Fat Ascertainment: Why Saturated Fat Doesn't Cause Heart Disease

reply to post by soleprobe


So can eating too many organic, sugar-rich fruits or organic grains. What's your point?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by soleprobe

 

So can eating too many organic, sugar-rich fruits or organic grains. What's your point?

We're not talking about quantity... so what's your point?

reply to post by soleprobe


Quantity has everything to do with it. Even if pesticides were linked to hypertension (which they haven't been, to my knowledge), it would require a certain quantity of exposure.

This all off-topic, regardless, and I apologize to the OP for allowing myself to be taken so far off-topic.

So, back to the topic at hand, which you seem to keep avoiding:

Can you please provide proof, soleprobe, that saturated fats are more profitable than unstaturated?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Can you please provide proof, soleprobe, that saturated fats are more profitable than unstaturated?

Where did I say that saturated fats are more profitable than unstaturated?

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


You know my only problem with these studies?

There are scientists on both sides of the aisle being paid for them.

Meaning, they are merely done, to sell, or counter-sell the competition.

Want eggs demonized?

Make up a study touting their un-healthiness due to cholesterol.

Want bacon demonized?

Make up a study touting their un-healthiness due to cholesterol.

Want fiber to sell at a higher rate of sales to put the stock through the roof?

Make up a study touting eggs and bacon's un-healthiness due to cholesterol.

Frankly, I stopped listening to all these bastards, with their stock and profit directed propaganda, and just eat the foods I can tell do my body good, as well as use moderation.

Diets do not work.

Eating moderately, exercising, and within reason, allowing for occasional splurging.

Besides that when it comes to Government subsidizing farmers to not grow certain foods, so they can import it, it sure makes you wonder just who our Government and or scientists with a study are really trying to help, us or everyone else.

reply to post by soleprobe


Right here:

There's no real profit to be made in saturated fats versus unsaturated, so I doubt "big food" is involved, nor is there any money to be made by Pharma

Just by skimming through your post and catching the above statement I don't have to read the rest regardless of the "amount of work" you put into it.

Your took my quote about there not being any real difference in profit between saturated and unsaturated, thus you suggested that there is a profit motive for continuing to use saturated.

This was just a few posts back. Do you not remember writing this?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

This was just a few posts back. Do you not remember writing this?

There's no profit motive for continuing to use saturated... I said the profit is in sick people and that is done by people with sick spirits misleading people with dietary advice that will make them sick.

reply to post by soleprobe


No, you said that later, after I asked you to explain why my statement was incorrect.

You specifically quoted my sentence about saturated not being any more profitable than unsaturated, and then said it was incorrect.

So, either: 1) you have evidence for your claim, 2) you misquoted or didn't understand what you quoted, or 3) you're making things up as you go along.

Which is it?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
You specifically quoted my sentence about saturated not being any more profitable than unsaturated, and then said it was incorrect.

I took your whole quote in context with big food and big pharma…. There is money to be made NOT in saturated fat, but in “saturated fats versus unsaturated.”… meaning there is money for big pharma and big food in the use of unsaturated as opposed to saturated. If “saturated fats versus unsaturated.” then it also follows that “unsaturated fats versus saturated.” One can not verse/oppose the other without also being versed/opposed by the other.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by soleprobe]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Frankly, I stopped listening to all these bastards, with their stock and profit directed propaganda, and just eat the foods I can tell do my body good, as well as use moderation.

Once upon a time people didn’t need to listen to “experts” about what to eat. You ate what your parents placed before you when you were a child and you did the same thing for your children.

Today with the manipulation of food down to the genetic level by mega bio-tech firms that share a revolving door with government health departments that allow chemicals and GMO’s into almost all the food we purchase, we have no choice but to protect ourselves from them. The easiest way is to eat food that’s closest to the way nature made it. And nature made animal fat from animals that were not tampered with. But nature never made available GMO omega 6 oils in the abundance they are today through a hi-tech extraction process developed through modern industrialization and genetic manipulation.

reply to post by soleprobe


None of that made any sense, you might need to rephrase it.

My quote, word for word, suggests that there is no profit motive for a company to use saturated fats over unsaturated. If saturated fats were shown to unequivocally cause atherosclerosis, and if saturated fats were cheaper to use, then yes, there would be a "big food" conspiracy. They would be harming your health as a means of saving money. As it stands, though, unsaturated fats aren't really any more expensive to produce than saturated fats. That's why margarine isn't significantly more expensive than butter, and why low-fat snakcs tend to be about the same price as their full-fat alternatives.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


My above comments say that there is more money to be made by big food and pharma through high production of GMO omega 6 (unsaturated fat) produced from canola, soy and corn than saturated fat.

reply to post by soleprobe


Which supports my statement that you disagreed with. Unsaturated fats (GMO or otherwise) are protective (not causative) for CAD. Thus, "big food" doesn't benefit from CAD in any way.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa



Well to avoid repeating myself my above posts explain why I disagree

reply to post by soleprobe


No, it really doesn't. If I understand it corrently (though it's hard to when you don't use much puncutation or pay attention to grammar, especially when non-primary English speakers like myself try to read it), you're suggesting that looking at it the other way would explain it.

So, you're suggesting that there is a conspiracy by "big food" and "big pharma" to make saturated fats look bad, so that they can sell more of the cheaper, unsaturated fats. Why would they do that? Products high in saturated fats are typically priced higher and are consumed more often (America is one of the highest meat-eating nations on the planet) than the unsaturated versions, and saturated fats are great for use as a frying medium.

If a company wants to maximize sales of a product, why wouldn't they do so with the product people already love? Most companies still complain that their "healthy" unsaturated alternatives don't sell as well as the full-fat versions. IF they are going to influence scientific research, wouldn't they skew it so that saturated fats look healthier, so people would buy even more?

As a result of the revelation that saturated fats are unhealthy, these companies had to develop whole new products using different ingredients (very costly), market them to consumers (even more costly), and have to use twice the shipping capacity to send ship full-fat and reduced-fat versions to stores (even MORE costly).

Why would they do that, if they could have just influenced research to make saturated fats look better, as you've suggested they are?



[edit on 8/26/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by soleprobe


Once upon a time, people knew how to think for themselves, as the story goes.

As with what I originally stated those so-called experts are nothing but paid shills.

Sure, they have degrees behind their names, but once they work for one organization, or another, they are merely driving towards a profit based agenda.

And in this case it is to promote healthy eating to decry foul of saturated fats.

Moderation.

Otherwise, it is nothing more than bread and circuses, for the masses.

Supersize Me - Documentary


Biggest Loser


Oprah - Fat again - How did I let this happen?


It's easy to point to an "expert" in a magazine.

It's just as easy to get off our fat asses and exercise.

Think for yourself before thinking becomes just another crime in a long list.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Products high in saturated fats are typically priced higher and are consumed more often (America is one of the highest meat-eating nations on the planet) than the unsaturated versions, and saturated fats are great for use as a frying medium.

Just because products containing saturated fat are priced higher doesn’t mean saturated fat by itself is more expensive.

Before the mechanized production of seed oil people used to get their cooking fat for nothing: pork/bacon grease, beef tallow, all this fat you could get for free leftover from cooking or from the scraps at your local butcher.

So how is big food going to compete and create a monopoly on something people can get for free, which is fat? First step in creating the monopoly is to produce something only they have the means to produce. When’s the last time you tried to grow canola and then extract enough oil from it to cook your eggs? The same holds true for soy or corn. You need expensive equipment for this so only a very few wealthy players can be involved in production and supply.

But there still remains a problem, How do you get people to switch from cooking with animal fat that they’ve been using for thousands of years which they can get for free and also taste better, over to cooking with your industrially produced bland tasting seed oil? Very simple…. demonize animal fat and lie, lie, lie, lie. Launch media campaign showing your paid off “experts” in white coats with stethoscopes wrapped around their necks telling you the health risks of eating animal fat and run add campaigns promoting the health benefits of industrial seed oil by showing healthy old folks coming in from a hike and spreading globs of margarine on their toast.

So yes there’s a conspiracy of “big food” but also if you do research (of which I do not want to go into detail) you’ll discover that “big food” is really “big chemical” which is “big pharma”, which is “big oil” which is “big banks” which is global population control which means death for you and me.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by soleprobe]

reply to post by soleprobe


Soleprobe, once again, you're missing the point.

I never said saturated fat was more expensive. I said the exact opposite, actually, which you disagreed with, and then later agreed with.

Also, what does cooking with animal fat have to do with anything posted here? Most people don't cook with lard/fat anymore, regardless of whether the fat is free or not. Most cook with oil, which can come in forms high in saturated fat or unsaturated, depending on which you prefer.

If you could, would you mind staying on topic?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Thanks for the comments. I always enjoy your posts.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

(1) hypertension (which we DO know saturated fat plays a role in) is the main culprit.

(2) While saturated fat may not be the trigger mechanism for atherosclerosis development, it DOES contribute to hypertension, which is the leading cause of ALL cardiovascular disease. When you have chronic hypertension, you can damage the intima of your vessels (the layer of cells closest to the blood).

I believe you're referring to the effect that saturated fat has on blood viscosity. If not, I'd like to know the specific pathway.

If so: Saturated fats do indeed increase triglycerides postprandial. However, after an initial spike, blood lipids return to preprandial levels, which would indeed suggest that chronic hypertension would not result from 30-60 minute spikes in postprandial blood pressure. Otherwise, you'd expect exercise to cause chronic hypertension, since systolic blood pressure increases during strenuous activity.

Now, on to the data!

I can't really argue with your points on the first few studies; we are talking about observational, inconclusive studies that, as you've pointed out, deal entirely with multi-factorial conditions.

Actually, tabel 2 makes a fairly compelling case that both saturated fat and cholesterol are associated with fatal coronary heart disease. Please point out what I'm missing, if there's a bit of data you were specifically pointing toward.

Looking at the P values for each....though there was a small correlation between myocardial infarction, it's statistically insignificant.

Dietary Fat
Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women

This article shows that replacing saturated fats was beneficial (even moreso than total fat reduction). That seems like a pretty good argument for the saturated fat/coronary disease link, to me.

Again, the table you linked to in this study showed a very strong, positive correlation between higher saturated fat intake and increased risk of coronary artery disease. If you look at the lines labeled "RR" (relative risk) and "Intake" on the portion for saturated fat, you'll see that as the intake of saturated fat increases, so does the relative risk of CAD. In fact, of all the variables examined, it showed the highest relative risk at the higher end of intake percent.

After adjusting for other fats, the P value for saturated fat intake was .38 which is not statistically significant. Even after the multivariate adjustment it was still only .04

I don't think that this is the general concensus at all, honestly. I've never heard a physician explicitly tell a patient (and I certainly never have) to cut out/down saturated fats in their diet. The advice is typically eat more fruits, veggies, and whole grains, rather than fatty meats and salty foods.

....but that advice is given to reduce saturated fat intake, no?

Sodium and high fat/low carb diets have shown a positive relation to CAD.

I'll tackle the sodium/hypertension hypothesis in another thread. That's another one that's full of BS. Essentially, sodium isn't the problem for most people (there is a subset of the population that it is). For most, it's insulin. Remember, insulin causes sodium retention causes water retention causes hypertension. For another time, though.

Regarding low-carb/high-fat diets...Not only do low-carb diets improve blood lipid levels, they also improve other markers for heart disease such as CRP...demonstrating an anti-inflammatory effect. The studies in support of this have been raining in over the past 5 years or so.

As for the "scientific mistake" and confirmation bias, I think the studies you posted above show pretty clearly that despite the type and length of analysis, there is certainly a significant link between CAD and saturated fat.

I didn't see it. And the meta-analyses didn't either. Most of the confirmation bias existed with guys like Ancel Keys.

Despite our disagreement, wonderful thread! I can tell you put a considerable amount of work into it, and I can NEVER fault someone who is willing to put the research into their posts.

Thanks again!

[edit on 27-8-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]