report Ms. Brody has described.
9
I see many pointing out potential conflicts of interest. Although the AHA board might be influenced by its sponsors in some way, this report seems to be highly critical of processed food and saturated fatty foods. Isn't that what some of the sponsors' main products are?
Plus, it just seems like common sense to stay away from saturated fat and processed carbs.
@Rob:
Saturated fats are found in meat, fish, and eggs. These are nutrient-dense foods that have nourished humans and human ancestors for literally millions of years. Dietary saturated fats have never been demonstrated to cause any harm.
The AHA's sponsors are the seed oil/soybean oil/margarine industries.
18
Food that we ate thousands of years ago when life expectancies were 30-40 years, and food was scarce?
6
The low average life expectancy was a function of high infant mortality rates.
1
My wife and I are the same age, 83, and have long been retired. Since then I do all of the cooking. I am a diabetic and my wife I is on her 3rd pacemaker and she takes Coumadain blood thinner and must limit vitamin K. There is also the problem of overweight. When I retired I had a 58 waist. I now and for some years have a 40 waist and have lost about 80 lbs.
We cannot control what goes into food in a restaurant or take-out but my wife’s blood is tested every 2 weeks and we know whether the food I prepared thickened or thinned her blood the down side on either end is blood clot is too high or a stroke if too low.
As to fats I have sweet butter for browning, good olive oil,peanut oil for stir frying, grapeseed oil for high temperature cooking and that’s it.
But when I make muffins, corn or blueberry I know exactly what is in them. When I buy prepared food it is a guessing game becaus labels hide too much. What we once thought was an ideal low calorie food beancurd (tofo) we found was high in vitamin K. My wife can have some but how much is in beancurd and what kind as they differ? If I buy a donut at a donut shop ask the question about ingredients you get a blank stare and maybe “vegetable oil.” What we need is labeling that tells what you want to know in a way you can understand.
13
I wish in this discussion of good carbohydrates people wouldn't just say "brown" rice as basmati rice is nearly as close to brown rice on the glucose scale and much easier to cook, and closer in taste. There are a lot of issues like this when one starts looking at what is good for you, good carbohydrates are much more complicated than presented in article after article and a surprising amount of foods people prefer could be included if the right kind or served the right way were mentioned, but it is always quinoa and kale which will win only a very limited amount of tastebuds ever.
4
jane...please read "good calories bad calories" by gary taubes in its entirety...& also "grain brain" by david perlmutter...then get back to us...
22
Truth be known, for many folks, going to the grocery store and trying to decipher labels is a challenge. Aside from the obvious of avoiding junk food restaurants /fast food, joints, and so called family restaurants , as some readers have pointed out, corn syrup, and who knows what our cattle, hogs, and chickens are fed, leads one to often have trouble navigating these recommendations. Pizza is very very popular.
1
I'm not sure why I got a link to this older article but it was very good. It's pretty much what I believe nutritionally and try to do.
Maybe it has less to do with food per se.. than with TV watching which leads one to crave junk food esp. in the evening -- when the high sugar, high fat treats become irresistable. Who eats ice cream for breakfast?? altho I used to eat it for lunch. Mocha almond fudge -- delish and no longer available... and prob not all that unhealthful. OTOH are waffles with butter and maple syrup and a side of bacon healthful either?? and one needs to can the orange juice. How long is a long enough life? (It does depend on health.. and unfortunately, awful things can happen no matter how careful a person is.
All things in moderation. (BTW ice cream used to be served in tiny amounts;ditto meat. Size does matter.. or perhaps size begets size.
Faced with the dilemna of breakfast and not desiring collard greens -- Yikes.
1
Are there TV commercials promoting ICE CREAM for breakfast? I have never seenthese.
good article. also excellent was the one in nyt aw eek ago talking about practical ways to avoid the main poison; sugar. while avoiding saturated fats helps, its no where as effective as eliminating all the hidden sugar in about everything as in the article;
almost half the calories in the American diet come from carbohydrates, and of those 80 percent are from refined starches, sugar and potatoes. The average American diet is not very healthy.”
and the corn industry is the perp here. take ethanol plants; the corn is split into bran (protein) which ends up in cattle feed as wet cake or DDGS, the oil ends up in the feed, some human food or is transesterified to make biodiesel. and where does the poison (starch) end up? IN YOUR FOOD. or gas tank. the starch (or high fructose corn syrup) are whats turning this country into tubs of lard. my kids dont understand even 20 years ago people didnt resemble waddling whiskey barrels. and you have the corn industry to blame for that.
THAT'S the main problem. eliminate those and everything else follows. and regards the well-marbled beef; I absolutely love a good steak. its some of the most enjoyable protein I can get along with properly cooked salmon or maybe a nice dish with boneless, skinless chicken.
along those lines, I for one cant wait until we can grow beef in food labs. the stunningly wasteful amounts of resources to put a steak on your table is far more damaging to the planet than growing the natural healthier alternative.
5
Thanks for your comment about the corn industry. RE that:
Notice that Corn and soybean oil -- the staples of the industry, and the most processed -- are suspiciously the first on the list of recommended oils rather than last where they should be, and they recommend polyunsaturates rather than mono. In truth, both lists provided in the article's third to last paragraph are in reverse order of their desirability for consumption. And no one but someone with a vested interest in the industry would dare put canola oil ahead olive oil.
Show me a"canola plant", BTW... you know, the fruit from whence we derive canola oil?
(Thought so.)
9
The “canola plant” is a Brassica (looks similar to mustard) known since ancient times as “rape” from the Latin word for turnip, to which it is related. “Canola” was made up because it is a more marketable word than “rape”. But it is a real plant, with real ‘fruit’ containing the oil producing seeds.
I personally find canola oil to have a nasty, somewhat fishy taste. But most people don’t taste that, and find it completely bland.
2
There are many inexpensive margarine brands that are very low in trans fats. I'm looking at my vat of Country Premium; 0% trans fats.
1
Why doesn't Jane Brody present the evidence from the other side of this debate and interview researchers who disagree with her position? This is not a very fair and balanced presentation.
15
The work wasn't to provide fair and balanced; instead the goal is to pursue truth. Fair and balanced would mean that there are alternative truths that need to be pursued. Discipline your mind.
11
@Brent Jeffcoat:
We have decades of weak and contradictory results about which fats are "good" or "bad" in the diet. Lots of sloppy and poorly interpreted science, made worse by hysterical reporting and "one size fits all" blanket nutritional policy. Good reporting on this issue would acknowledge real scientific uncertainty, as well as come to grips with the failure of recent dietary recommendations.
3
"The average American diet is not very healthy.”
Not only that, but also downright disgusting. The supermarket choices are really poor, and of bad quality. In spite of a never stopping avalanche of cooking shows, Americans cannot cook a simple decent meal.
11
It is time for the AMA, Harvard TH Chan School of PH, studies in general and articles like this to differentiate between grain/corn lot-fed saturated fats vs grass-fed, pasture-raised!
9
Yet again, lumping coconut oil in with other saturated fats is completely useless. Very few who point to studies showing benefits of coconut oil claim that the same is true of other saturated fats, and considering that it's absolutely possible that plant-derived saturated facts affect the body differently than animal-derived saturated, failing to point to any studies whatsoever in this article that differentiate between them is completely useless. Thanks for nothing but wasting my time repeating the same tired claims that "well all saturated fats must be the same," with no new information whatsoever. No, coconut oil "has not been proven to be healthful"; but it hasn't been proven to be unhealthful either, other than by association with completely unrelated types of animal-derived saturate fats.
5
I started a Low Carb High Fat (LCHF) diet in Q1 2016. Before and after that date, I consistently have exercised (road racing-style cycling) for over 27 years, typically 10-11 hours most weeks and averaging nearly 8,000 miles per year.
Within 2 to 3 months of LCHF diet I lost nearly 20% of my body weight. My good cholesterol (HDL) doubled, My bad cholesterol (LDL) and Triglycerides were both cut in half. Total cholesterol stayed the same.
In the subsequent two years, I have continued with the LCHF diet and my weight and blood work have remained perfectly stable.
I am currently 65 years old.
Not everyone responds the same to a particular diet. To me, this is the fundamental problem with dietary guidelines. It does not take into account individual factors such as baseline metabolism.
27
This is remarkably interesting. I noticed something similarly unexpected incidental to switching completely over to raw organic dairy -- including butter.
Given that my fat intake doubled while my relative activity level was cut in half at the time (over a 6 month period since the previous panel), I was quite surprised to see that my total Chol went down. In that time period. I was fully expecting the opposite effect, since I focused on what I presumed to be the major vector: the temporary change in activity level. It took a while to pinpoint the other changed variable, which almost passed unnoticed.
(Attention to detail for the curious experimenters out there: I ONLY consume raw, local dairy. I do NOT eat any industry-produced meat; only local small butchers raising clean stock that gets exercise and eats what they are meant to eat. I do not consume beverages or food packaged in aluminum or plastic. I eat 3 organic vegetables at EVERY meal. I cook with nothing but olive oil or grapeseed oil. I eat fresh local sushi at least once a week. Cereal for me is 1/3 oats, 1/3 fresh chopped nuts, and 1/3 fresh berries/bananas, garnished with buckwheat grouts - great with fresh raw cream, but raw milk is probably a better choice. Don't do this high fat thing if you aren't willing to be relentlessly picky about clean sources.)
4
Brody continues to throw good column inches after bad, promoting the (heavily subsidized by the food industry and the FDA) idea that fats are the primary driver of metabolic disease/s. They're not.
See Gillespie, Lustig, Taubes, et al. It's the sugar, stupid.
18
Excess body fat is the primary driver of metabolic disease. Lack of physical activity also contributes. Neither the columnist nor the AHA claim that dietary fat is the primary or even a secondary driver of metabolic disease.
The column describes the American Heart Association's presidential advisory, which makes the case for replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
2
@childofsol:
Insulin dysregulation is the primary driver of metabolic disease. Accumulation of excess body fat is the body trying to compensate for the insulin dyrsregulation.
Replacing traditional, whole foods which happen to contain saturated fats with highly processed vegetable oils and margarines is the position of the AHA. It's nonsense.
8
"Accumulation of excess body fat is the body trying to compensate for the insulin dysregulation."
The weight of research evidence to date does not agree with your conclusion. Not that it can't be true, but that there is no evidence. There might be a tooth fairy as well, but there is no evidence to support the claim. Theories are fine, but they should be understood to be just that - theory.
What research shows is that increases in body fat come from a sustained positive energy balance; i.e., eating too much. Without excess energy intake, there is no insulin dysregulation.
"Replacing traditional, whole foods which happen to contain saturated fats with highly processed vegetable oils and margarines is the position of the AHA. It's nonsense."
Yes, the above words are nonsense.
From the Advisory: "This shift from saturated to unsaturated fats should occur simultaneously in an overallhealthful dietary pattern such as the DASH or Mediterranean diet as emphasized by the 2013 AHA/AmericanCollege of Cardiology lifestyle guidelines and the 2015to 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans."
Your claim and their words: night and day. And with respect to vegetable oils, spinning yarns with emotionally-weighted words like "industrial" and "highly processed" might work with some people, and might indeed be what reached you on an an emotional level. But real science does not back up what amounts to religious fervor against the evil seeds.
1
There is scientific evidence to back up the ideal heart healthy diet, some in clinical in trials but most from epidemiological studies: whole foods, limited rich foods (meat, dairy, oils). A treat now and then isn't a big deal but I find that when I stray from eating whole foods (fruits, veggies, grains, potatoes) and go down the pizza/burger/ice cream path (i.e. Standard American Diet) it's not much fun to get back on the whole wheat bread/broccoli/yam path so I stick with whole foods, little meat or cheese, very little sugar. Fats of all kinds are highly processed, very calorie-dense, and not necessary. Of course, cooking fat makes food taste better so it's not a popular argument to advise people to avoid them. It's also unpopular to advise against eating meat because we have a taste for it, it's calorie dense, and it's satisfying … and we've evolved to eat it (occasionally).
1
You can find or make organic, whole grain pizza crusts, use organic tomato sauce with no added sugar, and top with veggies or, if you eat cheese, organic and minimally processed cheese. You can also make or find burgers with only grass-fed beef, and all other organic and whole-foods ingredients, from the bun to the tomato and ketchup. While I understand and appreciate your sentiment, it's not like you can't find or eat better versions of pizza, burgers, ice cream, etc. than those readily available in most fast food outlets. Also, there's no reason natural fats would need to be highly processed. You can find or make your own grass-fed butter from organic grass-fed milk, whether completely unprocessed, if using raw milk/cream, with the only processing being the churning of the butter; or the pasteurization of store-bought dairy, and the churning. It's not quite as all of nothing as you seem to suggest, other than in your last half sentence.
3
Let's bottom line it here gang. Jane is probably right re this but as usual, the bottom line is everything in moderation. You can have all fats but probably the good fats are better and you should have more.
If you eat a greasy fried pork rind cardiac arrestor or a hot fudge sundae every now and then it is not gonna kill ya.
This way in the future if we find out that everything that Jane said in this article is wrong, we can say she did not take away our hot fudge sundaes completely!!
3
For the past decade and a half, I've been doing the exact opposite of almost everything Jane Brody recommends, and I am doing fine. Yes, you can eat well marbled steak, pork ribs, full fat dairy products and so on. Go grass-fed as often as possible, of course.
18
You tell her Freddy!!
8
BTW there is no such thing as a "Mediterranean Diet." The Mediterranean encompasses quite literally hundreds of distinct styles of cuisine based on what is grown and raised. Just an example, Northern Italians don't even use olive oil -- they prefer.
The term was coined by Ancel Keys, who was once the most influential diet scientist in the U.S. but whose entire body of work has been discredited.
Essentially the "Mediterranean Diet" is a buzzword used by people who are trying to promote vegetable oil over other forms of fats. The evidence that olive oil will help your heart or make you live longer is extremely flimsy (and I say this as someone who loves olive oil).
The villagers in Crete (where Keys liked to vacation) lived long and ate olive oil, but it was only an association. They also walked miles a day over very rugged terrain, lived in extended families in small communities, didn't smoke or watch TV, never saw junk food and, as part of religious observances, would fast for weeks at a time.
20
There have been attempts to discredit Ancel Key's research, that much is true. Liars and third-rate science writers like Denise Minger, Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz would be ashamed of themselves, if they had any integrity. While these hacks will be nothing more than grease spots on the pages of nutrition history, Dr. Keys will be remembered for the visionary and talented scientist that he was.
2
@childofsol:
Keys had no training in human physiology, biochemistry, or nutrition. He fell in love with an unverified hypothesis, and all his subsequent research was "retconning" this hypothesis, while ignoring or discounting any contradictory data, including data from his own studies. He deliberately ignored sugar entirely, and studiously avoided collecting any data from France, West Germany, Switzerland, or the Netherlands, because he knew people in these countries ate lots of animal fat yet had low rates of heart disease.
In short, Keys was a terrible and unethical scientist, and is responsible for decades of bad advice.
The funny thing about dietary advice from Taubes, Teicholz, and Minger -- it works. It works better, on average, than Keys' low fat, low cholesterol nonsense.
7
There was a time when I would have accepted the authority of Jane Brody and the American Heart Association. But that time was 30 years ago, when both were telling us to eat no virtually no fat and that we could eat all the bread, pasta and potatoes we wanted and not gain weight. The AHA was in bed with Proctor and Gamble, cereal companies and Pepsi for so long, and the AHA still endorses various brands of junk food as "heart-healthy," so I have trouble accepting any research that has the AHA's blessing.
In fact the evidence for unsaturated fat over saturated fat is not compelling. What is much more compelling, based on what I read, is the evidence for a high-fat diet over a diet reliant on refined carbs. Whatever additional heart attack risk one takes on eating saturated fat is relatively small compared with the lower risk one benefits from by reducing carbohydrates.
Reducing carbohydrate intake is what Brody should be talking about here, but she still can't go there because it would be admitting she was wrong recommending a high-carbohydrate diet for 40 years.
27
AHA Dietary Fat Recommendations 1957–2015
http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@fc/documents/download...
U.S. dietary guidelines (USDA, HHS), from 1980 -2020 can be found here:
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/
Carbohydrates are neither bad nor good. Foods high in carbohydrates range from whole grains, fruit, vegetables, and legumes; to candy, cookies, pizza, french fries and soda. Foods in the first group have been shown to provide health benefits in study after study. It is doubtful that Brody was recommending consuming foods in the second group.
Regardless of how one interprets previous dietary guidelines, current guidelines should be given more weight, because there is more evidence to support them.
As explained in the AHA's presidential advisory, the weight of available evidence suggests that replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates provides no health benefits; substituting whole grains has health benefits, and substituting unsaturated fats has even more health benefits.
6
Correction: substituting *complex carbohydrates* has health benefits"
@childofsol:
All of these studies are observational studies, based on self-reported food surveys. No experimental or clinical trial has ever demonstrated benefits to substituting vegetable oils or whole grains for naturally fatty foods.
3
The problem here is that the AHA recommends no more than about 13 grams of saturated fat a day. Even when consuming only plant based fats, you will still exceed that by a lot unless you cut fat altogether. And of course that usually results in eating more carbs.
2
The corporatization of food, along with the corporatization of food science, makes it difficult if not impossible to sift through all of the conflicts to get to the truth. Is the latest advice meant to help us, or shift us to a way of eating that will most benefit the food industry's bottomline? Certainly it has been well documented that the changes to government's "food pyramid" have been heavily influenced since the 1960s by profit-seeking corporations at the expense of the truth. One thing I know for sure: eating processed foods benefits food manufacturers, but mostly hurts the waistlines and health of consumers. Eating fruits, vegetables, eggs, free range chicken, grass-fed beef and milk from local farmers does not benefit corporations and, in proper proportions, is healthy. It hasn't been easy, but as much as I have been able, I have shifted my family's food to the second option.
11
Yuck - People! Totally get that you disagree with this article's advice - lots of good points in the comment sections about the AHA, the oils recommended, etc. But don't base your diet on the abuse and killing of animals! Those hunters/gatherers I will bet you did a lot more gathering than hunting and ate more vegetables, seeds, and fruits than meat. Hunting big game is hard work and not easy! And when they did eat meat it was from an animal who let a natural life eating a natural diet of grass and plants - not processed corn feed and antibiotics! To say nothing of the toll factory farming takes on the healthy of Mother Earth! And as for fish - most of the fish you consume today is from filthy fish farms - many in unregulated areas of the world - also not fed a natural diet and also pumped full of antibiotics! And many fish species are over-fished to the point of being eliminated completely. Stop! Eat your veggies. Eat fruit. Eat nuts and seeds. Eat humanely raised eggs. Drink full-fat milk from humanely treated cows (Ha! As if!!). But leave the pigs/cows/lambs/chickens/turkeys/fish alone! You can eat without eating them!
13
I've noticed that the belligerence directed at vegans is largely because people know this diet is optimally healthy but they're angry because they don't have the self-discipline. It's true that vegans have to be more conscious of getting enough protein, but once you get the hang of it, it's no big deal.
3
If I eat a bag of sugar for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, it is also a vegan diet.
4
@Dfkinjer
Sure. But without the meat and cheese, you'd survive.
There are so many voices speaking out on all sides of this debate that it's practically impossible for the average American eater to figure out. I spent years dutifully following the FDA guidelines, avoiding red meat, full-fat dairy, and eating lots of carbohydrates, the base of the 1990s-era FDA food pyramid at 6-11 servings daily. Over the years my weight continued to creep up, a few pounds a year, and my a1c climbed steadily as well. Finally, at 60, I was borderline obese and officially diabetic. My doctor issued grim warnings. Desperate, I stumbled upon the low-carb, high-fat diet, which, of course, sounded insane. But it had lots of medical backing, so, with trepidation, I started in. The hardest part was figuring out what to eat: we're a culture in love with carbohydrates, which are in everything, but we're also increasingly obese, diabetic, and hypertensive. As I persisted on the diet, though, weight shed itself magically, without hunger. My a1c descended into the normal range. My blood pressure and blood lipids plummeted. Now all are normal.
People everywhere report similar stories. Yet columnists and authorities continue to decry what is obviously helping many people, and our obesity and diabetes epidemic continues, often with tragic health consequences. Sadly, the only way for many people to get healthy is to ignore the authorities, experiment, and find out what works for their own bodies.
24
It is unlikely that many people would become borderline obese following the guidelines, because eating within energy needs and avoiding added fats and sugars was emphasized. Gaining large excess amounts of body fat requires a significant caloric surplus.
There are many misconceptions about what the guidelines have been historically, as well as currently. For example, the 6-11 servings of breads and cereals was a range not for you individually, but a guideline for all Americans. There are many males for example, for whom the top end of that range is not excessive.
Thee are also many misconceptions about what foods Americans are eating, and the impacts of these foods on weight and other health outcomes. For instance, Americans do not have a pattern of consuming large amounts of high-starch foods like steamed rice and baked potatoes; but rather a pattern of consuming highly-palatable, high-calorie foods with a lot of added fats, sugar and salt: pizza, pastries, fried rice, french fries, pastries, pasta with heavy sauces.
Your dietary switch worked for you because it led to a significant decrease in energy intake. Others achieve similar results by reducing snacking, eating more vegetables, eating smaller portions, or by some other means.
As far as weight control goes, following the dietary guidelines is effective for most people, because it reduces caloric density. This does in fact describe the diets of most people who, seemingly effortlessly, never gain weight.
@childofsol:
The officially recommend diet of bread, pasta, cereal, margarine, and "vegetable" oils was and is fattening for many of us. In a weird coincidence, a diet of refined carbs and refined soybean oil is also the diet used to reliably fatten laboratory animals...
You're still not understanding hunger and satiety. For some reason, high carb people never do. Her diet was _more satiating_, so she felt less hungry, and ate less without consciously trying to eat less. The decrease in energy intake was an _effect_, not a cause.
"Caloric density" is a simplistic way to understand hunger and satiety. When dealing with refined carbs and refined seed oils, caloric density sounds like a bad thing. But when we eat nutrient-dense whole animal foods (meat, fish, shellfish, eggs) and nutrient dense whole plant foods (veggies, fruit, nuts, tubers, beans) suddenly our appetite adjusts perfectly well to the caloric density of these foods.
7
Pooch,
Within the past year or so, formerly "inferior" foods have stealthily crept back into your good graces, at least some of the time. But you have an interesting habit of insinuating that other people are anti-protein, or promoters of "an all-starch diet".....and now of all things, anti-whole foods. Got to hand it to you.
Food consumption is about much more than satiety. Naturally-satiating whole foods are available to almost all Americans except the poor. They are also frequently either (a) passed over in favor of highly-processed, calorically dense foods, or (b) eaten along with these less-healthy foods.
One particularly frustrating thing about ideas promoted by Taubes and his echo chamber here and elsewhere is that certain whole foods are obesogenic or cause diabetes because they are high in carbohydrates or have a high glycemic index/glycemic load. Examples include fruits, starchy vegetables, and whole grains. The fact is that people who consume more of these foods have fewer weight problems and better metabolic profiles than people who eat less of them.
The bottom line is that a lot of people like the taste of foods like pizza, soda and cookies. And because the reward in eating these foods occurs almost instantaneously, whereas the effects take years to develop, it is particularly challenging to change eating patterns.
3
You suggest replacing coconut oil with corn oil, not mentioning the beneifts to heart health of coconut oil, primarily lauric acid, which kills bacteria, fungus, virus, known to be underlying factors in heart disease.
You describe none of the chemical interactions when certain of the foods you suggest are combined with other categories of foods.
This article is confusing and misleading.
14
Another horrible article by Brody, promulgating the conventional wisdom that has led to today's obesity/chronic disease epidemic. For rebuttal, I offer anything by Gary Taubes.
16
I’ve followed this debate for years now and am thoroughly confused. So I’ve concluded that since I have the genetics of my Mom and Dad, he who is slim, 92yo and in good health and my mom lived past 90, I’m just going to eat what they ate!
12
Mark you're not the only one. This article has turned me into a bear with a sore head, because it champions the Mediterranean diet while also deriding all of its core ingredients and components: dairy, olive oil, meat...furthermore, it is promoting vegetable oils, which have been demonised thanks to a gamut of studies over the last 30 years in which they've been shown to cause free radical damage and raise the level of LDL (negatively affecting cholesterol) in the body.
6
Mate, meat & dairy are Not core ingredients of the mediterranean diet. Think nuts, veggies, legumes etc, and olive oil if you like. Red meat a few times a month.
2
@Bill:
The "Mediterranean" diet that you've described is an invention of American nutritionists, circa 1990. In the actual Mediterranean, they eat lots of lamb, pork, ham, seafood, cheeses, yogurts, full-fat dairy.
7
There is so much missing either from this article, and/or the studies. Like the patietns studied are usually all diseased...not all, but far too many. So the results of diet changes for those who cr/p to eating well, of course the results will be positive to the preconceived thesis.
There is nothing relevatory that eating as close to the bone, to the dirt, to the original food form is better then what comes out of a box/package. Whats relevatory and bumfuzzling, is that so many people, US citizens, still dont understand that not all food is equal in nutritional content. That a box of mac and cheese, is not the same in quality as a moderate serving of fresh pasta with a moderate dose of real cheese.
The only way this "food problem" in the US is gonna get fixed, is if we stop eating to entertain, and/or relieve boredom, or emotional distress. Till then its grab the things that temporarily satiate the holes in our souls.
And I for one continue to see people who eat vegan, vegetarian, and a modified Med diet, who are woefully out of shape, and generally lack real fitness. Why are so many vegans I see overweight? I go into a vegan shop, run by vegans, etc, to grap a quick bite, and its muffin tops by the dozens...! Im usually the only meat eater in the room and Im still at my fighting weight....?
5
The general public unfortunately doesn't understand that certain body types do better with certain ways of eating. I suggest people stick to eating in a way strongly linked to their ethnic heritage before the industrialization of food.
The average vegan, vegetarian, and modified-Mediterranean diet follower often eat products made with highly refined oils, simple starches (like sweets or sweet meals), and poorly digested complex starches (often full of god knows what artificial chemicals)....
its NO WONDER they look like muffin tops at your local vegan food spot.
I don't think my brain has ever been more clear and my stamina ever more high, then when I started using pork lard as a cooking oil, and stuck to eating meals close to my ethnic heritage.
5
Here is a novel idea. Get your fats from vegetables. Eat the olives, avocados, seeds and nuts...in moderation. And leave the extracted oils - al of them - behind. Incidentally, as I write this, my body contains about 19% fat. The first thing I’m thinking about today, flood-wise, is intaking healthy fiber. It’s not about where I’m going to get (more) fat from.
9
Yes, let’s eat extracted and highly processed non-nutritional pap from vegetables that are not as bad as the extracted and highly processed non-nutritional pap from animals most of us eat. Ummm...no.
Or, eat organic whole food, mostly plants, and not too much. Incorporate small amounts of olives, avocados, nuts and seeds versus extracted and highly processed oils. Heck yes!
My premise: Internalize any of the Blue Zones books written by Dan Buettner versus this well-intentioned but off-the-mark essay.
7
Was just listening to Dan Buettner on Rich Roll's podcast the other day. It's among this set of guys (and gals) where the cutting edge information lives. Sadly not in the Times.
6
Agreed. I’m a HUGE Rich Roll fan.
1
I think the best conclusion to draw from all this is that a varied and balanced diet is best... a bit of everything inclusive of what’s been deemed “good” and “bad”. Our species evolved over a much longer time as hunter/gathers than we have after agriculture.
That hunter/gather diet had lots of variety inclusive of lots of fruits and vegetables as well as a wide range of animal proteins and fats. Variety makes for a satisfying diet and if nothing else is a good hedge bet against what has been conflicting dietary advice given from those scientists with good intentions.
6
It’s interesting that the doctor quoted in this article recommends corn and soybean oil before olive or avocado or any of the other oil widely believed to be better for us. No, it’s not interesting. It’s suspect. Those oils also happen to be derived from Monsanto’s two biggest crops. As others have said here, those oils just are not good for us. And yet the Times is telling us to go enjoy them.
Some of the advice in this article seems good, but along with the extremely outdated article about gluten-free foods published here last week, I’m beginning to wonder why I subscribe to this paper and what its agenda truly is. Your readers are more informed than this and deserve better.
38
Agree - corn and soybean oil? And canola oil??? Are you kidding. All garbage!
6
The NYT is so incredibly conservative and behind the times on health and nutrition. Most doctors don't know anything about nutrition, thus the reco for soybean and corn oil, both highly processed and toxic.
5
Why does the research fail to acknowledge that there are likely dirrefent diets for different subgroups? There are now genetic tests to determine which antidepressants a person will respond to, and there are genetic variations in how people respond to opiates.
2
Nutrition is a MULTIVARIATE problem. Linear assumptions (more this less that) are pointless. The fat question actually isn't a question about fats at all, it's about the carbohydrate intake of the individual. If someone eats fat and refined carbohydrates, then it makes sense physiologically due to inflammation of the vessels from carbs that linearly increasing saturated fat consumption can increase heart disease. People, including this author, don't understand that if you remove carbohydrates as a major macronutrient of the diet, saturated fats have no increase in heart disease, especially medium chain triglycerides, which are not proinflammatory at least with respect to atherosclerotic disease.
The author correctly understands the limitations of scientific studies in the literature today, but draws, alas, the wrong conclusion.
8
Brains need cholesterol to function well and so do muscles, tendons and ligaments -- on into old age. I suspect that the growing Alzheimers epidemic could be plotted to rise on the same lines as an increase in the use of statins. Statins destroy CoQ10 and taking it orally does not make up for the destruction of brain cells caused by statins. I would rather die of heart disease than Alzheimers. I would rather die of heart disease than re-experience the excruciating joint and muscle pain I experienced when taking a statin. So far, I am 76 years old having had an aortic valve replacement 9 years ago -- NOT caused by cholesterol, just genetic predisposition to same and childhood scarlet fever.
15
The side effects of statins worry me very much. I am under pressure to begin taking statins. I have said exactly these things to the doctor : " I'd rather risk a heart attack and die at 78, than live to be 92 with dementia and the horrible complications of diabetes. " And I understand that the muscle cramps are terrible. How does that promote regular exercise ? We can still say no. I am grateful for the information and experiences available on the Internet. I am also trying to figure out the diet angle. The gynecologist says my bones are losing calcium and to eat more dairy. This article says very little dairy. To whom should I listen ?
1
And this regurgitated dribble is why heart disease is still rampant. The AHA isn't any farther along than it was 30 years ago. Except then, as a cardiac RN I was teaching elderly women to cook with margarine instead of butter and probably giving their spouses a push into their graves. Inflammation. Omega 3s. Cold pressed oil. Lots and lots of fruits and leafy green vegetables. That should be your focus.
25
I agree. All of the recommended oils are inflammatory that give rise to inflammation in the body causing heart disease. Anything natural is good for your body. These processed vegetable oils are cheap, subsidized, and poison to the body. No thank you AHA.
10
"Anything natural is good for your body." You actually believe this? Perhaps if you ate some all-natural belladonna, you might think otherwise. Briefly, at least.
5
"Anything natural is good for your body." Not true.
4
Good topic for National Heart Month!! or anytime. To simply, do not eat junk food, shop the perimeters of the grocery store, where the fruits and vegetables are. Stay out of the isles. If you read labels you will freak out when you discover how many "chemicals" and totally non-foods you are eating when you buy something in a box or a can. That includes soup and cereal that so many people grab and go as what they think is a healthy, quick meal. Make your own soup and eat oatmeal with fruit instead. It does not take that long to re-tool and eat right. Do it. As a cardiac patient with four stents I am speaking to you seriously.
8
A moderate amount of unrefined saturated fat sources (I use organic pork lard to cook with often) not a lot of fruits (if so, in their whole form and not juiced or blended), and the same amount of veggies. It will help you tremendously, I swear to you
Best of wishes on your heart condition.
P.S. If you don't have any ethical concerns in consuming meat, it might help you a great deal in consuming some meat centric dishes from a quality source.
1
I sport climb with guys in their sixties and seventies who are as fit as super-heros. They, to the man, get their nutrition information from Youtube and not their doctor. This article's laundry list of failed studies and misleading conclusions by the experts is the reason why.
We evolved from big game hunters -- that's not in dispute. Agriculture is about 10,000 years old. Evolutionary adaptions require 25,000 years. It makes sense to me and others that it is unlikely that our bodies prefer oil processed from corn (which is not a vegetable btw) instead of animal fats. That sounds like Cargil's recommendation (who btw gives millions to the American Heart Association).
Listen to 'experts' if you'd like. I cook full-fat meals in the French tradition and rarely eat processed foods like bread or pasta, never eat sugar, honey or fruit. Foods that have glycemic loads greater than Native Americans (who routinely lived to be very old) would have eaten are a bad idea. My health at 53 couldn't be better.
Touting 'expert' opinion as to the path forward has led to a nation of very unhealthy people.
31
I love how everyone becomes a nutrition expert in the comments section of these articles.
Fats ARE a necessary macronutrient, but saturated & trans fats should be limited to prevent high cholesterol & other problems like fatty liver disease. Mono- and poly-unsaturated fats are vital for good health in moderation. That's the key word: moderation. You shouldn't be deep frying your foods in lard, vegetable oil OR coconut oil if you care about your health.
And there are "good" vs. "bad" versions of the other macronutrients too. Carbohydrates should be complex rather than simple so they keep you full for longer & provide much needed fiber. Protein should come from a lean, non-fatty source. And of course, you have to watch your overall calorie intake if you don't want to pack on the pounds. You can lose weight eating nothing but McDonald's or gain weight eating the healthiest foods if the calorie counts aren't right. Calculate your TDEE & Basal Metabolic Rate to determine how many calories you should be eating for your sex, age, height, activity level, etc.
1
You state that the reason to avoid saturated fats and trans fats is to avoid increases in cholesterol, but elevated cholesterol has more or less been proven to not (or at least barely) be a risk factor for heart disease by itself. Other variables must be present like chronic vascular inflammation. The only reason statin medications lower heart disease risk is because they are strongly anti-inflammatory. Their ability to lower cholesterol is neither here nor there.
So, even if saturated fats were to raise cholesterol, that doesn't mean they actually increase once risk of CVD. In fact, recent data shows that saturated fats are far less likely to cause vascular inflammation than polyunsaturated vegetable oils.
8
@McSnarkles:
Saturated fats have never been demonstrated to cause any of those problems. Sat fat consumption raises total cholesterol, but also raise HDL and shift LDLs towards a more beneficial size distribution. Lowering of cholesterol _though diet_ has been tested extensively for decades, and has never been found to be protective against heart disease.
Nutritional quality drives satiation, satiation drives subsequent calorie intake. What we eat and how much we eat are interdependent.
3
Wrong! We do not need carbs
9
I struggled with my weight all through high school and university. Why? Because I got completely lost in the details. When I went back to eating balanced meals made of natural foods I lost weight. That was 18 years ago. Educating people on eating balanced meals made of whole foods is an easy way to avoid the BIG PROBLEM this article shines a light on - that when people stop eating fat they tend to eat refined carbohydrates and sugars instead. If we truly want to educate the public we need to keep it simple!! Eat balanced meals made of natural foods. Then you'll reach and maintain a healthy weight naturally.
6
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about all the fat talk. Saturated fats are not bad if cut the carbs to almost zero. When cutting carbs the body will burn fat for energy as ketones are produced as an alternative to glucose. If you consume the same amount of carbs as usual and eat a ton of fats, yes this will not be so great. The other factor is that hydrogenated oils create inflammation, something sat fats don't. If you more than 60% carbs you might as well stay away from fats, specially hydrogenated oils i.e. soy, canola, margarine etc...
10
Wrong. Carbs don't change how saturated fat fundamentally behave in your body. And complex carbohydrates are an important source of energy & fiber that shouldn't be scrapped altogether.
As with fats, there are good & bad carbs. Brown rice, vegetables, sweet potatoes, lentils, low-fat yogurt & quinoa are all examples of complex carbs. You should never just cut entire group of macronutrients out of your diet. It can be done but it's not generally sustainable--more like a fad diet (the Atkins Diet & others rely on omitting carbs). A healthy lifestyle includes a balanced diet and appropriate calorie intake for your needs.
The Standard American Diet (SAD) is full of sugar, white bread, white rice & other simple carbs with no nutritional value, so it's easy to see how carbohydrates have gotten a bad rap. THOSE carbs are problematic & should be avoided. As for meat, eat all the meat you want as long as it's lean & not covered in fat or deep fried.
Vegetables are good. All other carbs including fruit should be avoided.
Fruits in the supermarket are genetically modified to be extremely sweet and have glycemic loads that are dangerous for children and adults prone to weight gain. Cargill, Chiquita and Dole have been influencing American diet decisions for so long, we have forgotten that meat and vegetables should be the basis for a healthy diet. Not so called 'whole grains,' brown rice and corn derivatives.
11
My friends (and I) who are on some variation of ketogenic, whole food diets, are all lean, strong and healthy. Your plan is what the medical establishment and 'experts' should be recommending. Not the 'Cargil Diet' that this article suggests.
10
Had to give up...could not get to the end of all the 318 comments...it's a yes it's a No...just running out of time...and still have Super Bowl party to go too.
3
My comment was not published last week, so I'll try again:
Ms. Brody, like some president, when you are wrong, you simply refuse to admit it, but rather, just double down, huh?
From the jacket of your old book, Jane Brody’s Good Food Book: Living the High-Carbohydrate Way:
“For countless readers, the best-selling Jane Brody’s Nutrition Book became their “Bible,”...in which Jane Brody demonstrated that our diet should lean more heavily on complex carbohydrates—starchy foods such as potatoes, rice, pasta, beans, and bread—than it now does.”
So how well did that potato-pasta-&-bread thing work out for America’s obesity and diabetes rates?
How much responsibility do you and Harvard’s elderly men have for those rates?
You write: “Dr. Sack’s team summarized the results of four “core” trials conducted in the 60s...”
Yes, Dr. Sacks, well over 70 years old, ignored literally hundreds of studies over the last 50 years in this latest diatribe to go back to the incorrect studies of the 1960s. The 60s.
News flash: In the 50 years since, science has advanced!
Turns out fats are actually generally good for you, not bad for you. And saturated fats are basically neutral. This is what hundreds of better, more modern studies say.
See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2DaqrKq6e0. If you want to read the literature itself, try: PMID 27547428, 26268692, 24723079, 20071648, 16467234 & 22208554.
Ms. Brody, you too are well over 70. Move passed the 1960s.
48
Do we need another article on this subject,?
Olive oil and avocado are heathier then a Cinnabon, check.
People eat ice cream cause it's yummy, and drink their whisky cause it's fun..
Bacon yummy and bad, fish oil good and yucky.
It is just a shaming game at this point. Folks enjoy their guilty pleasures, and always will.. Time for a slice of pizza.
6
Great article, but sadly likely to be read by people who need to.
Your article said to limit dairy products. Is this still the case if my dairy consist of skim milk and 75% fat free cheeses? I am trying to get enough calcium from food to keep my bones strong.
2
skim milk and low fat dairy products are loaded with sugar. Full fat dairy in moderation is the way to go.
8
If you want to learn more about the health effects of dairy, go to nutritionfacts.org for some of the latest research.
2
Over the years many of us NYTs readers have learned that medical/health studies presented here are not worth our time, this one included.
If one can eat mostly green, exercise portion control, and exercise moderately all will be well. the thing is this is difficult for many of us.
10
I read this right after reading the companion Well article on the "Whole 30" diet. As a result, I am about to eat my laptop for lunch.
18
Anything is bad when taken in more than moderate amounts. For example, take the high-fiber carbohydrates mentioned in the article. Individually, they are generally good choices. However, there is such a thing as eating too much fiber, as I have learned the hard way.
While heart-healthy foods are a great idea, we also need to eat gut-healthy foods.
6
This article is ridiculous. If people eat plant based abs whole foods, they’ll be healthy.
5
Any article that encourages the consumption of refined seed oils, high in Omega 6 and hugely inflammatory, needs to be disregarded. One can argue about the consumption of saturated fats for subsets of the population for whom, despite a carbohydrate restricted diet, will produce excess LDL particles. But in this day and age, to encourage the consumption of seed oils.....the ones that really need to be restrained, is beyond belief.
45
Yes our ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 is way out of balance. It is also very difficult to find any seed oils that don't contain trans fats because of the way they are processed. They also oxidize at very low temperatures. Two things we have to avoid. Olive oil is very free from contamination because of the way it is processed and it is more temperature stable. Let's see who sponsored this research. Could it be Corn or soy producers or both? We usually don't just drink these oils, we cook with them and they degrade very rapidly while cooking. Dr. Sacks sounds like he is following Ancel Keys lead.
This story reminds me of the researchers that went to Alaska to show how bad the heart disease rate was among the natives there. They ate a diet full of saturated fats! They must be dropping like flies! OOPS, they had almost no heart trouble until introduced to the SAD diet.
20
I have always wondered about a section of Indians that thrive on saturated fats and loads of carbohydrates and yet have low incidence of CHD and diabetes.I am referring to the Brahmin priest community in India and more particularly from the southern part.These priests partake of food rich in ghee(clarified butter),sweet dishes and other carbohydrate-loaded stuff prepared specially for the occasion for which they are engaged to officiate.Such rituals performed in India are very frequent,so these priests calendar is heavily booked.It goes without saying that the fare is completely lacto- vegetarian.The priests are hardly known to exercise.Yet one doesn't come across morbidly-obese members of this community.I have also not come across priests crowding the waiting rooms of GPs or reports of anybody having a stroke or cancer.No research group has studied this community,but empirical observation leads one to conclude that their copious consumption of ghee and the highly carbohydrate-loaded food hasn't endangered their lives and they continue to have a life-span above the national average.
6
Being able to master your stress level might be a huge factor, as well as not over indulging all the time..
1
What are the carbs? If they a full of resistant starch an fiber that may be the answer. The gut microbiome can make a huge difference in our health. I suspect that they have the right balance and quantity of bacteria. The right bacteria in the right numbers has been shown to prevent weight gain.
2
So the low fat diet advice led to unhealthy food replacements. But why? It is not a surprise to me that people naturally turned to quick energy boosting refined carbs when fats no longer were there to meet their energy needs. Maybe saturated fats need to be curbed, especially for some genetically at-risk people, but I sure wouldn’t replace them with junk vegetable oils. Personally, the Mediterranean Diet (minus the refined carbs), which is fairly high in fats, though with less emphasis on saturated fats, is indeed appealing.
5
"Alas, the advisory team noted, there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with “healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.” So no testing has been done to support these recommended dietary guidelines???!!!
20
Avoid highly processed oils - such as soy, corn and canola. Stop eating industrial processed foods and fast foods. Find pleasure in granting your body fuel that doesn't sicken you in the process.
I found renaming the aisles of the grocery with different names to repress entering them, like the diabetes2 aisle, the fatty liver express lane, etc.
Articles like this won't mean much when you're done playing the game of what is ' good or bad' for you.
10
Dr Lustig MD, UCSF endocrinology professor debunks the argument that saturated fats cause heart disease in the following talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y
18
so high omega 6 fat vegetable oils are ok? I dont think so.
15
Nina Teicholz:
You have made serious allegations against the American Heart Association. The AHA is a non-profit organization, and its professionally-audited financial statements are readily accessible online.
https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@fin/documents/downlo...
The Nutrition Coalition is also a non-profit organization, yet there is no financial information on your website, nothing at all. there is nothing there of scientific substance either, but let's just stick with the finances for now.
Where are your financial statements? How many employees do you have? What compensation do you and other management receive from TNC? If there is a mega-donor funding your activities, what are their financial interests, which may represent an indirect but very real conflict of interest? You call your organization a coalition; what groups are brought together under the umbrella of the TNC?
15
You are correct that the American Heart Association and The Nutrition Coalition are non-profit organizations. So where do they get their funding from? A lot of it comes from the food industry which has a vested interest in keeping that status quo. They get funding
What you are not aware of is that the AHA has internally debunked the saturated fats hypothesis. Dr Robert Lustig served on the Bay Area AHA. He is a UCSF endocrinology professor researching metabolic syndrome and obesity. He uses the analogy from the movie, The Matrix, to argue that everyone has had their mind hacked over the past 40-50 years about what is a healthy diet. He present his argument in the following lecture/talk. In this talk he mentions Dr Ronald Krauss MD who is head of the AHA's nutrion advisory board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y
8
@childofsol:
The early AHA received big $$ from Proctor and Gamble, manufacturer of crisco, margarines, and seed oils, and continues to receive money from soy oil manufacturers today. In a weird coincidence, they started telling us that butter was deadly, and that everybody should eat more margarines and seed oils. Over the years, they have "licensed" (i.e. sold) their logo to appear on all manner of sugary junk foods, as low as these foods were "low fat". Their dietary advice has been a joke for decades.
11
The AHA takes huge contributions from Cargill and ADM. They are on the take as well as the American Cancer Society. Both groups have given dietary guidelines to Americans since the '70s that is killing us.
5
When the new study came out a year or two ago, I didn't find it confusing at all. They didn't say saturated fats were just fine. They said, contrary to 45 years of wisdom, refined carbs were just as bad.
10
I really can’t sit here and read any more AHA fraud articles about health. I find it impossible to believe NYT can’t write any other articles about the consumption of fats without citing these people who rampantly skew data.
49
Ms. Brody might want to read some reporting from her own paper:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shift...
The sugar industry _paid_ top Harvard nutritional researchers to ignore sugar and lay blame on saturated fat in the 1960s. These "scientists" are all gone now, but they were instrumental in reviewing/promoting/interpreting the original "fat is bad" studies while ignoring/burying contrary data. Willett, Hu, and the rest of HSPH today are the intellectual/academic descendants of this legacy.
30
This is ludicrously overdone. The sugar industry contributed $50k towards the study. Even then, this was hardly enough to bribe anybody, let alone Harvard based scientists. No reputable scientist or clinician buries contrary data. Whenever industry pays for studies, bias is assumed, but who else will pay for these studies. Certainly not the public purse and not charitable bodies. So if industry doesn't pay, the studies don't get done, and industry is accused of ignoring the risks, or virtually anyone's, including some serious crackpots', "evidence", or suspicions. If industry does pay, it's accused of bribery. You have to examine the data, not just sound off. Eat less sugar, you'll be less angry!
4
None of these so-called trials can be controlled enough. People all come into the trial with varying health concerns. We don't look at what might be affecting them personally, mentally, emotionally. How accurately are the participants reporting and how many are lying to fit into what they think the study wants them to say. You just cannot control enough factors - The Nurses Study proved that. 15 years of wasted money on the hypothetical thoughts of scientists, with nothing to show for it. How about observational studies of populations that have far less heart disease and cancer. there are many of these populations but we tend to take their diets and try to twist them into our intellectualized model of what works and doesn't work. Mediterranean people do not eat a diet high in whole grains - they actually eat lots of refined white flour products but cook them properly and eat them in combination with other foods that keep the glycemic loads low. Yes, they eat fresh fruits and vegetables but not in the recommended 8 servings Americans are told to eat. And contrary to popular belief, they don't necessarily eat an abundance of seafood unless they happen to live near the coast. They do eat moderate amounts of pork, beef, and cheese, and eggs, all full fat. The difference is in the quality of their food - they eat local and seasonal food. They eat mostly organically raised food, pastured meats and dairy. There's a huge difference in the nutritional value of their food and ours.
8
@Steve:
My point is that they _did_ bury or ignore the data, and they were not reputable scientists. Results of Minnesota Coronary experiment were purposefully unpublished, and results of Women's Health Initiative were purposefully ignored.
I am angry precisely because nutritional authorities have spent decades telling people that "meat, butter, and eggs are deadly, here have some heart healthy margarines, and never mind all that sugar behind the curtain."
4
An important article. Articles titled "Cholesterol is good" "eat saturated animal fat" "lard is the best fat" will get huge number of views and shares, as you rightly pointed out media as well as consumers like "contrarian man-bites-dog stories".
However, there is concrete evidence that MCT in coconut oil is good and substituting other oils with coconut oil (it is thermogenic) can actually help in weight loss. Nevertheless, liked the article. http://logicalscience.com
6
Why did you like the article if you disagreed with its contents?
"Commercially untainted"? I wonder, is Melania Trump still the Chairwoman for The American Heart Association and should we really trust studies "prepared for' the AHA albeit by Harvard professors?
2
I am mostly a lifelong vegetarian. I do eat a very modest amount of salmon, sardines eggs, and dairy.
I am also a caregiver to an 85 year old, 195lb man that eats mostly meat, steak, eggs, and bacon.
The other day at the gym, we walked side by side on a treadmill. After walking 30 minutes at about 2 mph (a mile in length) his heart rate was lower than mine (and I am over 30 years younger). I think my heart rate was 98.
Go figure.
27
Even here...
You didn't say how much of your "vegetarian" food was refined carbs. Because that's just as bad, per the new guidelines.
3
You figured it out right! I'm 74 years old, eat at least LOTS of saturated fats as in organic, cold press coconut oil and organic pork lard that I render from the fat. I eat no sugars in any form...from processed sugar, to carbs to fruits and honey. My cholesterol is 170, blood pressure is normal, LDL is low, great numbers on HDL I never got on the no-fat bandwagon. I eat vegetables and meat and fat...that's it. Great diet!
Hope more people figure it out!
9
All fat, saturated our unsaturated, has 9 calories per gram. That's about 90 calories per tablespoon. What's more, there is no nutritional value. Consuming the lowest amount of refined and animal fat possible, in any form, is the best approach to minimizing heart disease and maintaining a normal weight. The fats from a whole food plant-based lifestyle, with foods like flaxseed and walnuts as sources, will provide the proper essential Omega fat balance and promote the best health.
9
@James McNeill:
Fats and fat-soluble vitamins are _essential nutrients_. You might want to re-check your definition of nutritional value. Naturally fatty foods, such as meat, fish, and eggs, are packed with essential nutrients -- amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, many of which are absent from or difficult to absorb from plant foods. Naturally fatty foods are _satiating_, so the body automatically adjusts to the energy density.
The major omega-6:omega-3 imbalance is caused by the new and unprecedented consumption of omega-6-rich seed oils, all of which are plant-based. The plant form of omega-3s (ALA) must be converted to the animal forms (DHA, EPA) to be useful. This conversion is accomplished with low and variable efficiency. So multiply those servings of walnuts and flaxseeds by ten to get the same usable omega-3s as a couple ounces of seafood.
12
I agree that refined seed oils are the major culprit behind the 6:3 imbalance. Processed foods (refined plant-based oil, sugar, flour) are the root cause of the obesity epidemic. I also agree that fish would be a great source of long chain DHA/ EPA, if it wasn't polluted with Mercury and other toxins. The farm raised varieties actually have a much higher portion of Omega 6s due to the fact that they are raised with the same garbage feed grain that CAFO land animals are force fed. Since toxin free fish is in short supply, I suggest a pollutant free algae-based EPA/ DHA supplement is not only better for you (due to lack of toxins), but doesn't have the same devastating effect on sea life caused by over-fishing. Finally, although small amounts of meat are not necessarily harmful, the toxin levels in the 95% of meat raised in CAFOs are dangerous. If you have access to the 5% or so available from grass-fed sources, then a small amount is probably no harm. But after eliminating the saturated fat (mostly Omega 6) and protein (long chain amino acids linked to cancer) in meat, any nutritional value can easily be found in plants. That's why I recommend a whole food plant-based diet with no processed food and minimal, if any, meat.
7
Short chain fuel substrates - i.e. butyric acid, Greek for 'butter' does NOT have 9 calories per gram. Fatty acid length matters. These acids are the ones also produced via fermentation in a human's hind gut, the same way a cow's rumen produces fatty acids at a larger scale. The ignorance in this article is astounding. Short and medium chain fatty acids are carried by albumin in the blood (not by lipoproteins) ; they are preferentially burned by our cells directly, which is why they are 'thermogenic'. These are the simple 101 lessons.
2
Dr. Joel Fuhrman addresses this issue in all its complexity - and provides references for long-term studies - in his book The End of Heart Disease. I've just read it and bought a copy for a relative w/a-fib, as well as recommending it to others. Note #1: It's VERY difficult to find a standard-trained US doctor with ANY knowledge of nutrition - as the NYT has reported in several past articles. Note #2: AS Dr Fuhrman (who urges a plant-based diet) states, "If you eat the Standard American Diet, you will get the standard American diseases." That would be cancers, diabetes, heart disease, etc. It is diificult - but possible, to avoid the billions spent in marketing "food-like substances" (as Mark Bittman would say) and eat to support one's long term health - but it IS possible!
10
I have to ignore any article or advice that tells me to consume more Canola and soybean oil. I spent years having to heal myself from the onslaught and damage caused by those two substances and their accompanying glyphosate residue... not to mention Canola oil's uncanny ability to still taste fresh when it's rancid and therefore an extreme health detriment.
37
In many respects, the vilification of coconut oil by federal dietary guidelines and the AHA resembles the inappropriate attack on dairy fat and is emblematic of the whole misguided war on dietary fat. In fact, the new AHA advisory after singling out coconut oil went on on to cherry-pick the data on dairy fat and cardiovascular disease in order to sopport their faulty recommendations for choosing low or nonfat dairy..
See my full post on this here (https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2017/06/18/beware-of-more-misinform...
19
Coconut oil is poison, dude. Sorry ...
1
I would add that the vilification of saturated fats is driven mainly by the flawed cholesterol theory of heart disease. Saturated fats do raise cholesterol levels with some, as you point out, raising HDL more than LDL cholesterol. But the deeper issue here is that there's little evidence that cholesterol itself causes heart disease. That explains why studies that look at large populations and exclude those taking statins do not find any association between dietary saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. The fact that statins lower cholesterol and also lower the risk of heart disease in some people is an unfortunate coincidence that keeps the cholesterol theory from being discarded. New cholesterol lowering drugs keep being developed at great cost that turn out not to have any clinical benefit even though they lower LDL cholesterol and some raise HDL cholesterol. The simplest explanation is that the bad/good cholesterol theory is wrong.
LDL particles, as you know, consists of much more than cholesterol and they can become atherogenic when oxidized. The oxidation of LDL is what makes it dangerous and not whatever amount of cholesterol it may contain. LDL particle size also seems to be a factor with smaller particles more prone to do damage when oxidized.
10
The reason coconut and palm oil are still being thought of unhealthy is because the food industry promoted and paid for ads and through health officials the use of canola and soybean oils as healthy. They are horrible oils for the body, causing trouble for the thyroid for example, but these oils are usually already rancid when they hit the supermarket.
I consume mct oil and cook with coconut oil. I have had my numbers checked multiple times and the result is I am in better heart health than ever. Try it yourself and get your fluffy ldl checked.
There have been multiple studies of those in the artic, and the South Pacific whose main diet consists of heavy fats and these people stayed healthy until the introduction of modern foods like wheat based products and sugars. The combination of those with fats causes serious weight gain.
3
For the real truth on health, a huge Free conference called "The real truth about health" will take place from 2/2 to 2/11 in Melville NY. You can register on their website and also see the speakers online if you can't make it in person. This conference is lead by experts who have conducted extensive research, some with as many as 50+ years of scientific research. This conference can save your life.
http://www.therealtruthabouthealthconference.com/
3
Spare your wallet and take a walk instead.
The comments are much more informed on the subject than the author.
There seems to be another case developing of nutritional advice based on insufficient evidence that could turn out to have dire long term consequences for the aging population. A recent study in mice found that canola oil not only caused weight gain but impaired memory in a mouse model of AD. This result surprised researchers who thought canola oil would have the same positive effects of olive oil. The study was prompted by the opposite effects of extra-virgin olive oil which had reduced the levels of amyloid plaques and phosphorylated tau in the mice brains while also improving memory,
Canola oil is specifically mentioned in the article as preferable to saturated fat and it's also widely available in health food stores. Canola oil is really rapeseed oil which was once considered too toxic for humans because of its high erucic acid content. Rapeseed plants were bread to lower the levels of erucic acid and the result was named canola oil which sounds more healthy than genetically modified rapeseed oil.
The situation is potentially as dangerous as what occurred many decades ago with the replacing of saturated fats, such as butterfat, with hydrogenated vegetable oils loaded with trans-fats. For a long time such hydrogenated oils were considered healthy as well as being solid at room temperature like most saturated fats.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171207141624.htm
22
I don't believe anything Walter Willett says. But I have always liked Jane Brody and have a cookbook of hers that is one of my staples. Go figure. The one thing always missing from all of these nutritional studies is any mention of the influence of toxic chemicals that we all consume daily with our food no matter how hard we try to avoid them, and the chemicals in the environmental that we are also exposed to ubiquitously. People such as Willett et al dismiss the effects of these contaminants in food and never bother to factor them in, but that doesn't make not there. You see ridiculous studies saying that organic foods are no healthier than non-organic foods. You see studies that never ask the right questions so of course they are frequently contradictory over time. People's exposure to exogenous substances are different in different places and under different conditions. Yes, of course our ancestors ate a lot of meat; their lifestyles were considerably different than ours and the meat they ate was also significantly different than what you buy in the store today. I am not a food fanatic. I don't eat meat or poultry for many reasons but I eat dairy and try to focus on plants, beans, grains, vegetables and fruits, organic when I can afford them. Neither modern medicine nor modern society are geared toward healthy bodies. I know the doctors et al mean well, want to do good, but they are products of these times, often rigid, & arrogant. Caveat emptor. Nothing explains it all.
8
What's wrong, exactly, in what Walter Willett says? Pray inform us, this will be your good action of the day.
The potato gets unfairly maligned in this article, and others. While it is a starch, it is low in fat and high in nutrients - carbs, potassium, vitamin C, B-6, Iron and magnesium, fiber.
11
This and most nutritional studies fail to address lifestyle elements in addition to diet as factors for success or failure. Bio-individuality is such a large component of what's best to put into our bodies. I'll personally never advocate for processed canola oil.
5
This topic gets covered a lot, but I never see any attempt to distinguish between fat from animals raised in unhealthy conditions (99% of animal products in US) and those raised in healthy conditions. If I grow my tomatoes in poor soil, I don't expect quality nutrition. Why would I expect cattle fed artificial diets to produce quality meat? The same question arises in connection with dairy, poultry, and fish.
It is astounding to me that an organization with the resources of the NYT makes this doubtful simplification year after year. Or, perhaps I just missed the article that was more complete. If so, I'd love to hear about it.
20
NPR had a piece on this morning about using a drug that helps diabetics to combat Alzheimers. The human trials, in the UK are almost complete and are hopeful.
I know this is a stretch, but statins apparently are harmful for diabetics. They reduce cholesterol, which is a major component of our brains. Could the use of statins and the mantra to reduce cholesterol levels also contribute to the rise in the incidence of Alzheimers, which is particularly evident in the USA?
Love to see some (non Pharma) scientific exploration of the question.
12
Rates of CHD, cancers, dementia, and lung disease decreased when saturated fats were replaced with unsaturated fats or grains. Saturated fats are largely synonymous with meats, but there is no examination of the how the animals were raised or how the meats were prepared/cooked--both of which significantly affect the development of these diseases. Nor does it appear that the affects of saturated fats from animal flesh vs milk products (milk, cream, cheese) were examined--another potential indicator of preparation effects.
Furthermore, I would hardly classify canola, corn, safflower, soybean, or grapeseed oils as "natural," especially not under the processes by which they are typically, currently produced.
The data is still too complex and unrefined to make some of the proclamations that the AHA is making.
10
What about the Women's Health Initiative? Started in 1993, it was a study that followed 50,000 post-menopausal women over eight years and their saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fat intake was reduced to 30% of total calories. The result: no change in the incidence of heart attack or stroke.
13
I wouldnt trust the Women's Health Initiative for anything. Their studies on the effects of estrogen hormone replacement were so poorly designed that a generation of women are still suffering the negative heath effects of estrogen deprivation, having been scared off the stuff by the studies' faulty conclusions. I'm sure there was no change in the incidence of heart attack and stroke in the post-menopausal women no matter what they ate, because their hormonal milieu had already set them up for low HDL and high LDL cholesterol, calcium deposits in their arteries, and a hyperinflammatory and hypercoagulatory state.
1
@PL:
It was a randomized controlled trial. If hormonal milieu changed, it changed in both control and treatment groups. The treatment group (low fat/low sat fat diet) had _no benefits_ compared to the controls, after _seven years_ of following a low fat/low sat fat diet.
5
"In conclusion, this long-term dietary intervention in postmenopausal women, intended to reduce fat intake and increase intake of vegetables, fruits, and grains, achieved an 8.2% of energy decrease in total fat intake but only a 2.9% of energy decrease in saturated fat intake and only modest increases in intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains. The intervention did not reduce risk of CHD or stroke. To achieve a significant public health impact on CVD events, a greater magnitude of change in multiple macronutrients and micronutrients and other behaviors that influence CVD risk factors may be necessary."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202339
Note how these words differ from the misleading statements made by crusader Gary Taubes.
2
Things curiously absent from this piece: the AHA's own study pitting the Mediterranean diet against the Atkins diet. The Atkins diet lowered the markers for heart disease far better than the Mediterranean diet. Also missing was any reference to the Big-Sugar-funded Harvard papers from the '60s that led us to the anti-fat mind set. This misconception still invades even recent medical research.
19
You wouldn't assume that the Nutrition Medical Industrial Complex would ever admit the glaring errors of their recommendations in the past! Instead, new recommendations are published left and right without any regard to metabolic differences in various populations based on cherry picking parts of studies. What outrageous hybris!
5
Canola oil is now linked to Alzheimers. A recent study (on rats) shows that consumption of canola oil results in brain plaque and has adverse affects "on memory, synapse and neuropathology in the triple transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3
Some dispute this but the evidence seems credible.
13
It's enough for me that canola oil tastes AWFUL -- like rancid fish -- I don't care if it is good or bad for you. I'm not eating it.
6
One study on rats does not translate to credible evidence.
Amazing what little evidence we require to support our biases and the hoops we'll jump through to dismiss much greater evidence.
1
@childofsol:
How about multiple experimental trials in humans, where swapping out sat fats for polyunsaturated seed oils had either no benefits or was actively harmful?
In the health paradox of the year, 52-year-old cardiologist John Warner, president of the American Heart Association (AHA), recently suffered a heart attack in the middle of a health conference. In a statement, the association reported Warner was in stable condition after having a stent placed to open a blocked artery. Part of Warner’s speech at the Scientific Sessions conference in Anaheim, California, centered around his own family’s struggle with heart disease.
In all likelihood, Warner followed AHA recommendations, many of which are actually recipes for heart disease disaster. Of the foods scientifically proven to cause heart disease and clogged arteries, excess sugar and industrially processed omega-6 vegetable oils, found in nearly all processed foods, compete for space at the top the list. And what kinds of foods does the AHA recommend to protect your heart?
Not only does it support ample grain consumption, it also recommends eating harmful fats such as canola, corn, soybean and sunflower oil.5 “Blends or combinations of these oils, often sold under the name ‘vegetable oil,’ and cooking sprays made from these oils are also good choices,” the AHA says. Meanwhile, the association still insists saturated fats are to be avoided.
This is as backward as it gets, and if Warner was following this long-outdated advice, it’s no wonder he suffered a heart attack.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/11/29/aha-presi...
15
Olive oil is fine as long as it’s not heated. I guess What the Health has merit after all.
1
Virgin olive oil can be heated to 410 F without health concerns.
5
Reading the comments to Jane Brody's articles is like watching an Olympic table tennis match. Zing! Zang ! Take that! This move worked before so it ...oops, it didn't work now! Ouch! The table is tilted, the paddle has too much/not enough grip, the ball is from the wrong manufacturer...
Drink lots of water every day. Be kind to others. Wear a reflective vest and helmet while biking. Hug your kids. Don't expect to live forever no matter what you eat.
22
It's great to hug your kids but you should also be raising them to eat well.
7
And always buckle up. Don't worry - be happy!
3
The human race has been consuming butter, milk, cheese, beef, pork, lard, hog jowls, pigs feet, tripe, bacon, coconut oil and palm oil for millennia. There is no retrospective Harvard study that will convince me that foods our ancestors lived and thrived on are bad for us. In fact, every time I see a Harvard study quoted these days, I assume that it is yet another anti-logical assault on common sense.
15
Ancient man was considered old at thirty to forty years. Life spans were much shorter. These diets that replicate diets consumed by ancestral man with the false premise that since it’s been going on for a long time means it’s beneficial are based on false assumptions.
2
That the human race did not go extinct does not mean that our ancestors ate healthful diets. No doubt many of them did, but not consisting primarily of the foods you list. Many probably ate health-promoting amounts of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. And many of them probably got more exercise than many modern people. What you call common sense cannot compensate for ignorance.
3
All true, but keep in mind we don't get up at 4 am to milk the cows anymore....most of us have very sedentary work days, seated at a desk, behind a computer, etc. I'm sure all of those foods are metabolized differently now than in the days of our ancestors....or for that matter just a few decades ago.
6
Hmm the picture isn't quite as clear-cut, as far as I'm aware. For instance a study published last year in European Journal of Epidemiology folllowing over 55000 older middle-aged Danes, found that eating high-fat fermented dairy (such as yogurt) lowers the risk of stroke, than eating low fat fermented dairy.
doi:10.1007/s10654-017-0271-x)
And corn oil? There are enough studies showing that it is inflammatory, and promotes tumourigenesis.
etc etc.
16
Where there is a will there is a way. Peoples' likes/dislikes is - for many - habituation. Six years ago I switched to a vegan AND no fats (except maybe an avocado a couple of times a year). Took about a month (and lots of research), but now I wouldn't want to go back. My wife does not follow my diet - so we each prepare our foods (although there are often things she cooks that I can eat, and vice versa). Another example: for much of my life I had always sweetened coffee & tea (with real or artificial sweeteners of different kinds). A few years ago I dropped all sweeteners - on any food. Took a few weeks to get used to. Now the thought of sweetened coffee, etc repels me.
9
There's many vlogs on YouTube re vegan lifestyle which I found to be very persuasive.
The problem with nutrition science as a discipline is that not only do they not understand the complexity of the systems they purport to explain, they do not even appear to realize what they do not understand. You would think a consistent record of epic failure over the last half century in terms of advice to governments and the general public on matters of public health would provide a clue. But apparently not.
I suspect that in one hundred years time, the nutrition scientists of the future will be reading the well-meaning words of Dr. Frank et al. with much shaking of heads and rolling of eyes. In much the same way modern physicians read the earnest entreaties of medieval medical practitioners today. One can only hope.
16
Why aren't all these tribes living in jungles living past 100? They don't see, hear about, eat or smell processed foods?
Some unethical Doctors are frightening their readers with horror stories about food. and how if you take their vitamins etc., you will get better and they will get rich. The medical profession needs to end its greedy quest for money and the general population needs to quit getting bilked. Quit worrying, eat less, keep moving.
3
The medical professionals reported on in this piece are simply telling people to eat healthfully. Do you expect them to get rich from that? Do you think their advice should be ignored?
As for people in the jungles, they probably do worry less, eat less, and move more than the typical person in contemporary North America. Based on their (presumed) failure to live past 100, shouldn't we disregard your advice?
2
What people in what jungle?
"Alas, the advisory team noted, there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with 'healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes..."
This is a lie. This is professional malfeasance on the part of Dr. Sacks and less so on the journalist who wrote this with what I assume were good intentions. Please read the studies published by Dr. Ornish and Dr. Esselstyn, as well as the China Study by Dr. Campbell. Both Dr. Ornish and Dr. Esselstyn were able to take subjects with advanced cardiovascular disease and REVERSE their disease with a low fat diet centered on plant-based nutrition.
5
There is certainly disagreement among cardiologists about the low-fat diets that you mention (see https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2015/08/04/the-incredibly-bad-scien....
I haven't looked into all of the studies, but a peer-reviewed study by Dr. Ornish and colleagues published in JAMA in 1998 looked at the effects of diet combined with stress reduction techniques, exercise, and social support. They had success, but in a way that renders that particular study incomparable to the kind of trial referred to by Dr. Sacks. In other words, this work by Dr. Ornish does not contradict Dr. Sacks' remark.
3
@Philip Mallory:
The China Study was not an experimental trial, and a critique can be read here:
https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Ornish used multiple dietary and lifestyle interventions, all at the same time, and the control group got nothing. So which factor or factors made the difference? Impossible to know. He did not reverse heart disease, but rather found that some risk factors improved (while others got worse).
2
It's not rocket science. Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and less animal products if any.
Drink more water, get enough sleep and exercise be it walking, running, or yoga and you will lose weight, have lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure.
And for god sake learn the meaning of complex carbohydrate and simple carbohydrates and don't eat the later.
15
I would recommend Ms Brody read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz before writing more articles about diet and heart disease.
35
The Big Fat Surprise is another in a long line of books based on pseudo-science. These books throw scientific references around while the author makes claims about them - claims that the layman will never be able to verify. This book is no different - most of the references used are completely misinterpreted and leave out important details about the studies in question. I'm sure the book is entertaining and reassuring because it appears to be scientific and tells people what they want to hear. But when critically appraised by those that actually know the science, next to none of the arguments hold up. Books like The Big Fat Surprise get tons of praise from the layman yet none from actual scientists.
8
@Dodger:
Funny thing about the diet advice presented by Teicholz: It works. It works better, on average, than the officially recommended low-fat, whole grain diet that nutritional "scientists" keep defending.
6
There might be a few nutritional scientists recommending a whole-grain diet, but the vast majority recommend a varied diet which includes whole grains, vegetables, fruit, dairy, and high-protein foods. None of the U.S. dietary guidelines have recommending consuming a low-fat diet. The current guidelines can be found at the link below. I encourage anyone who is confused about conflicting nutritional claims - particularly from bloggers - to read these guidelines. A long read, but highly informative.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Gu...
Healthy eating patterns and recommended intakes can be found in Chapter 1. Chapter 2, which illustrates the difference between current and recommended dietary patterns, is also highly informative. This 144-page document should help readers weigh the claims made here and elsewhere about what the recommendations actually are, and the methodologies and rationale for the recommendations.
For example, a summary of the recommendation for high-protein foods: "A variety of protein foods, including seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), and nuts, seeds, and soy products"
I don't know what to do anymore. From now on, I'm eating meat, eggs, cheese, and fish, and I'm following the advice from Forks Over Knives and The Big Fat Surprise.
13
This article is somewhat reminiscent of the cyclamate fiasco in the 1960s. At the time, cyclamate was considered an excellent artificial sweetener often used in diet sodas. It was, and is, banned in the US by government functionaries with vague scientific backgrounds. The essential reason for banning cyclamate was a flawed 'study' showing that a few percent of rats, consuming an amount of cyclamate per day equivalent to that found in more that 500 cans of diet soda, developed bladder cancer. It was then concluded that persons consuming 500 cans of diet soda per day were at risk for bladder cancer. This flawed conclusion begs the relevant control for human health, which would have been to compare the health risk for the same individual consuming >500 cans of carbohydrate-laden soft drink per day rather than water. A lack of understanding of what a relevant control group might be is often what makes nutritional studies not even wrong.
5
So true! And cyclamates, which were tolerable in taste as a replacement for sugar, disappeared, only to be replaced by new artificial sweeteners which leave unpleasant aftertastes. Having tried all that are currently on the market, I've opted to severely limit my intake of sugar in my tea to only one or two times a week, rather than daily. I'd rather drink unsweetened tea than suffer the icky taste of today's artificial sweeteners.
2
Dear Jane,
Perhaps a few mea culpa's are in order? Because it was nutritional advice like yours that led so many of us down the paths to margarine and high carbohydrate diets as the solution to heart disease.
Early along, I was advised to switch to margarine, quit eating shrimp because of the high triglyceride content, drink skim milk and minimize fats. The focus was all on upping my carbohydrate intake. That, and, "calories are calories, no matter where they're from."
Frankly, the nutrition industry has lost any credibility with me. They WANT certain things to be true, and they stretch every bit of evidence to try and support that. Nutritionists hate low carb diets, and yet...the A to Z study at Stanford showed that winning in virtually every respect when followed by randomly assigned participants over nearly a year. And the AHA/Food Pyramid approach? It had the worst results.
105
Nutritionists hate low carb diets,
That is rubbish. Nutritionists--specifically, Registered Dieticians--advise a balanced diet that is calorically suited to an individual’s metabolic needs. No food group should be demonized, but any thinking person should realize that high and empty calorie foods must be minimized. Appropriate servicg sizes of whole grains and beans are as much a part of a healthy diet as fruits and vegetables. They are vital for a vegetarian and to meet fiber needs.
“You don’t have to totally abandon cheese, but dairy foods should be limited to one serving every one to three days, not three servings a day.” This advice may be relevant to meat eaters, but not to vegetarians. I am weary of the never ending generalizations about diets. Dietary advice needs to take account of sex, age, level of activity, health issues, current diet, etc.
27
How disappointing to read an article on this subject in the NYT which is plainly so wrong. Saturated fats, particularly coconut oil, avocados and red palm oil are extremely healthy. The real danger lies in consuming the easily oxidised (thus rancid) highly processed omega 6 filled poly unsaturated vegetable fats. Olive oil is another extremely healthy oil. Animal fats are fine in moderation, especially grass fed butter.
51
Exactly!
4
I guess the eggs cooked in butter my wife and I eat every morning, usually with bacon or sometimes grated cheese, are out. The quart or so of milk we consume each day is probably over for us too.
But it's going to be hard. As my wife works full time in a stressful career, and I live a pretty active life myself, we will just wait a bit. Perhaps when she turns 80 later this year and cuts down her workload we'll maybe try it. I know 5 years ago, in my late 70's, I tried statins for high cholesterol (for a couple of months only - it didn't agree with me).
It is interesting that both of us seem to have very "young" blood vessels. Maybe it's because we stay away from sweets and get our "fun" carbohydrates out of wine each night.
Live and learn.
90
Going vegetarian, or better yet, vegan, is the healthiest approach. It is also the most ethical.
18
Wrong on both counts. Humans -- and the planet -- are more sustainable with an omniverous diet. If you don't want to eat meat, don't eat it, but don't fool yourself that if everyone stopped eating it it would save the planet.
27
Veganism is not healthy unless you take supplements to add back the nutrients you abandon when you become a vegan. Stick to being a vegetarian.
6
That isn't true. Supplements aren't necessary but it definitely takes effort to get all the nutrients needed eating vegan.
1
I just read the 26-page advisory from the American Heart Association (AHA), and it appears that the AHA and Jane Brody were right all along. We shouldn't be eating saturated fat--short and simple. The naysayers owe them a sincere apology. It also appears that olive oil may not be the best choice of oils. We should be using polyunsaturated oils, including canola oil, instead to lower our risks.
It is a little concerning that all the data from clinical trials that the authors consider to be valid were collected back in the 1960s. The more recent clinical trials on the topic were flawed in their opinion.
6
Read more about canola and soybean oil. Horrible for you and go rancid quickly - most Americans are consuming these rancid oils.
Also canola oils has a terrible taste!
7
@Humble-Opinion:
What/where are the more recent clinical trials demonstrating any harm from saturated fat consumption? Multiple recent meta-analyses have found no connection between sat fat consumption and heart disease (all of these are ignored by the AHA in favor of older studies), and multiple controlled trials, using human subjects, find improvement in cardiovascular risk factors on high(er) fat diets compared to low(er) fat controls.
Canola oil is an industrially refined product which nobody ate before the 20th century. People have eaten naturally fatty meat, fish, and eggs since forever.
7
One of the best nutrition sites I have found, Precision Nutrition, had a really good article about this (they are a paid nutritional/exercise coaching service, but they have really good information on their website). One of the problems with nurtrition is as others have said, that the studies are often non scientific and people use studies with 20 people, or use self reported studies, to prove things (dad smoked for 60 years and is healthy as a horse? Does that mean smoking is safe...I don't think so). And yes it is confusing, in large part because the government has refused to support impartial research, and what has been done is often done by people with vested interests.
There are a lot of variables. With meat, for example, what kind are you talking about? The cheap meat in fast food or that you buy in the store has been raised on corn and pumped full of antibiotics and steroids, and is a lot less healthy than eating grass fed beef, meat is not meat. That hamburger bun likely has sugar in it, and one of the big problems is people are eating processed foods, not making it themselves. That vegetable dish you eat from the takeout place may be less healthy than eating a homemade burger from grass fed beef. The way to look at it is some things are healthier than others,green vegetables should be eaten the most, then whole grains, then lean protein, and fats and oils should be used, but sparingly. That seems to be the healthiest diet, eat non processed food, eat in ratio.
5
Another name for the American Heart Association is the American Statin Association. Big-Pharma lines the pockets of the AHA - and neither should be trusted by any of us. Statins come with a plethora of side effects. The brain is made up of cholesterol. Don't believe everything you read. Vegetables. Seeds. Nuts. A bit of fruit. Healthy fats from fish, avocados, and so on. Skip the carbs/sugars.
109
Sure, cholesterol is essential to human health. So essential that our bodies make all that we need. Why would we shoulder the metabolic burden of making it ourselves? Because we didn't evolve regularly consuming animal foods. If we did, there would be no need to make it. In other words our diets were not a reliable source.
Compare that to vitamin C. Also essential to human health- we die in about three weeks from scurvy if there is no vitamin C in our diets. But we don't make it ourselves (unlike the vast majority of other animals). Why? Because our diets were a reliable source.
4
Yes! My mother took statins for 12 years to sudden and debilitating side effects. She’s a 110 lb lady who genetically has high cholesterol but leads a clean and healthy lifestyle. The doctors pressured her to increase her Lipitor dosage over the years and she mostly resisted, taking only a quarter of their recommended dose. Still, at 62, she is like an 82 year old in her physical and cognitive functions. After extensive tests and seeing multiple specialists, of course the doctors will not admit there is a correlation.
While I enjoy much of the reporting in the Times, when I see articles casting doubt on the harms of statins and promoting “healthy” oils such as canola, soy and corn over full fat dairy and coconut oil I know that I have to take everything with a grain of salt. Of course we know that money doesn’t just influence elections, it’s in our education and healthcare systems too.
29
Please explain your statement that we didn't evolve regularly consuming animal foods.
Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Agriculture has only been common for roughly 11,000 years. What did folks eat before agriculture was common?
9
nothing is compelling, or convincing to me, in this article, concerning the truly 'best regimens' for eating; respecting certain fats, i am partial to coconut oil (based in part from my reading in the quasi-heretical writings of the Dr Perlmutter who says he has done rigorous research in the 'fats' science. Perlmutter speaks from a western soapbox--called the 'fuctional medicine', that is in many parts thought to be an 'apostate' variety of overall western medical enterprisings.
I grow increasingly irritated with the helter-skelter undercurrents of WELL when i read it.
However, if one wants to add a 'coda' to this current featured WELL song, while imagining "the philippines" just
try this thought experiment:
Quantify the number, or acreage, of forests razed to the ground devastated in order to . . . WHAT !!
put in fast-growing coconut trees as a matter of ruthless agribusiness, so as to cold-press their fruits for the tables of those rich who can afford 'organic' expressed coconut oil.
I mean?
"Tear up the forests, tear up the country, to plant that coconut, to harvest it fast as we can.
it's the moneymaker du Jour. and dont you fergit it.
6
Dr. Millett's advise took me by surprise. Is this new? Does it apply to milk or just cheese?
In an interview, he described dairy fat as “not optimal — not nearly as good as plant fats but not quite as bad as other animal fats.” He said, “You don’t have to totally abandon cheese, but dairy foods should be limited to one serving every one to three days, not three servings a day.”
If you think you need 3 servings of dairy a day, than the Dairy Council did it's job.
6
My father is 82; he's been smoking, on average, a pack of cigs a day since he was 13. The only exercise he gets is when his index finger clicks the tv remote control. Each year he gets a lung scan and his doctor tells him his lungs should be in Ripley's believe it or not. Last year, to lose a few pounds, he gave up eclairs and pop tarts. I should mention he still works full time running a real estate business.
9
As the doctor said, you dad should be in Ripley's believe it or not as an outlier, a large percent of the population if they did what your dad does would die young, or would be one of the statistics causing health costs to soar, kept alive by heart bypass, chemotherapy and the like. They should study your dad's genes, but like Winston Churchill who lived to be 90 despite smoking cigars, drinking like a fish and eating a diet that could only be described as rich, it is an outlier.
19
Your dad basically won the genetic lottery and his experience is not generalizable.
36
Responding to "M" in New England:
No mystery here: we "Cranky Yankees" are notoriously indomitable. I hope at least once in a while your dad still has a cup of coffee with a lovely eclair!
5
Oh, no, the which fat is good for me debate rises again! Not long ago it was the B-vitamins, carbs, protein, sugar and salt that were being discussed for their effects, mainly detrimental, to human health. Information overload! I can’t keep up. I don’t believe what I read even if the article is written by the estimable Jane Brody. My model of health is moderation, a little slab of butter on my popcorn, a shake or two of salt on my sliced organic tomato and even a cup of coffee with sugar and cream in it, but not every day. Moderation rids me of the incessant worry whether I’m “eating right.” Life is too short to seek some form of dietary perfection that even the scientists can’t define.
34
Dave Thomas from Montana, I must ask: HOW can you NOT have a cup of COFFEE with SUGAR and CREAM in it and EVERYDAY? Oh, for GOODNESS SAKE!
If I didn't have my coffee first thing everyday--with heavy cream and xylitol (better for teeth & bones, and a lovely taste, to boot), I think I would just *perish*!
How can you possibly endure those Montana winters without a stiff dose of caffeine? Gracious, good golly!
PLUS, coffee has been found to be full of antioxidants. Great stuff! Highly recommended!
Signed,
Middle-aged, caffeinated, hale & hearty, deep in the snows of Upstate NY!!! LOL
22
Leigh: Thanks for the nudge to drink more coffee! I wondered why I nearly froze to death passing through Two Dot, MT. I actually love coffee, black, thick as molasses and usually without cream and sugar. Which reminds me, I need to get back to the Cafe Du Monde in New Orleans for a dark roasted coffee with chicory and one of those beignets (no, two beignets!) with all that powdered sugar sprinkled on them. Please don’t tell anyone I’ve fallen off the good food wagon. I’m absolutely sure coffee with beignets extends life. Cheers from Montana.
5
Old news. Yes, the predominance of the OLD evidence is that saturated fat is bad, but U.S. guidelines now state that cholesterol (thought to be from saturated fat) does not need to be restricted. What does that tell you? There's great dissonance between the old and new studies. Countless new studies show that fats are harmless (obviously, not for everyone) and, in fact, healthy. Don't trust the AHA on anything, purveyors of old data.
18
I eat Keto and my cholesterol has fallen 40 points. My triglycerides are 66. My HDL is 88. My LDL has fallen 44 points. My glucose has fallen from 97 to 77. I eat no sugar and no grains. I eat as much as I want of meats, full fat dairy, non-starchy vegetables. I rarely eat fruit and if I do its berries. I use olive oil, butter, and coconut oil. I snack on nuts but am rarely hungry for a snack. There are millions of folks around the world who eat high fat - very low carb and whose blood lipids are outstanding. I'm a 71 yr old woman. I'm so tired of misleading medical advice based on poor evidence. When my doc praises my "numbers" I just smile. I've given up on trying to have her listen with an open mind.
126
I would be careful to claim what you did works for everyone or as proof that they are wrong (and I am very skeptical of what is put out there as 'fact', the reality is when it comes to nutrition and health the science behind it is in its infancy, pure and simple). One of the problems with what you say is that the numbers alone indicate health. For example, Doctors used to push Niacin because it improved the HDL/LDL level, and they assumed that that meant it helped prevent heart disease..and guess what, studies showed Niacin doesn't promote health disease, it only makes the HDL/lDL ratio better.
The other problem with Keto is in the long term the benefits don't last, and people start seeing problems. I wouldn't be surprised in another year or so you won't see those numbers going south.
9
Yep. I'm 76, and I have continued to eat just as I did in the '50s. Meat and fish, potatoes, green vegetables and fresh fruit, and whole milk. I also drink a large cup of very strong coffee daily. I don't eat any processed food. I've long had a holistic doctor who has me taking natural anti-inflammatory supplements. I just passed my annual physical with flying colors. If I didn't have Lyme Disease, I would be very healthy. Living in California helps with the fresh foods, and where I am, we have grass-fed meat readily available. Rules are nonsense; how often have we seen these change in our lifetimes?
8
I've been doing Keto for four years. When do the numbers go south ?
4
Almost all so-called health studies are based on "science" that would not pass muster in a fourth grade science fair. Most are based on self-reported data. Even longterm studies depend on data that is not observed but reported by participants-and sometimes this is done only once a year! Often "control cohorts" do not match the study participants. (See most vegetarian studies that compare hyper-aware fitness devotees to the general population and then-surprise!- the results for the fit, vegetarians beat the control group which includes sedentary French fry devotees.)
I take most of these articles with a grain of salt...or two. (Luckily, I have low blood pressure! ; )
22
Might it also be worth considering the health of the planet (and other species) in making dietary choices? There seems to be a good deal of controversy about the research discussed in this article. However, it's indisputable that encouraging a diet based heavily in meat consumption will only further the global degradation that humans have been creating for a while now. I'm not suggesting that we all go vegan (or even vegetarian) but just have more consideration for the impact our food choices have on things other than our LDL/HDL profile.
38
if you want to add a 'coda' to your song, try this: ]
quantify the number or acreage of forests razed to the ground devastated in order to . . . WHAT !!
put in fast-growing coconut trees as a matter of ruthless agribusiness, so as to cold press their fruits for the rich who can afford 'organic' expressed coconut oil.
I mean?
"Tear up the forests, tear up the country, to plant that coconut, to harvest it fast as we can.
it's the moneymaker du Jour. and dont you fergit it.
4
That must mean the impact of the cattle industry is irrelevant, since human beings exploit the environment for coconuts too. Surely it's the exact same thing.
3
I did try being a vegetarian and consumed plenty of soy and grains which caused thyroid condition. I eat keto but contrary to belief I don’t eat a side of beef everyday. I eat tons of vegetables and coconut oil. I did not thrive as a vegetarian but thrive with meat and good fats not canola or soybean
3
Nutrition is difficult to study, but as this article outlined, there is a fair amount of evidence that unsaturated fats are linked to better health outcomes than saturated fats. It is actually more complicated because the overall meal composition and the fat source matter- saturated fat from meat has a clear link to mortality and heart disease but saturated fat from dairy does not (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966685/). It's probably not going to kill you if you eat bacon for breakfast occasionally, but the overwhelming conclusion from relevant nutrition studies is that limiting meat intake is beneficial for health.
If you want to learn about evidence-based nutrition in an accessible format, many episodes of Sigma Nutrition Radio are worth listening to. Here is one about saturated fat: https://sigmanutrition.com/episode200/. Saturated fat is probably not the biggest problem with most people's diets, but it can have health consequences when consumed excessively. Scientists are still working out the details, but there is good evidence that, on average, saturated fat can increase heart disease risk via increases in LDL cholesterol (at least in the short term). All that said, keep in mind that nutrition is not black and white and foods that are high in saturated fat might have benefits for other reasons (such as salmon).
4
You should have ended your comment after the first four words. Nutrition is difficult to study. Period. Even when reports suggesting otherwise come out of the HARVARD School of Public Health.
The studies reported are virtually always flawed- with confirmation bias and self-reported data being the worst culprits. It has been shown- studied!- that people who participate in these sorts of things are notoriously untruthful about what they eat and how much they eat. If exercise is involved, that parameter, too, is reported untruthfully.
But it is the same old game- publish or perish, even it if means rejiggering old studies.
What you eat doesn't matter as much as how much you eat. Cut down on portions and skip a meal now and then. Get out and walk, too?
Life can be so easy...
1
You are incorrect, study after study shows that what is known as the Mediterranean diet consistently leads to the best health outcomes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26528631
4
Worthless studies, Bro.
My mother is 93, and smoked until she was 40. She's surprisingly healthy. She eats what IMO is a balanced diet: Not much sugar, whole grain breads and cereals, meat only once or twice a week, lots of fruit and veggies, virtually no processed food. Butter? Yes, lots of it. And whole milk, and eggs and cheese. Olive oil with abandon. When she gains a few pounds she just eats less of the same.
22
I don't get the point of your post. Individual anecdotes are meaningless.
My mother smoked until she was 42 and died of lung cancer when she was 77. Her grandfather smoked two packs of unfiltered cigarettes every day for eight decades until he died at the age of 94.
>"Alas, the advisory team noted, there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with “healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.”<
So why is ANYONE drawing ANY conclusions about different types of fat and their effects on health? Yet both sides of the controversy plow ahead, certain they know best. This is not science.
25
The last gasp of the "fat is bad" nutritional establishment. They've lost on cholesterol and total fat, and are desperately seeking justification for 50 years of wrong advice.
Humans have been nourished by meat, fish, and eggs since forever. These foods contain saturated fatty acids, along with other fatty acids and many other nutrients.
On the other hand, "vegetable" oils (really refined seed oils) are industrially refined food-like products that nobody ate until the 20th century. The promotion of seed oils and margarines as "heart healthy" tracks with funding of the AHA by seed oil and margarine producers, and the widespread consumption of seed oils tracks with the modern epidemic of heart disease. With the usual correlation/causation caveats.
Meanwhile, where are the randomized controlled trials showing any _benefits_ to consuming seed oils and margarines instead of naturally fatty foods? (Hint: they don't exist.)
90
Brody writes,
"Alas, the advisory team noted, there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with “healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.”"
But this is not true. Dean Ornish has done a number of credible studies doing exactly that. In fact, it's the basis for the Ornish diet, which he proposed all the way back in the 90s as a possible method for preventing and even reversing heart disease. Why isn't Ornish mentioned in this article? Has he somehow been discredited by the establishment?
5
From what I remember, his study did not meet "experimental design" criteria and therefore was not replicable or internally valid.
8
Hmmm, that smells to me like "study authors refused to take money from companies that sell statins and alter their results" but who knows. I'm sure they discount the studies done by Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Campbell's China Study as well. Maybe there weren't enough people used for the China Study???
Jane: have missed your regular columns. Good to hear from you again... now from San Diego.
1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the data suggest that simply taking a statin will have the same effect as following the diet recommended by the AHA and Ms. Brody.
If that's the case, please pass me the steak sauce and the Lipitor.
7
I found I had even better results skipping the Lipitor.
7
When one reads the comments they support my own theory of healthy eating.
People can be on Whole30 diets, Keto diets, Atkins Diets, Mediterranean Diets, Cave-person Diets, Vegan Diets, Low fat diets, or whatever. And lose weight.
What is common among all of these diets is that people are thinking about everything they eat before they eat it. They are mindful eaters. And mindful grocery shoppers.
The second part of my theory is that to lose weight you either need to sometimes be hungrier than you are comfortable being or you need to exercise a lot. The idea that exercise doesn't help one lose weight seems to me to be nonsense: We average 90 minutes a day of exercise, doing things that are fun! Besides the fact that in this 90 minutes we are not eating, doing that accounts for about a pound's worth of calories each week.
Eat mindfully and exercise. People who do these two things lose weight and keep it off.
11
And after the 90 minutes I am hungry like a wolf!
2
Dan: you are likely an extreme outlier, as pretty much 99.9% of humanity finds hunger to be horribly unpleasant, and makes people mean, grouchy, short tempered and angry.
3
Breaking News!
The people who think saturated fat is bad for you still think it is bad for you.
They haven't done more high quality research. They admit that the public health intervention aimed at lowering saturated fat in the diet has not made us healthier - because we ate more refined carbs and sugar. They admit that big studies replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils didn't show big health gains.
Perhaps the NYTimes will also soon have pieces reminding us that "Christians still support Jesus" or giving insight like "The cashier at Starbucks might be jittery because they drank too much coffee."
The honest answer is we don't know what the relationship is between dietary fat and health. If Jane Brody could explain to us the mechanism by which saturated fat leads to bad health I'd be willing to listen. It seems like we know that large amounts of refined carbohydrates and sugar lead to bad health, particularly type 2 diabetes, and the mechanism is through increased insulin resistance.
I limit my carbohydrates and try not eat seed oils and I don't know if this will help me live longer. I do know that I eat a lot less, that I don't get strong hunger pains or cravings, that I have lost weight, and that my endurance is better than before when I was on a low fat diet. Since public health scientists seem incapable of taking an unbiased view and letting the data lead them to a conclusion, perhaps we all just need to do it on our own through self experimentation.
42
My mother had advice just as good or better 50 years ago : Everything in Moderation.
10
Diabetes - the unintended result of the anti-fat movement is already costing the US tens billions each year and is predicted to rise to the hundreds of billions.... AHA and Harvard positions promoted by this author shoulders significant blame for this epidemic - even if it was unintentional - though the sugar industry’s documented pay offs in the 1960s to Harvard scientists may belie that defense. What I can’t fathom is that trump will give a speech tonight touting a $700+ billion military budget and we can’t spare the tens of millions for basic sound nutritional research to resolve these questions potentially improving the health of millions of Americans and saving us literally trillions in future healthcare. How not to make America great again...
19
Indigenous populations remained healthy on high-saturated fat diets (Inuit, Native Americans) before their diets were inundated with refined carbohydrates in the modern era.
Yes, trans fats are bad but there is now a great deal of evidence (see Gillespie, Lustig, Taubes, et al.) that refined carbs and SUGAR are the real culprits in metabolic disease. This zombie idea that saturated fats are the primary culprit in heart disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, gout, NAFLD, and diabetes (or its precursor, insulin resistance) is just. plain. wrong.
40
Do Health policy and research agencies proofread their own nonsensical reports?
My first "Duh!" was uttered after reading how medical researchers "discovered" replacing saturated fats with products high in trans-fats was not helpful. Maybe less fat intake, regardless of type, and more exercise is best?
The age old adage rings true here. Everything in moderation. Infrequent consumption of butter or a well-marbled steak is acceptable. Eating that for every meal, every day would be bad.
Most long-term medical studies uncover interesting facets to how diet and health are related, but most often the person watching their own health knows when they are getting too heavy or not taking enough time for regular exercise. And attentive Janes and Joes do not need a Ph.D. or M.D. to learn this type of wisdom.
3
Commenters have some good rebuttals to Ms. Brody. Still, how hard is it to eat more nuts and soy and less beef? Meat consumption is a major driver of methane production which drives climate change. If heart disease doesn't get you, the floods and hurricanes might.
6
Soy is NOT health food - do your research
7
Since soy has been introduced in the Western world as animal feed and part of hundreds of food products for humans only since the nineteen fifties, it has changed the fat composition of animals, which should have some lasting effects on us. I, like many people, react badly to many soy products, especially soy milk and tofu. Wouldn't East Asians, who have used soy much longer, have a higher tolerance for it? People will thrive on different foods depending on their ancestry. Nobody should give generalized dietary advise for everyone!
1
How much methane did the three deer I hunted last year make? By harvesting them, I reduced the methane load, not increased it.
Where is diabetes in these assessments? So-called "healthy" whole grains and legumes can raise blood sugar to unhealthy levels, which lead to damaged kidneys, retinas and toes. High fat without much carb can be much more healthful and is dismissed by this writer.
19
Diabetes is not caused by sugar consumption or consumption of carbs (I am talking type II diabetes, not type 1). The reason for type II diabetes is plain and simple, excess body fat, as the country has gotten more obese the amount of body fat has obviously increased with it. Fat blocks the insulin reaction, and it shouldn't be surprising, a lot of people who were once obese who get down to normal weight suddenly find that their diabetes is eliminated, and the science is out there behind this.
2
Research does not support your assertion. For example:
"As summarized in Fig. 5, our findings show that indolepropionic acid, a gut microbial metabolite10,11,12, is associated with a reduced likelihood of progression to T2D in overweight individuals with IGT."
"In our study, higher serum indolepropionic acid was directly associated with the intake of total fiber, mainly originated from whole grains. We confirmed this observation by serum alkylresorcinol measurements24. Indolepropionic acid is a microbiota-produced deamination product of the amino acid tryptophan. The type of carbohydrate ingested and pH level can affect the production of metabolites as indole compounds by the intestinal microflora10,11. We hypothesize that high intake of dietary fiber and whole grain cereal products may change gut microbiota towards a higher production of indolepropionic acid, thereby promoting preservation of insulin secretion capacity. This hypothesis fits well with previous observational findings on the protective role of fiber25 and low-fat high-complex carbohydrate diet for T2D21. The role of microbiota in e.g. efficient conversion of complex indigestible dietary carbohydrates into short-chain fatty acids and maintenance of gut microbiome carbohydrate fermentation seem to be important to maintain gut and systemic health."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46337
1
bill d: no particular food causes Type 2 diabetes, but it is not caused by obesity either.
Most diabetics are elderly (over 60) and not necessarily obese. My great aunt got Type 2 diabetes at 65 -- it ran in her family -- she was always slim and fit and athletic! She was a model diabetic, who tested twice day and stuck to a VERY strict diet -- yet she developed neuropathy in her feet, and eventually lost most of her toes. But she was never fat.
Also: most modern researchers now know that it is Type 2 diabetes that CAUSES obesity -- not vice versa. And many of the drugs used to treat diabetes increase weight and body fat!
Dieting can put diabetes into TEMPORARY remission, but it is not a cure.
3
This article is very confusing to read, with a lot of hyphenated words and reference to a bunch of studies one can't keep straight. At the end the recommendations are presented almost as an afterthought with few examples of the foods one should eat. And are they well thought out? For example, rice has arsenic and safflower oil promotes inflammation. One just can't win. I'm going to have my buttered bagel now, have a nice day.
12
The dearth of scientific evidence regarding the role ostensibly played by saturated fat in heart disease remains a serious problem. The lipid hypothesis is still as mythological as the oedipus complex, but they both make for great conversation.
When science opinion clouds scientific fact, this is what happens.
8
Taubes has already been mentioned in the comments, so I'll just mention that he described strong reasons for doubting the conclusions of the AHA study that they believe allow them to continue to demonize saturated fat and endorse vegetable oils. See http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/06/16/guest-post-vegetable-oils-francis-....
15
So, I've been right after all, in eating my whole grain breads, and lots of oats and oatmeal! But, what about Cocoa Butter?!
1
Good luck getting your daily carb intake to below 50% of your total calories. I am fairly vigilant. On my best days, 45% of my calories are carbs.
You have to eat from 3 groups: carbs, fats, and proteins. I eat fish five or six times a week, often in large quantities and typically sauteed in oily fats like olive, avocado or walnut oil. I eat a half dozen eggs weekly and probably eat chicken four or five times weekly. And I eat lots of full-fat dairy, incl kefir milk, grassfed whole milk, and grassfed yogurt (w/ no sweeteners).
So, lots of protein--over the recommended daily allowance. Lots of fats, incl saturated dairy fats. I eat my aesthetic limits of proteins and fats with ratio of activity to caloric intake ok--BMI of 25.
I would suggest only that vigilance is in order when it comes to carbs. NO sugar, incl sugar slipped into otherwise healthy foods. NO refined grains. It's easier with proteins and fats, but the same rule applies to carbs: eat whole foods, avoid manufactured food product.
It has been hard for Ms. Brody to let go of the fat obsession that has characterized nutritional science since Ancel Keys misinformed all of us for many yrs. Natural fats don't just clog arteries. There is an inflammatory process at work whose end point, when discussing arterial health, is arterial lesions directly causing cardiovascular disease. Maybe sugar is at work here. Maybe not. See NYT article on 1/29 by Gina Kolata on CHIP.
15
This article makes poor choice of studies to focus on. While the topic is complex, there are meta analyses (studies of the data of data) that point to the following conclusions:
Sugar and carbs are BAD
Fiber is GOOD
Fat is NEUTRAL
Protein is NEUTRAL
Read the literature...
8
Carb-bashing is featured prominently on book shelves and web sites that contain just enough factual information to reel in the gullible. But the overwhelming majority of scientific research finds a beneficial role for consumption of whole foods like whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, which all contain significant quantities of complex carbohydrates. Not just consumption, but multiple servings per day. Significant inverse associations have been found between the consumption of these foods and the incidence of heart disease, diabetes and major types of cancer. Given the major shortfall in fiber intake in the United States, it makes sense to encourage, rather than discourage, the consumption of whole grains and other fiber-rich foods.
3
The most impt reason to avoid things with palm kernel oil -- is that the palm kernel oil plantations are destroying acres of natural rain forest esp. in Indonesia where our closest ancestors the great apes live. It's not nice to take away grandma's house. and frankly, IMO products made with palm kernel oil do NOT takste good.
If you read the article about CHIP before this one you might have another take on the whole thing.
Women of a certain age should eat only about 1800 calories a day... That's not a lot of food. (large donut is at least 300; a couple of cuppas with milk are another 100 -- and that's not even ONE MEAL.)
Mediterranean diet-- plenty of white pasta and white bread in Italia... portion control crucial..
I go thru binges... and the most recent one has made my waistline increase one size (my scale doesn't work but my clothes do... so time for more salad less toast, less cheese, no cocktails... Just don't buy it at the grocery store.. and then you won't eat it. COMMON SENSE often in short supply.
(I rarely eat donuts.. which can give on heartburn - a large greasy jelly donut- you will feel as if you are having a heart attack.... not a good thing...
2
I do not understand your fixation on donuts; I like them, but I doubt I eat a donut more than 3 times yearly.
2
As the great and wise Vinny Barbarino would say, "I'm so confused!"
2
What about eggs? Good, bad or indifferent? I eat a lot of eggs...
This is not what I wanted to hear. Therefore I will ignore it.
12
Read the book "China Study" and then think about what diet is better for your health.
1
"China Study" has been totally debunked; it is nothing more than a proselytizing RELIGION of veganism!
3
China Study is a joke. Science Fiction maybe.
1
It is fashionable to claim that the evidence that saturated fat can have negative health consequences is a lie based on corrupt studies fueled by the sugar industry. While this story might make a good "subway read," per a recent NYT article, it just isn't supported by the bulk of nutrition studies.
Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz are not scientists. Their interpretations of the nutrition literature are skewed and the narrative they are selling is not taken seriously by nutrition researchers. Please see this commentary of their books:
http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-journalism-an-expert-revi...
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/the-case-against-...
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-big-fat-surpr...
2
As the woman with the feeding tube said "If you want it, have it and enjoy it. I can't."
1
And next year it will be a different list of "what's good" and what's bad"
Sorry....
Pass.
5
I have a theory that nutritionists are to blame for climate change denial and the war against science in general. What "nutritional science" advises us seems to change annually (perhaps because those speaking on behalf of the science are not behaving like scientists), and people are right to discount it. This article does little to repair the damage. Sloppy constructions like "the best-established facts" should have rendered this piece unpublishable. Whatever can that mean? "Best evidence," maybe? When you start confusing evidence and facts you should step away from your keyboard. "Best-supported conclusions," perhaps? Confusing conclusions and facts puts you in Kellyanne Conway territory. This is gibberish.
10
another article that is the equivalent of "changing seats on the Titanic"
Those of us following a plant based diet can ignore these endless articles wrangling over which bad thing is a little less bad for you.
Life is so much easier plant-based - you can ignore food articles, you can ignore drug ads, you can ignore hospital ads......
2
Misleading and one-sided article. I assume author means well but she is not advancing the debate. To blame folks (and their poor health outcomes) on eating more (bad) carbs - the practical result of the AHA’s low fat high carb diet/fixation is a flawed at best. There are 3 macro nutrients: carbs, fat, and protein. No one (thankfully) appears to be advocating a high protein - thus you either have a LFHC or LCHF. Consensus for all is eliminate added sugar, fruit juice, soda, and processed carbs. Great. Same for trans fats ... again, great. healthy diet can probably be either LFHC (mediterraian) or HFLC (keto) if done properly. Very LCHF diet will switch fuel from glucose to ketones and may be better for T2diabetes prevention treatment and offer some unique characteristics that may or may not be worthwhile. Sadly Ms. Brody doesn’t even acknowledge the debate. See lancet’s August 2017 Report multi year study of literally 100k+ folks in 18 countries which found that “Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality..... Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke. Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.”
Link
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-...
6
If you want the best, healthiest oil possible, consider flax seed oil (also known as flax oil). You may have to go to a health food store to find it, and it is expensive, but it is loaded with health benefits. It is good in salads or you can cook with it as a substitute for any other oil that a recipe calls for. Or you can spread it on bread as a substitute for butter, and the taste is great on anything toasted.
9
I take a tablespoon every day. I buy it on Amazon and keep it in the fridge.
Taking it internally is helpful for dry eye syndrome and also dry skin. (moisturizing from the inside!)
1
The last time I tried flax seed oil, it smelled like the oil that is used to clean oil paint from brushes, so I was unable to actually taste it. Are you saying that it tastes good and has there been changes in the oil since I tried it several years ago?
1
Flax oil is used to make varnish. No thanks.
Dear Ms Brody -
You have attempted to present a unified voice to a topic that remains extremely complex. First, you focus exclusively on heart disease. What about the role of reducing saturated fats on total mortality and cancer mortality in the four core studies you cite? The answer: cutting saturated fats increases death from multiple non-cardiac causes so total mortality is the same OR LOWER among those who consume more saturated fats.
The story of the Sydney Heart Study is not only about trans fats (a problem in all older studies), but you might have quoted the recent reanalysis of the Sydney Heart Study (using recovered data since as the original paper presented a 'biased spin' to minimize the negative findings) published In the British Medical Journal in 2013. The authors concluded that dietary substitution of vegetable oils (Omega 6 linoleum acid) for saturated fat lower cholesterol but increased deaths from all causes, coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease.
Or perhaps you might have quoted from Castelli's summary of the largest and longest prospective study in the US - the Framingham Heart Study. The quote is buried in an editorial in the Archives Internal Medicine (1992): In Framingham, people who at the most cholesterol, the most saturated fat, the most calories, weighed the least and were most physically active.
There is a cognitive bias called the 'sunk cost' where people and groups invest more in their prior mistakes. Revisit the data.
148
The quote is buried in an editorial in the Archives Internal Medicine (1992).
This is your “evidence” of “bias”? A lot has gone on in science since 1992 and why should this one buried quote be resurrected completely out of context?
What has happened to us all?
My grandfather, who lived a healthy life for 94, years ate dairy, fatty meat and whatever my grandmother put in from of him, including her delicious homemade cakes. My mother who also live a healthy 95 abhorred vegetables and seemed to subsist on a sliced American cheese sandwich on white bread, No sodas, no snacks in the house. Bowls piled with grapes, oranges and apples, coffee cake for endless streams of visitors. Plain dinners: lamb chops, one night, simply prepared chicken, fish and either peas,carrorts, green bean and the occasional
baked or roast potato. Their lives were involved in the world around them, causes, operas, theatre, work- Not food. They exercised by doing the things they enjoyed: bicycling, ice skating,
swimming in the summer, walking, dancing throughout the year.
They did not smoke and drank on special occasions.
72
You present anecdotal evidence -- your family's experience -- which has little relevance for others and perhaps includes the variable of lucky genes. It's a bit like Trump's argument against global warming -- accumulated evidence over the course of decades and centuries -- because of anecdotal observations about unusually cold weather during periods this winter.
7
I really don't understand how Trump enters into this discussion- nor global warming. Perhaps I didn't make my point as clear as I might have and it is anecdotal but the article contradicts itself and many that came before so in some ways it too is "anecdotal".
4
For everyone who claims their grandparents lived to be of ripe old age, there are just as many who's grandparents did not live into old age. And those very same grandparents may have even consumed the very same diets as those long lived ones did.
Anecdotals do not provide any much information.
It would be nice if these studies used grass-fed, pastured animals (including chicken and free-range eggs) as the standard for meat and fat consumption. The nutrient profile between them and typical grocery store feed-lot, industrial ag meats is night and day. https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10
https://www.motherearthnews.com/natural-health/free-range-eggs-zmaz09fmzraw
68
The American Heart Association has serious conflicts of interest. The Mediterranean diet is an unknowable quantity. There is absolutely no reason to assume that foods introduced in the past 150 years are essential for human health. Gary Taubes, Nina Teicholz, Tim Noakes, Zoe Harcombe, Jason Fung, and the rest of the keto gang have analyzed the "scientific studies" in exhaustive detail, and found that there is no reason to demonize saturated fat, while there is ample reason to fret about carbohydrates. It's not a contrarian man-bite-dog thing - it's that LCHF actually works, and actually can reduce hyperinsulimia/insulin resistance/diabetes. Low fat diets can't.
128
...see also "grain brain" by david perlmutter md...
5
What's LCHF? Is the average reader supposed to know?
LCHF -low carb high fat- works to lower cholesterol because any weight loss lowers cholesterol including opiod addiction or chemotherapy. About as good for longevity as well.
NutritionFacts dot Org for more details
1
Palm oil seems to be increasingly found in various baked goods. Perhaps if consumers read labels and steer clear of foods with unnecessary saturated fats, those health hazards will eventually be replaced by healthier fats.
5
If a person has to read labels to decide what to eat, they are already on the wrong track. Nobody needs a label to know broccoli, blueberries, walnuts, and lentils are healthy. Nobody needs to eat this way 100% of the time, but it helps if this is your normal eating pattern, with the occasional indulgence here and there.
59
It’s not the palm oil that’s bad it’s the sugar and flour baked good that are the problem. Palm and coconut oil were attacked by the producers of canola and soy - they promoted these horrible oils as safe and healthy and they are horrible. Coconut and palm are very healthy for the human body.
2
Palm oil is also hugely problematic for the environment and rare and endangered wildlife like orangutans and the Sumatran tiger. Despite that it has become ubiquitous which I believe has largely to do with the fact that it is cheaper as a filler ingredient that many of the oils these companies used to use. The good thing is, if a snack has palm oil in it -- chips, cookies, etc etc -- chances are it is bad for you so avoid at all costs!
6
I expect that one day scientific wisdom will converge on the EWYL BOTOI diet: eat what you like but one third of it.
27
No doubt the great Gary Taubes and Big Ag/Big government/Big whatever will feature prominently as respecitive hero and villain in the comments.
Let's continue to natter on about Gary Taubes, if we must. He criticizes the AHA for leaving out studies which "contradict" their preconceived ideas. He lists the Women's Health Initiative, the Minnesota Coronary Survey, and the Sydney Heart Study.
Part 1:
The WHI's dietary fat reduction study was designed to measure whether significant dietary fat reductions would decrease colon and breast cancer. Not only did the participants fail to meet the fat reduction objectives, but the study did not control for fat types and could not possibly serve to “refute” the AHA guidelines.
WHI authors: "In conclusion, this long-term dietary intervention in postmenopausal women, intended to reduce fat intake and increase intake of vegetables, fruits, and grains, achieved an 8.2% of energy decrease in total fat intake but only a 2.9% of energy decrease in saturated fat intake and only modest increases in intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains. The intervention did not reduce risk of CHD or stroke. To achieve a significant public health impact on CVD events, a greater magnitude of change in multiple macronutrients and micronutrients and other behaviors that influence CVD risk factors may be necessary."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202339
5
@childofsol:
WHI found _no benefits_ to reducing total fat or sat fat. No benefits for heart disease, obesity, cancer, diabetes, or overall mortality. It was the largest and longest experimental trial on diet every performed, and it should have been a definitive refutation of the "everybody should eat low fat" diet advice that you love so much.
Taubes is the reason that we can now talk about the "low fat" diet in the past tense, and we can safely ignore your advice that everybody should eat low fat, whole grain-based diets.
9
And STILL you misrepresent what -if anything - I've said about fat. How many times does this make?
The comment was about the Women's Health Initiative and Taubes' reporting about it. You could address that. Taubes criticized the AHA for leaving out this study. The study was left out because it did not measure the replacement of saturated fat with unsaturated fats.
And could we at long last dispel of the myth of the failed low-fat experiment? There was no such thing. Americans as a group have NEVER followed a low-fat diet. What they did do was increase their consumption of refined carbohydrates, not decrease their consumption of fat.
1
Part 2:
In 'Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease
A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association', the basis for excluding the Minnesota Coronary Survey:
“the patients received the assigned diets intermittently, contrary to the intent of the researchers, and for a much shorter time
than planned.………A recent reanalysis of this trial restricted to the participants who remained in the trial for at least 1 year also found no significant differences in CHD events or CHD deaths.39 We excluded this trial from the core group because of the short duration, large percentage of withdrawals from the study, and intermittent treatment, which is not relevant to clinical practice.”
And the Sydney Heart Study: “We did not include this trial in our evaluation of the effects of lowering dietary saturated fat because trans fats are not recommended3,13 and are being eliminated from the food supply.43”
They also excluded a study by Houtsmuller et all, which showed results extremely favorable to their supposed bias.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510
4
@childofsol:
Minnesota Coronary, Sydney Heart were both randomized controlled trials, albeit imperfect. In both, substituting seed oils for saturated fats lowered cholesterol, but _increased_ heart disease risk. Your cited re-analysis claims that the substitution had no effect, so at _best_ the seed oils/margarines were neutral relative to saturated fats. These should have been refutation, or least reason for re-consideration of the "saturated fat is bad, seed oils/margarines are better" advice. Instead, the researchers buried these because they conflicted with their pre-determined notions about fats.
Meanwhile, where are the experimental trials demonstrating any _benefits_ to substituting seed oils/margarines for saturated fats?
Do the people in your favorite "Blue Zones" eat a lot of soy oil and margarine?
2
As in your response to my Part 1 comment, you are not addressing the issue. The issue is Taubes' criticism of the AHA, claiming that they leave out studies unfavorable to their supposedly industry-influenced views.
The Minnesota study had one year of intervention to work with. As explained in the AHA paper, two years is considered a bare minimum for an intervention to show CVD effects.
The Sydney study did not account for trans fats, so no comparison between saturated and unsaturated fats could be made.
Where are the studies whose quality, size and length produce the "best-established facts on dietary fats"? The advisory Jane Brody refers to relies on only four clinical trials, only one of which included any women. According to the paper 44% of the participants in the Finnish mental hospital study, or less than 550 women, drawn from an unusual environment, are the cohort on which the AHA and the New York Times are basing dietary advice for hundreds of millions of American women.
Note also that the paper speaks with confidence, on the basis of these four studies, only on the incidence of cardiovascular disease, not on deaths from cardiovascular disease and not on total mortality. What benefit from increasing vegetable oils in the diet, if this change also increases cancer, neurodegenerative disease, autoimmune diseases, suicides and death from accidents?
The report then slides from clinical trials to recent observational studies (read, questionnaires) that purport to show benefits of replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated and unsaturated fat. The article does not mention the lower probative value of such studies or that many are based on the same ongoing data series that led us to think low-fat diets and hormone-replacement therapy would be beneficial for women.
39
Bless you, Merrianne, from Pittsburgh PA! A very well thought-through critique of Brody's latest, uh. well...may I call it "blather"? (I like the alliteration.) I can become quite annoyed with uncritical assumptions found in the Times' human health articles.
Merrianne, I particularly like your remark, "The report then slides from clinical trials to recent observational studies (read, questionnaires) that purport to show benefits of replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated and unsaturated fat." I, in fact, did something of a double-take to see that Brody was promoting purely ANECDOTAL evidence as reliable health guidance. No SCIENTIST worth her salt makes recommendations on unproven hearsay.
I eat a variety of fats. My blood vessels are quite healthy. My grandmother, bless her soul, had blood cholesterol in the 300s all her life--which lasted healthily well into her 90s!
Here's another point of view I found interesting: consider that coconut oil is generally a product of, e.g., The Philippines, and therefore doesn't support the American economy. All those other oils are American-made. Who funded these studies? Honestly, I don't know, but I suspect (having done academic research at a big NYC hospital).
Brody ought to read today's NYT article on "CHIP," describing how folks with none of the conventional (dubiously predictive) risk factors (i.e. hyperlipidemia) are getting heart disease: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/health/heart-disease-mutations-stem-c...
4
Bio-identical hormone therapy is beneficial to women.
Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is good for women. Estrogens from horses (Premarin) and synthetic progestins are not good for women.
more of the same stuff from Sacks at Harvard and the rest of the usual suspects.
As Gary Taubes wrote when this study was released last summer "Whether consciously or unconsciously, they assume that what they think is true surely is, and then they methodically eliminate the negative and accentuate the positive until they can make the case that they are surely, clearly and unequivocally right". " It’s why I wrote in the epilogue of my first book on nutrition, Good Calories, Bad Calories, that I didn’t consider these people doing research in the nexus of diet, obesity and disease to be real scientists. They don’t want to know the truth; they only wanted to convince maybe themselves and certainly the rest of us that they already do and have all along."
See his review at http://garytaubes.com/vegetable-oils-francis-bacon-bing-crosby-and-the-a...
72
If I were as brilliant as Gary Taubes - the EIon Musk of nutrition - I probably couldn't resist quoting myself either.
3
His critique has little if any merit. Reference above comments re the Women's Health Initiative, Minnesota Coronary Survey, Sydney Heart Study.
1
@childofsol:
His critique goes a lot deeper than those two studies. But take those two studies alone, you've got randomized controlled trials with _tens of thousands of people_ and there were _no benefits_ to the low fat/low sat fat diet. Should at least be reason to re-think the lipid hypothesis, if not to outright reject it.
Thank you for standing firm in your support of the Mediterranean diet, Jane Brody. It's the only diet that has stood the test of decades or centuries of time. My wisest friends are also living long, healthy lives by eating complex carbohydrates, lots of fruits and veggies, and little meat. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to food.
16
Don't the following two, consecutive paragraphs contradict each other? The first states that no trials tested the benefits of whole grains vs fats; the second states that recent studies do show a benefit from replacing saturated fats with whole grain carbohydrates (and other nuitrients).
1. 'Alas, the advisory team noted, there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with “healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.”'
2. "However, the most recent studies conducted that analyzed the effects of specific nutrients showed that when 5 percent of calories from saturated fats were replaced by an equal number of calories from polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats (like olive and canola oils) or whole-grain carbohydrates, the risk of coronary heart disease was reduced respectively by 25 percent, 15 percent and 9 percent."
7
I tried substituting coconut oil for vegetable shortening. Brownies came out fine, but pie crusts much less so. So back to shortening I went. I did, however, wash and save the 30-ounce jars that the coconut oil came in, and I use those to store the whole grains I buy in the bulk department.
6
I always use butter for pie crusts which I rarely make. Shortenings are the least healthful option.
3
Try this olive oil pie crust: https://cookingwithmicki.wordpress.com/?s=olive+oil+pie+crust. I tried it once and now use it all the time! I make a triple or quadruple recipe and freeze some, which works fine. It has a lovely vanilla flavor; now I prefer its flavor to other crusts. Here are a bunch of recipes with olive oil and discussions of how to cook with it: http://www.greekliquidgold.com/index.php/en/recipes-with-olive-oil. It's usually the only kind of fat in my kitchen (except that my kids still want buttery icings on their birthday cakes; we should really switch to glazes or the Greek tradition of plain powdered sugar...). Olive oil is great for cookies, cakes, muffins, pies, and pancakes, as well as salads, vegetables, fish, and meats.
I find it troubling that the diet debate has yet to focus on changes in the fatty acid profile of the food supply. There's no mention of the excessive arachidonic acid content of meat, the result of feeding the animals grains. Excerpt: "We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100 years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in ω-6 fatty acids, and changed animal feeds from grass to grains, thus increasing the amount of ω-6 fatty acids at the level of LA (from oils) and arachidonic acid (AA) (from meat, eggs, dairy). This led to very high amounts of ω-6 fatty acids in the food supply for the first time in the history of human beings. Traditionally, animals grazed. Grass contains ALA (ω-3), whereas grains, corn and soya (which are now fed to animals) are high in LA (ω-6). This imbalance in the amount of ω-6 and ω-3 fatty acids is a new phenomenon that was never a part of human evolution." http://openheart.bmj.com/content/3/2/e000385
I have found it useful to self experiment, altering my diet to reduce both linoleic acid and arachidonic acid intake. The benefit has been substantial; more energy and less pain. Too much arachidonic in cell membranes acid translates into constant pain. For those curious as to why this works, I suggest this article about the endocannabinoid system. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ije/2013/361895/
25
Then there is this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28864332
"INTERPRETATION:
High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke."
71
Very interesting, thanks!
The study is doubly informative as it is worldwide in reach, encompassing both rich and poor nations, as "Most available data are from European and North American populations where nutrition excess is more likely" or, most studies are skewed because of too many over-fed sedentary people who eat too much and chose products of the factory over those of the farm. For those of us who don't constantly snack, who don't guzzle sugary drinks, and who avoid consuming too much refined foods, being told that a hamburger will send us to an early grave is not entirely helpful.
1
This is just the latest bad science from these people.
First, ignoring gross conflicts of interest, or dismissing them, is a bad place to start. On that basis it may be simply impossible for this group to do any work or study any prior work and come to a proper conclusion. And by "this group" I mean Sacks and Brody et al. Better to head entirely in the other direction, and do exactly the opposite of what they recommend. With the exception of eating more carbs.
Second, are vegetable oils harmful to humans? In the wild, or before people ate vegetable oils from bottles... People ingested, and digested, trace amounts from eating vegetables. And maybe some occasional small amounts, from some possible grass-seed and bean consumption. In other words, in tiny amounts, people are well adapted to eating vegetable oils, but only as a part of vegetables. Not from a bottle? And the same could be said of fructose: eating fruit is fine. Fruit juice is not. Vegetables are fine, apparently.
There are other paradigms here, including fasting regimens of varying severity. When studies talk about reducing carbohydrate consumption, what they are really reducing is insulin. Maybe ANY diet or program that reduces insulin production is the one we need to focus on. That means REDUCED sugars, and/or refined carbohydrates, not the action of increasing or reducing specific types of oils. At the root of this may be insulin and nutrient sensing pathways, and the elimination of ever being hungry.
26
There is a prism missing here--the concept of oxygen homeostasis. See Dr. Majid Ali's website to understand this concept . Oxidation is undoubtedly a major player in cardiovascular disease. Isn't the cholesterol which is the "bad" cholesterol oxidized? Antioxidants are anti-inflammatory, quench excess oxidation, preventing oxidation of fats. Too many pieces of the puzzle are missing in these studies to draw a conclusion.
The amount of fiber in the diet is important in terms of how much of the fat eaten is absorbed. Gut flora is important because they increase gut inflammation rendering the wall permeable. Bacteria leak into the bloodstream from the gut, give off acids which clot the proteins in the blood like lemon juice clots milk, creating micro clots which injure the walls of the artery.Certain enzymes, such as nattokinase, can clean up the micro clotting in the blood by destroying the fibrin in the micro clots. Without understanding the big picture, it is all too possible to err by confusing the association of two factors with causation, as appears to be the case in this articled.
If the point of view represented here is correct, why did the pacific islanders whose diet is unto 60% coconut, prove to have such healthy cardiovascular systems?
Many vital details are missing. Was the coconut oil in the studies virgin coconut oil or was it hydrogenated or chemically refined coconut oil? Coconut oil is a medium chain saturated fat, which metabolizes more quickly.
9
Richard, Greeks have been eating olive oil--not from a bottle, but simply pressed from olives--for thousands of years, especially on the island of Crete, according to archaeological evidence (http://www.greekliquidgold.com/index.php/en/olive-oil-info/the-history-o.... And Crete is at the center of the traditional healthy Mediterranean diet; Cretans eating that diet (not today's, unfortunately) were considered some of the healthiest people in the world in the famous Seven Countries Study. The olive oil central to that traditional diet has been shown to be beneficial to the health in many ways in dozens if not hundreds of more recent studies, as well (some listed here: http://www.greekliquidgold.com/index.php/en/health-benefits/olive-oil-he....
None of these studies state the fact that almost any oil has already partially oxidized before you open the bottle from the store. Even the much touted safflower oil is ruined simply by processing and its age by the time it reaches your kitchen. I stick with olive oil exclusively. And it is delicious on anything. I make my own salad dressing. Trying to read labels tells you that most foods have a bewildering number of ingredients that you don't need.
3
Didn’t someone once say the law of gravity would be thrown into dispute if a commercial interest were involved?
Alas, applied science propositions often rest on shakier ground than Newton’s Laws. We can respect the scientific process while remaining circumspect about many applied science propositions.
Want to put a reasonable price on carbon? I’m convinced. Want to remove food or medicine known to contain highly dangerous ingredients in harmful quantities? Thank you very much.
Want to outlaw homeopathic products without regard to whether they contain dangerous ingredients in harmful quantities, because experts have proven homeopathy doesn’t work? You’d better hold on just a minute.
How thorough is our understanding? Are the circumstances such that we must act without a thorough understanding?
Sometimes “science”, “pseudoscience”, “expert”, and “objective” are improperly applied labels carrying too much freight.
4
—Are you trying to say that I’m getting fat?
—No, I’m just saying that you have to be careful, because your mother also had a tendency to put on weight.
—Well, maybe I’ll just get as fat as my mother and see whether you like me now!
5
Jane Brody describes this review as "commercially untainted," yet the American Heart Association is heavily funded by corporations with a stake in the outcome of this debate. That information is available on AHA's website, yet Brody is either unaware or has chosen not to report on it.
For instance, the vegetable-oil manufacturer Procter & Gamble, maker of Crisco, which virtually launched the AHA as a nation-wide powerhouse in 1948 by designating the then-needy group to receive all the funds from a radio contest it sponsored (about $17 million). More recently, Bayer, the owner of LibertyLink soybeans, pledged up to $500,000 to the AHA, perhaps encouraged by the group’s continued support of soybean oil, by far the dominant ingredient in the “vegetable oil” consumed in America today.
Other recent donors to AHA include: Monsanto, Campbells, Kellogg's, FritoLay, Pepsi, Quaker, Subway, Bannon, Conagra, and Wonderful Pistachios. See more here: https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Donors_v3-1...
295
"The Science Is Not Settled" !!
Do you find nothing at all ludicrous about the preceding statement, featured prominently on your web site? Do you have a passing acquaintance with the scientific method.
You mentioned vegetable oils here, and have a section on your website which states" Americans have followed the guidelines, but their health has not improved."
If anyone thinks that Americans have followed the guidelines, I've got a bridge to nowhere they might be interested in. Take vegetable oil, for example. Did the guidelines call for increasing consumption of vegetable oil by 91 percent? Hardly. The food pyramid I grew up with has fats and sweets at the very tip of the pyramid and advises to limit intake. Subsequent versions were similar. How about whole grains, emphasized in more current guidelines? Americans fall woefully short in that respect.
Current Eating Patterns in the United States
"About three-fourths of the population has an eating pattern that is low in vegetables, fruits, dairy, and oils.
More than half of the population is meeting or exceeding total grain and total protein foods recommendations, but, as discussed later in the chapter, are not meeting the recommendations for the subgroups within each of these food groups.
Most Americans exceed the recommendations for added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium."
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-2/current-e...
7
Exactly coconut and palm which are healthy oils compared to canola and soybean oil were made into naughty oils by these corporations. The corporations are evil in promoting there bad so called health foods. Canola oil? Yuck!
3
@childofsol:
Over the past few decades, Americans have eaten less red meat, butter, eggs, and full-fat dairy. Exactly per the guidelines.
The guidelines were weirdly silent on sugar until quite recently. 2015(!) is the first year there was a recommended cap on total sugar.
Americans have eaten more pasta, bread, cereal, margarine, and "vegetable" oils, exactly per the guidelines. The guidelines from the USDA, ADA, AHA, and numerous health authorities _specifically recommended_ for people to eat more polyunsaturated "vegetable" oils (really refined seed oils).
4
I’m skeptical of the AHA given its primary sponsors are the leading drug manufacturers.
144
The AHA does not do primary research, they simply present research. You could argue that they pick and choose their sources, but you’d have to demonstrate that and you did neither.
Having corporate sponsors might be a problem, but again, you’d need to demonstrate that. The other possibility is that some charities will take money where they can get it for the greater good. I may not agree with that philosophy, but it doesn’t follow that any advice they give is tainted.
@Pundette
The AHA has long been sponsored by manufacturers of margarines and seed oils. In a weird coincidence, the AHA tells us that margarines and seed oils are essential for heart health, and that naturally fatty foods will kill us. Go figure.
More bad health advice!
I follow a keto diet due to high blood sugar. I do not eat sugar, bread or grains - these are the real culprits of bad health.
I eat copious amounts of coconut oil, meats and vegetable and lots of health fats. Results
HDL 127. Had Fluffy LDL checked NO signs of heart risk.
In two months dropped 4 points A1c and 15 pounds.
How do I feel? Amazing. Please ignore the info in this article.
204
Sorry Miss NYC, this is terrible, quack-based advice. You need only Goodle Keto health concerns to find out why. This Atkins re-tread (copious amounts of meat??) is simply dangerous, and the carb levels are absurdly low. I'll take Jane Brody's balanced reading on the subject over the latest goofy fad any day.
9
Excuse me.. 4 points A1C from 8 (very diabetic) to 4... not at all diabetic?
1
Actually you are misinformed. Those on keto diet do not eat meat meat meat. This is small portions of meat and lots of vegetables. The health benefits are major and that is why it’s a major health trend. I have seen the results my doctor has seen the results and they are impressive. You need to update your health information regarding carbs. Vegetables have carbs but they are far healthier than those from sugar and white flour and grains. I am far from Dead! My husband joined me and he eats low carb and it’s saving his life and also reduced his medications and the bills from those medications!
5
Once again, another article from The NY Times that feels incomplete. If you’re going to talk about good fats and bad fats, and even echo the title of Taubes’ book “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, then you should include the science discussed in that book.
94
What science?
@childofsol:
A century of obesity research, diabetes research, hunger/satiety research, endocrinology, and nutritional epidemiology. You may not like the interpretation, but the science is there.
The science is there, but it does not support Taubes' claims.
You will never convince me that saturated fat is the enemy. I eat the most saturated fat I've ever eaten and I have more energy, less weight struggles, better skin, better cholesterol profiles, and less digestive complaints. Yes of course some of this is because I also don't eat processed foods and the saturated fat I do eat is high-quality.
I cannot believe the medical community continues to support low-fat dairy!?! If you take out the fat, the lactose sends your blood-sugar levels sky-high, promoting insulin release and fat-storage. Enough already!
291
The article explicitly says to eat less dairy.
2
What evidence would it take to convince you that excess consumption of saturated fat can have negative health consequences? If you can't answer that question, and change your mind after seeing the data, then your viewpoint is ideological and not scientific.
Medical science is still in its infancy... It's all in the genes... BTw switching out the food groups is not a bad idea.. I developed an egg white allergy from eathing two egg whites a day for three months.. (prob the children and the mice in the elementary school where I was teaching at the tim were also causal factors.... however.... I can eat an egg daily or bi-daily with no ill effects, can take flu shots (albumin based) with no ill effects.. dtto the pneumonia vaccine.. My allergy was initially asthma and then it mutated into hives. (I ran out of eggs, ate oatmeal... no more hives; ate my egg whites, hives came back.. Sel-fdiagnosis.. Lay off the eggs for a few months.. now just fine with eggs, chilrdren and mice.
I am now 20% more likely to change my consumption from 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat to 55% carbs, 33% protein, and 12% fat in order to reduce my risk of heart attack by 8%. In addition, there is a 100% probability I will continue to exercise daily, maintain ideal body weight, and enjoy life until I am 100% dead.
44
For those with heart disease or at high-risk for it,
Dr. Joel Fuhrman has a clear message: reduce animal products and all vegetable oils to as close to zero as you can tolerate; get your fats from nuts and seeds; boost your consumption of vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains. This recipe for heart health has been endorsed by other doctors, such as Drs. Ornish, Barnard, Greger, Esselstyn, McDougall and Hyman. Although the work of these advocates for heart health has often been dismissed in the media as being overly restrictive and based on faulty research, anyone with heart disease or with a high risk of developing it could benefit by getting acquainted with their published reports and books, rather than by relying on media interpretations of their work.
36
Whenever I see Furhrman or Ornish on TV the first thing that strikes me is what poor specimens they look like: wan and weak. Their numbers may be enviable but is it just a naive prejudice to expect someone who is healthy to look healthy?
27
@William:
Ornish, Barnard, Greger, etc, all recommend a low fat, low protein, "all starch" vegan or near-vegan diet. If that sounds healthful, successful, or appetizing to you, knock yourself out.
7
The Pooch: it is basically a starvation diet (which is why they look so wan and weak) and of course, if someone starts out fat and unfit, and then goes on a very strict starvation diet....they will lose a lot of weight in the short run, and this will give them the "low numbers" that are idealized in modern medicine.
But long term, it is useless as almost nobody can stick to a zero fat, low calorie vegan diet. The Ornish and Pritikin studies were done on very small samples (a few dozen participants) of older men who had ALREADY had heart attacks -- and 75% of the people in the studies dropped out, because they could not tolerate the zero fat, zero taste and low calorie vegan diets.
1
I predict that we will all circle back to the ol' "Eat a balanced diet and and follow a modest exercise program" advice.
Regrettably it does not sell books nor fund research studies - but it still the best counsel.
“Everything in moderation, including moderation.” ~ Oscar Wilde
44
There have been at least a couple of articles that purported Frank Sacks to have conflicts of interest with Unilever brands among other companies that manufacture processed vegetable oils. I'm a little surprised that an NYT article would not go the extra mile to address this. It's this kind of loose and blind promotion that makes people rightfully skeptical of "nutritionism."
97
I have a copy Jane Brody's book from 1985 "Good Food Btook," with the cover stating, "Living the High-Carbohydrate Way." Apparently, Ms. Brody is still stuck in 1985.
The introduction of the book starts with, "How would you like to eat more potatoes, pasta, bread, rice and other starchy foods without feeling nutritionally guilty or worrying about putting on unwanted pounds?"
The fact is, there is no evidence that a person who is the correct weight, takes a 20-minute walk everyday, and eats meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy, combined with lots of green vegetables, some fruit, and occasional indulgences of junk food, has a higher risk of heart disease. Zero.
At least Ms. Brody admits that fats and saturated fats, which she and others demonized with a vengeance starting in the 1980's, have been replaced by high-calorie junk food.
My suggestion is that we stop demonizing fat and saturated fat, when we know that the two major causes of heart disease are smoking, obesity, and inactivity. And nobody is getting obese because they are eating too much steak. Fast food? The 4-ounce burger in the Value Meal is not what makes you fat.
105
It is true that a person who does not consume excess calories and eats junk food only occasionally is likely fairly healthy and has a low risk of heart disease. But how many of those people exist? The fact that consumption of saturated fat as a minor component of a diet rich in vegetables and fruit is likely not harmful does not mean that consumption of high levels of saturated fat cannot increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.
1
Erik: thanks for mentioning that, and one should also consider the VERY popular book of the mid-80s -- Susan Powter's "Stop the Insanity!" which promoted the consumption of unlimited quantities of bagels and potatoes (so long as you ate no fat, cream cheese, butter or sour cream with them!) and which said that eating sugar candies was OK, so long as it had no fat.
A lot of older folks ARE still stuck in this 80s mantra that all fat is bad and that eating fat makes you fat (and eating things with cholesterol GIVES you high cholesterol, provably untrue!).
They got the message so powerfully that fat was THE worst substance on earth, and must be eliminated totally that even in the face of science and research, they cling to this belief. If they changed NOW, after more than 30 years....it would mean they spent most of their adult lives following a false paradigm.
1
The fact is, there is no evidence that a person who is the correct weight, takes a 20-minute walk everyday, and eats meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy, combined with lots of green vegetables, some fruit, and occasional indulgences of junk food, has a higher risk of heart disease. Zero.
Where does Ms Brody (or anyone else) say otherwise?
Really? Reducing saturated fat by only 5% (replaced by polyunsaturated fat) reduced heart disease by 25%.
Really? Credibly? Credulously?
22
.
Once again, the winner is:
"Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much."
As we already knew.
225
Also: Everything in Moderation.
3
Thank you, Michael Pollan.
1
And if you want a bit of added fat, the closest you can get to getting it from plants may be extra virgin olive oil, since no chemicals or heat are added to make it.
1
Using a highly questionable and industry backed statin/cholesterol result (which surely resulted more clearly in billions of profits for big pharma) to get people to understand the heart disease impact of lowering saturated fats isn't the best strategy.
I live in France, the outlier. We recently had a shortage of good butter due to increased export demand. By all means, reduce your butter consumption!
20
The author writes — Alas, the advisory team noted, there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with “healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.” -- In fact, there are many such studies; here is the report of two, the second of which concluded: — “A Mediterranean diet is better than what most people are consuming; even better may be a diet based on whole foods and plants.” — https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-mediterranean-diet-or-a-whole-food-... This reports yet another one, reporting the results of a high fiber diet and using the surrogate marker of LDL levels and comparing it to the effects obtained with statins on a Standard American Diet (SAD): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/lose-two-pounds-one-sitting-taking-mios... There are more, many more.
5
Yes, I was wondering why the Med diet studies weren't mentioned there!
There are really intelligent and convincing people who would argue the other side of this. Whether or not they are using bad science, or making poor interpretations, I don't know, nonetheless they make compelling arguments.
Why couldn't some of those people be mentioned in the article? Give them their "yea but...." moment. Quote them, then shoot them down if need be.
But to not even give them a voice? Why not present the evidence in a more debatable way. Even if they are wrong, that's fine, but let them have a voice, and then shoot them down with a specific response.
Most of us are not scientists, the truth is, we rely on others to interpret the work, then we pick whats best for us, or whats most popular.
This will never change if the opposing side is not given a voice in the debate.
48
There are intellectual conflicts of interest here: both Jane Brody and the Harvard epidemiologists she cites have for decades promoted the idea that industrial vegetable oils should replace saturated fats to protect against heart disease. In her last column on this subject, Brody cited Harvard experts exclusively, and she does so again here. In that previous column, Brody acknowledged the debate over whether saturated fats cause heart disease, so she knows it exits. Fair and balanced reporting on this topic would require seeking out information on all sides. Yet here, Ms. Brody seems to sweep the controversy under the rug and represents only one side of the debate. This does a disservice to good science reporting and to her readers--who deserve to know that on the Q of saturated fats and heart disease, the matter is far from settled science.
For another point of view on the AHA "Presidential advisory" on saturated fats, see this, by me and Dr. Eric Thorn: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/882564
p.s. Does Ms. Brody truly think that the AHA statement is free from commercial interests? The AHA has long been supported by many processed food and pharmaceutical companies. And Harvard is supported by giant vegetable oil companies, including Unilever and Bungee.
400
I love your book, "The Big Fat Surprise". I am always looking for ways to challenge my confirmation bias (I want to eat lots of saturated fats and not worry!). That being said, I am curious what you think of the Cochrane Review (the gold standard of evidence based science) of saturated fat and health meta-analysis of 15 studies with over 59,000 subjects. In 2015, they concluded: "....moderate-quality evidence that reducing saturated fat and replacing it with polyunsaturated fats reduces our risk of cardiovascular disease." http://www.cochrane.org/CD011737/VASC_effect-of-cutting-down-on-the-satu...
8
Balance is irrelevant in scientific endeavors.
Your website and comments here are relatively-fact free, but you do know how to push buttons. "Industrial" oils. Nice one.
You mention Unilever. They make a lot of products containing palm oil, yet somehow the corrupt Harvard researchers - and by extension the AHA- managed to find fault with that particular fat. And speaking of processed foods, the AHA guidelines come down pretty heavily on the side of whole foods; with so much more money at stake in processed foods as opposed to whole foods, one would expect otherwise from a corrupted organization. And what's the deal with walnuts and fish? Why aren't you up in arms about the glowing write-up of walnuts and fish, which surely must be the result of the funds received from walnut growers and fish producers? Last but not least, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association must be pretty riled up about not being able to buy their way to a favorable report on saturated fat.
Speaking of organizations, how can your organization claim that Americans have followed the dietary guidelines, a patently false statement?
@childofsol:
The AHA advice is laughable. Still recommending "heart healthy margarine" and soybean oil. Still recommending heart patients to eat _more_ bread, pasta, and cereal.
From the 1970s to today, Americans, on average, ate more bread, pasta, cereal, margarines, and seed oils, exactly per the guidelines. Americans ate less red meat, butter, and full-fat dairy, exactly per the guidelines.
1
The studies from the 60s and 70s were horrible. The sources freely point out the flaws in the cases where it does not support their belief (sydney), but then take no issue with the ones that do support them. Would be interesting to inspect what the 'core studies' mentioned are, could we get citations please?
Replacing saturated fats with omega-6 PUFAs is probably horrible advice. There has been significant evidence that they contribute to carcinogenesis (cancer): https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/20/12/2209/2529842
12
My husband will turn 90 in April. Although he walks a lot slower after many skin cancer surgeries on his lower legs, his is in good mental health and reasonable condition, including a flat belly, otherwise. His diet? Cereal with fresh fruit and whole milk and coffee with half and half first. Next meal is bacon and eggs with buttered toast. For dinner he starts with soup and salad, has meat and preferably potatoes, followed by pie with ice cream. Two glasses of wine with dinner and sometimes a gin martini before. Snacks of nuts in between. It could be just his genetics. HIs activity level? He reads a lot and used to walk our elderly dog the equivalent of two blocks. Little walking now. Oh, and he plays very competitive Duplicate Bridge.
19
I am happy that your husband is healthy and active. However his life can in no way be extrapolated to make any conclusion about human biology in general without a controlled study with a larger sample size.
7
My mother-in-law, who turns 92 soon, eats the same thing. She is from a long lived family, and I guess this longevity is luck of the genetic draw. There is no way to draw conclusions from anecdotes. Studies are needed.
"there have been no trials to date testing the cardiovascular benefits of replacing dietary fat with 'healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.'”????
No wonder it seems that they don't have a clue about what works.
11
The sad thing isn't that people make themselves sick. That is, after all, their choice. The sad thing is that it costs the rest of us to support their sicknesses. If their choices had personal monetary consequences, they'd choose differently. This is the essence of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
3
@Eater -- I long for the day where routine tests more accurately measure actual disease progression. For example, direct imaging of atherosclerotic plaques rather than blood lipid tests. Plus health insurers that provide discounts for folks whose tests actually show they are healthier than most, like auto insurers do for people with fewer accidents and more experienced drivers (sorry kids).
I'm sure some folks who think they have a healthy lifestyle would be surprised by the results of such tests, including me. But I'd rather know I have something to fix asap than a much nastier surprise a few years further down the road.
2
Eater: so you know you will never get sick and never cost any medical system any money? I hope God has a sense of humor, because I've known LOTS Of thin, fit athletic people who were vegetarians or even vegans who ended up with heart attacks or cancer! Who are all these "awful people" who are forcing YOU to pay for their medical care? we don't even HAVE universal health care in the US!
@Susan: people are "healthier than most" when they have lucky genetics or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to the fanciest organic groceries from Whole Foods, or to have personal chefs or eat at the fanciest restaurants serving "health foods" -- but you want them REWARDED for this with cheaper insurance? then you must oppose the idea of the universal health care. Because you cannot have a UNIVERSAL health care system, that only gives good health care to "the people whose lifestyles you approve of".
Auto accidents are almost entirely a product of one's behavior and self control, which is under your own guidance -- while HEALTH is often due to genetics and life situations (like poverty) that we have NO control over.
7
Try again Ms. Brody.
Everyone agrees more research needs to be done. So far so good. But the conclusions of this report rest primarily on four "core" studies that don't show what the researchers say they show.
One study did not yield a statistically significant result, as the researchers point out. Yet the researchers nonetheless include this study in their calculations.
The other three "core" studies -- the LA Veterans study, the Oslo study, and the Finnish hospital study -- have serious problems the researchers conveniently completely fail to even mention.
The LA Veterans study didn't control for twice the rate of heavy smoking -- and a fifty percent increase in moderate smoking -- in the control (saturated fat) group. So it skewed results in favor of the polyunsaturated fat group. The study also revealed a higher (yes, higher) mortality rate from cancer deaths in the polyunsaturated group.
The Oslo study confounds the effects of fats with other dietary changes (exactly the criticism the researchers here level against other studies).
And the Finnish Hospital study, among other problems, as I recall involved the use of medications that raised the risk of heart problems.
Chris Masterjohn published a critique of all of these studies years ago.
As I said, try again.
113
Masterjohn is a quack.
Chris Masterjohn. Another web-based expert in the alternative-facts tradition.
Here is so-called nutrition expert who finds the need to supplement with Vitamin K2, Vitamin A, gelatin, cod liver oil, bone meal, and the "energy metabolism supplements" aceyl-L-carnatine, R-alpha-lipoic acid, co-enzyme A10, and a B-complex. He does want you to know exactly which brand of this stuff will produce the magic results, not that he's trying to pimp himself or anything, of course not. He also wants you to understand that the energy enhancers may not be necessary if you're eating liver and heart.
Besides pimping, I mean popping, all those pills, he's got plenty to say about food, as well. Well, more like a long list of commercial recommendations, like the one for PaleoValley Beefsticks. There's Pure Indian Foods Primal Oil, which sounds like it could also double as a bedroom aid. And did you know that "Ample is a meal-in-a-bottle that takes a total of two minutes to prepare, consume, and clean up"?
https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/what-chrismasterjohn-does/
There is nothing in this article which supports the notion that consuming saturated fats contributes to any disease risks. To do that, you need to present an actual physical mechanism by which that is possible, and then present actual evidence of that mechanism occurring.
Instead, this article cherry-picks some tortured statistics involving comparing various ways of eating and trying to demonstrate an association.
For example, one cited study involves replacing saturated fat with soybean oil. Now, wait a second, how would you do that without changing many other factors? How exactly are you going to feed someone a free-range steak where all the saturated fat has been replaced with soybean oil? You can't. You have to make lots of changes to people's diet; those changes are not mentioned at all. It's an absurdly reductive analysis.
I think most people reading this would agree that all large scale, funded studies will find that some form of mass produced, high-profit foods are the right choice.
48
This article should be side by side with the NYTimes article on fiber's effect on the gut (which also discusses fat). All of the research is beginning to point in the same direction and there may soon be some real understanding on how our bodies work. It is amazing to think that there has been over 100 years of disparate dietary medical recommendations when there has been zero years of true understanding of how our bodies work.
8
Ms Brody, it is false to describe the Mediterranean diet (which in the original study was in fact the diet of the island of Crete) as heavy on unsaturated vegetable oils. It is heavy only in a monounsaturated FRUIT oil - that of the olive - produced by a a very simple extraction process and used almost to the exclusion of any other cooking medium save the occasional butter or lard. Safflower, canola, soya and all the rest are thus an entirely different, and unrelated, kettle of oils.
216
Stellan, excellent point about the importance of olive oil in the Mediterranean diet and its roots in Crete. References to the Med diet have become pretty confused in recent years, since the Mediterranean region is quite large, and the diets of the people living in it are quite varied. Even so, I think it's worth noting that studies--generally based on something more or less resembling the traditional Cretan diet--continue to show evidence for significant health benefits from the Mediterranean diet (http://www.greekliquidgold.com/index.php/en/health-benefits/the-mediterr....
1
The difference is that virgin olive oil is mechanically pressed out of the fruit and so contains a whole array of lipid soluble impurities such as polyphenols that have been shown to be anti-inflammatory while processed oils are heat extracted and purified to remove such impurities.
3
Thank you for pointing that out. It is also surprising that coconut oil's health benefits aren't known. Coconut oil has been a staple of many Asian communities. Are these communities at greater risk for heart disease? It wouldn't be that difficult to conduct a study, I presume.
1
Can’t wait to see more long term data on the ketogenic diet, especially a keto diet focusing on poly and monounsaturated fats. And we need better science to tell us exactly how atherosclerosis develops, as opposed to making guidelines based on weak association studies. But I’m glad to see nutritional science trying to move in a more evidence based direction, instead of relying on the old expert opinion and conventional wisdom.
14
"We can't prove anything but here's one study that I'll base an entire nutritional policy on"
Okay, sounds like business as usual at the AHA.
42
OILING THE WHEELS OF PROGRESS Eating whole grains, salads, high fiber vegetables and fresh fruits is very appealing to me. I've followed that diet mainly for many years. The idea of calorie control is my main challenge.
4
You can over-eat almost anything. As my lovely vegetarian friend once told me: french pastries, french fries, chocolate and whipped cream as all vegetarian. Even vegans have figured out how to make cupcakes!
There is no ideal diet that will make every person magically healthy and very, very thin.
1
The American food system is flawed. The most inexpensive foods are highly processed. The federal government subsidizes low-nutrient crops. Kudos to the communities who are forming grassroots movements promoting eating local and helping your neighbors by buying locally sourced food.
If we could get back to the basics and eat things that occur in nature, not manufactured 'food-like' substances, we would probably be OK.
11
But kids who eat full-fat dairy grow up to have lower BMIs as a statistical average (where BMI is actually useful, not a good individual measure though). A lower BMI is associated with lots of good health outcomes.
I also wonder if I'm converting unsaturated fats to trans fats when I cook with them. I like olive and avocado oils, but I'm not convinced they're healthier than saturated fats.
14
I wonder about that too (to your last point.)
1
There are many studies showing the health benefits of olive oil, extra-virgin in particular. It's more to do with the anti-inflamatory properties of the polyphenols found in extra-virgin olive oil than the specific fatty acid content.
Heating oils to high temperature will result in double bond racemization but the amounts are negligible (<0.1%). In contract, butter fat is already 3-4% trans fat.
2
Dr. Sacks is an long-term advocate for a particular dietary approach -- one that he admits, in practice, to have caused more harm than good. The AHA itself is an advocacy organization with a particularly unyielding position on both dietary fats and salt -- their position on salt has been thoroughly discredited by recent research -- the very underpinnings of their position on salt has been proven false -- yet they have not changed their advocacy.
Personally, I am worried by this kind of confirmatory advocacy science that depends on associations found in self-reported dietary studies in making population-wide recommendations. In reviews of this kind, the most likely finding is that of " simply an accurate measure of the prevailing bias." (John P. A. Ioannidis).
212
I can’t tell how much of your comment is actual part of the Ioannidis’ quote, but at any rate, you badly mis represent his views by associating them with this topic.
Just because there are problems in the airline industry doesn’t mean that flying (magic) carpets work. (Ben Goldacre)
@Pundette:
The solution to bad science is better science. The "science" claiming that fat/sat fat was harmful was terrible, incompetent, corrupted by the sugar and seed oil industries, and perhaps deliberately fraudulent.
This article seems to describe an admission of a grave error in public health policy, yet without the slightest hint of accepting responsibility. The argument is: The advice we received since the '70's wasn't bad; we ourselves were, and are, the problem; we messed it up by turning from saturated fats to SnackWell cookies and other "heart healthy" foods. Sorry, but I don't buy it. It's more plausible that the diet-heart hypothesis and the AHA are corrupted by bad science. I'm giving up. From now on, I'm eating fish, eggs, meat and cheese. Cf. "Good Calories, Bad Calories," by Gary Taubes, and "The Big Fat Surprise," by Nina Teicholz.
304
I think the article claim is that people substituted something bad, saturated fats, with something equally bad or worse, sugar and unrefined carbs, when they should substitued with unsaturated fats or complex carbohydrates. The science does seem mixed and difficult to interperept especially for a nonspecialist, but the current fad of jumping to the extreme that all carbs are evil and that they are the sole cause of the obesity/health epedmic, and coconut oil is a miracle food seems hard to believe. Given my, albeit limited, interperation of the science it seems that there are "good" fats and "good" carbs, and the "bads" from both groups should be limited although not necessarily eliminated. So personally my diet consits of lots of whole grains,fruit, veg, olive/canola oil, avocados, a moderate amount of full fat dairy/eggs, a limited amount of sugar, and no meat(I'm a vegetarian).
6
No, there was no "grave error"; it was based on the best science of the day, as it always is. The more we learn, the more these things can be refined. So the way you see the argument is fallacious.
As for the two authors you mentioned, neither is a physician or nutritionist; they might claim their proposals are scientifically valid, but so does Dr Oz, and his credibility approaches zero.
10
I absolutely agree. Its like sealing a doorway for being a tripping hazard and leading to people jumping out of windows.
5