What If Saturated Fats Are Essential?

[Lone Wolf]

Gumby, thanks for all of that information!  I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share it.

Streetlights, mostly for the purpose of breaking them.  (I feel terrible about my lack of respect for others' property when I was a kid.)

Ha!  I like the image of this Evil Dead I-era Bruce Campbell scampering up a light pole to take out the lamp with his "boomstick".

The carpet cleaning came after.  My grip now is so strong that I can crush a tennis ball "Jaime Sommers-style"  (see http://youtu.be/qcba-ZgtsT4 at :42).

This is pre-carpet cleaning?  Well what the hell, man!  This was all down to genetics and light pole-shimmying then?  That's impressive.

I've got to confess to some envy then.  Piss-poor grip was what first motivated me to start taking the idea of strength training seriously!

[MachineGhost]

MG, I appreciate your input and sharing your model... But, I personally don't see how that diet is accurate. I'm having trouble believing that cave men and ancient native cultures went out of their way to consume lean meat — purposefully discarding fatty pieces — and were seeking out polyunsaturated fats. It doesn't make any sense. It actually sounds ridiculous to me. Humans are genetically programmed to like the taste of saturated fat. It tastes good!

Because back then wild animals were naturally lean and not herded or pastured by pre-agricultural humans to be meatier and fatter.  If you look at game meat, they're still pretty low in saturated fat <10%.

Hunters and gathers — particularly in North America — ate fatty animals (Antelope, Deer, Moose, Seal, Elk, Bison, Sheep, etc) and didn't waste any of their kills.

If you're talking about the Ice Age, that would have radically different calorie and fat retention requirements in both animals and humans than a non-Ice Age or a Mediterrean climate where the abstract I posted was focused on.  There's another abstract which escapes me at the moment where they found human coprolite remains in a cave in the Mediterranean, studied the diet composition and it was quite similar.

Besides, we know from cookbooks, and the historic record, that Americans (and British) during the 18th and 19th Centuries ate lots of saturated fat and heart disease was rare. How do you explain that?

The cookbooks were very interesting, but they don't tell you the ratios of each type of the macronutrients.  Overeating the acid-forming flour/grains, creams/dairy, fatty meat, sugared fruits at expense of alkalizing vegetables is just not supported by modern empirical or scientific evidence.  You should probably look up Harvey Kellogg and/or the Hygienist Movement of the late 1800's as I believe they were the first true health movement to demonize saturated fat.  (Funny how that goes along with "public policy", the Temperance movement, Reconstruction, etc.  A lot sure change due to the Civil War.)

But, we also know their health was pretty poor in general from historical accounts.  The British are infamous for having bad teeth and narrow dental archways, a hallmark of poor nutrition.  Our Founding Fathers had many health ailments, not the least which was bad teeth as well.  

MG

[MachineGhost]

Can someone provide me with a quick response to the usefulness of taking a teaspoon or so of olive oil a day?

I catch myself feeling like I'm not getting enough fat in my diet (not feeling full after meals, crashing soon after, etc.), but I don't necessarily want to go out of my way to eat a slab of meat just to feel like I'm full.

With breakfast cereals especially, it seems like it's hard to get enough fat to get a good start to the day if you don't want to drink whole milk (I like unsweetened almond milk because it has less sugar than cow milk).  Would a teaspoon of olive oil with the cereal and coffee be a better way to start off?

Sounds to me like you're having a post-sugar crash from the processed cereal, not a lack of fat.  Fat doesn't affect blood-sugar or satiety much.  Protein is the champ.

Two ways to fix it: add some slow-releasing fibers to your cereal or eat some lean protein with it.  In general, you should never eat carbs without a non-dairy protein as a counterbalance or you can plan on skyrocketing your insulin levels and developing diabetes eventually.

MG

[MachineGhost]

4) Weston Price followers don't believe that cholesterol levels are something most people need to worry about (unless your total cholesterol is over 1100 or something). While this sounds crazy (and maybe it is) they say

Cholesterol doesn't have an influence until intake exceeds 400mg a day according to the Hegsted equation.  Medical dogma considers a higher HDL good, but it really is just a marker for higher toxicity.  If you fix your hormonal imbalance, cholesterol will revert to healthier levels, including a lowering of both HDL and LDL.

5) Fermented cod liver oil is different than mass-produced cod liver oil. Many people believe that fermented cod liver oil is better for you — and it's how it was made for centuries before modern machines came into existence. I believe it is more potent than regular mass-produced cod liver oil. However....

I wanted to try that Green Pastures supplement last year before I deduced what Factor/Activator X was and all that jazz, but found it rather too expensive.  I opted for low-temeperature processed cod liver oil and ghee instead.  Needless to say, the ghee, pure saturated fat, was even more inflammatory than butter was.  It's still in the fridge.  I've tried numerous versions and forms of fish oil over the years and have never seen or felt it do a damn thing for me, even at 1-2T a day.  If it wasn't for the science behind it, I would consider it a highly overrated supplement.

9) It's expensive. However, the justification is that you don't need any other supplements. In fact, the two oils have so many natural vitamins in them that you really shouldn't be taking any additional Vitamin A or D with them.

Highly improbable to get the RDI for numerous vitamins and minerals from saturated fat.  If only it were that easy...

MG

[BearBones]

I just put my three year old toddler on their Cod Liver Oil and Butter Oil mixture three weeks ago. He always had some minor sensory and anxiety issues and has always been an extremely picky eater. It's been three weeks since I started putting the oils into his smoothies and his brain really calmed down a lot. He's able to think things through now and sleeping a lot better — even during mid-day naps. It's like a totally different kid. His brain was apparently starving for saturated fats and omega 3s (which are apparently important for brain development). We just added whole milk back into his diet as well. Normally I would be afraid to try something like this on my child, but I don't see this as a fad. This is what kids used to have before modern vitamins were invented.

I find this interesting. The oils of fish from cold waters contain large amounts of omega 3s (O3s), as most of you know. One of the long-chain O3s is DHA, and I believe that this is the most prevalent fatty acid in the brain (and in even higher concentrations in the retina). Most of brain development occurs by the age of 5-6. DHA can be synthesized by our bodies from shorter O3s (e.g., ALA), but I believe that this is an inefficient process. Therefore, it would make sense that dietary DHA, such as from cod lever oil, might be helpful. And omega 6s, so common in our modern diet, might be harmful if in high proportion to O3s.

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12509593

Reading more on this subject is on my to do list, but I have not read much so far. Is anyone else more knowledgeable?

[WiseOne]

Love all the comments on breakfast....

I've come to REALLY dislike anything sweet for breakfast, which luckily makes me pretty much immune to the cereal aisle.  I thought I was the only one who would crash midmorning after the standard American bowl of cereal.  Adding fat helps a little, but not enough.  I think the secret is complex carbohydrates and fiber to slow down absorption.

My standard is homemade whole-grain bread (hint:  use a breadmaker with a dough cycle, then finish by hand) and butter, sometimes with a piece of Italian dry-aged sausage, or sometimes peanut or almond butter or a spreadable cheese.  Turns out this is very similar to the traditional German breakfast, or as far as I can tell from the few times I've gone there for a conference.  And this may sound crazy, but if you have leftover bean soup, try that for breakfast sometime.

[MediumTex]

Love all the comments on breakfast....

I've come to REALLY dislike anything sweet for breakfast, which luckily makes me pretty much immune to the cereal aisle.  I thought I was the only one who would crash midmorning after the standard American bowl of cereal.   Adding fat helps a little, but not enough.  I think the secret is complex carbohydrates and fiber to slow down absorption.

Well, this is the culprit here:



It has 9 grams of sugar per serving, and with sugar free almond milk it seems like it shouldn't be that bad, but I guess it is.

I had a protein drink this morning with 42 grams of protein and 2 grams of sugar and that worked pretty well.

[Gumby]

Fat doesn't affect blood-sugar or satiety much.  Protein is the champ.

That's odd... I'm pretty sure I've read in a number of places that Cholecystokinin (CCK) — the hormone that causes satiety — is secreted when the body digests fat.

Cholecystokinin (CCK or CCK-PZ) is a peptide hormone of the gastrointestinal system responsible for stimulating the digestion of fat and protein...CCK mediates a number of physiological processes, including digestion and satiety. It is located in the small intestine, and detects the presence of fat in the chyme. CCK then tells the stomach to slow down the speed of digestion so the small intestine can effectively digest the fats.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecystokinin

According to that explanation, it sounds like fat is pretty key for slowing digestion down and feeling full.

[Gumby]

I wanted to try that Green Pastures supplement last year before I deduced what Factor/Activator X was and all that jazz, but found it rather too expensive.

I thought Activator X is supposed to be vitamin K2?

Needless to say, the ghee, pure saturated fat, was even more inflammatory than butter was.

When you say "more inflammatory," how do you test this at home?

Highly improbable to get the RDI for numerous vitamins and minerals from saturated fat.  If only it were that easy...

Yes, not every vitamin and mineral in the world is in fat. But, a lot of the important ones are in there (Vitamin D and A, essential fatty acids, etc.). I think the basic point is that fat seems to have helped many cultures get some the nutrition they needed. I didn't mean to imply that it was a panacea for every vitamin under the sun. You obviously still need to eat some nourishing foods as well. Take an occasional magnesium bath I suppose. Things that people used to do. I just tend to think that synthetic vitamins are probably not absorbed by the body as many people hope they are.

[MachineGhost]

That's odd... I'm pretty sure I've read in a number of places that Cholecystokinin (CCK) — the hormone that causes satiety — is secreted when the body digests fat.

According to that explanation, it sounds like fat is pretty key for slowing digestion down and feeling full.

CCK is secreted when the body digests fat or protein.  But personally, I haven't noticed the effect on non-saturated fats which are liquid, oily and are digested way too fast, except maybe in large quantities as during a liver flush. 

Satiety seems best satisfied by slowing down absorption of whatever you eat (not all fibers automatically do that job and what does is hard to get and expensive).  Protein and saturated fat is relatively hard for the body to break down.

MG

[MachineGhost]

When you say "more inflammatory," how do you test this at home?

I eat it!  And then observe for physical and/or mental changes, usually during/after the 3-4 hour window when digestion is complete.

Things that people used to do. I just tend to think that synthetic vitamins are probably not absorbed by the body as many people hope they are.

That's true, but there's food-based vitamins now, or even potent activated vitamins (no need for first transconjugation pass in liver), and they're more cost-effective and healthy than ingesting large quantities of inflammatory saturated fats.  (Not saying that isn't appropriate for your toddler, as AA and inflammation is necessary for growth.  But for someone past 25...)

Our food and soils are so depleted, its pointless to expect optimal nutrition from it anymore (if that was indeed ever the case, hah!).  Besides, nature didn't design us to live past 30, so even if our soils weren't depleted, its still not enough.

MG

[Gumby]

I eat it!  And then observe for physical and/or mental changes, usually during/after the 3-4 hour window when digestion is complete.

Sorry, I just find this fascinating.. Would you mind elaborating? How does one observe inflammation? I eat a tablespoon of butter and I don't notice any difference. What do I need to pay attention to?

Besides, nature didn't design us to live past 30

Wait, what?

[MachineGhost]

Sorry, I just find this fascinating.. Would you mind elaborating? How does one observe inflammation? I eat a tablespoon of butter and I don't notice any difference. What do I need to pay attention to?

Everyone is different.  You've got to consciously notice what is off from your normal homeostatic state after eating non-clean foods.  I will get skin inflammation from ingesting any kind of inflammatory fat (NSAID's will block it).  Or, whenever I eat wheat, I will get blurry vision and brain fog and the effect is relatively immediate rather than 3-4 hours.

Besides, nature didn't design us to live past 30

Wait, what?

From a wild, unmolested biological perspective, there is simply not enough nutrition in nature for us to do anything but breed in the early-to-mid teens and then wither away and die.  Today's 30 is grandfather age by Paleo standards.  We, as modern humans, have extended our natural lifespans unnaturally with technology.  But that the human body can live so long past 25-30 in a chronically suboptimal state of nutrition and other abuse is more a testament to the power of nature, than human intelligence.

MG

[MachineGhost]

Here are results of an interesting study comparing three dietary score indexes [emphasis added]:

• The Healthy Diet Score – Analyzed the intake of saturated fatty acids, polyunsaturated fatty acids, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, fruit and vegetables, pulses and nuts, sugars, cholesterol, fish, red meat and meat products, and calcium.
• The Mediterranean Diet Score – Analyzed the intake of vegetables, legumes, fruits and nuts, cereals, fish and seafood, a high monounsaturated to saturated fats ratio, dairy products, meat and meat products, and alcohol.
• The Recommended Food Score – Analyzed various fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean meat and reduced fat dairy products. This particular score is a "a food-based score calculated based on the frequency of consumption of a range of foods considered to be consistent with existing dietary guidelines."

• No association was found for the Healthy Diet Score.
• A higher Mediterranean Diet Score was associated with a 23% lower adjusted risk of dying over the follow-up period.
• A higher Recommended Food Score was associated with a 33% lower adjusted risk of dying over the follow-up period.

"The study shows that diet quality is an important predictor of longevity among older adults. With the aging population worldwide, the role of diet quality in improving functional status and quality of life becomes increasingly important and further research is required on the role of diet in these aspects of aging."

Dying for this purpose is from all cause: car accident, cancer, a SpaceX explosion, playing chicken with a train, you name it.  That's a pretty powerful effect from just following a partikcular diet.  Now clearly, they didn't control for risky behavior factors beyond the usual smoking, obesity and inactivity.  Perhaps people that eat larger amounts of saturated fatty meats and dairy, refined grains, etc. also engage in other risky lifestyle behaviors like bungee jumping or chainsawing trees compared to those that do not.

[Gumby]

Here are results of an interesting study

• No association was found for the Healthy Diet Score.

...

• A higher Mediterranean Diet Score was associated with a 23% lower adjusted risk of dying over the follow-up period.
• A higher Recommended Food Score was associated with a 33% lower adjusted risk of dying over the follow-up period.

"The study shows that diet quality is an important predictor of longevity among older adults. With the aging population worldwide, the role of diet quality in improving functional status and quality of life becomes increasingly important and further research is required on the role of diet in these aspects of aging."

Researchers tend to lump trans fat intake with saturated fat intake, so most of these survey-type studies are pretty unreliable. For instance, ghee has often been a saturated fat staple of India, but modern versions of ghee are typically hydrogenated — which may be contributing to heart disease. Researchers would likely be unable to tell the difference in a survey (since most people are unaware they are even consuming trans fats). Furthermore, many people are cooking their saturated fats with a wide range of synthetic cooking oils.

It's also worth noting that there dozens of studies that show completely different results. To name a few...

Indian Railway Workers Study:
In 1967 the British Heart Journal published a study that found that heart disease was seven times more common among workers in Madras compared to those in Punjab. Punjabi workers ate ten to twenty times more fat (and smoked eight times as much) as those in Madras. The Punjabi workers lived twelve years longer than the typically vegetarian workers of Madras.

Framingham—Puerto Rico—Honolulu Study:
Conducted by the NIH, 16,000 healthy middle-aged men in Framingham, Massachusetts; Puerto Rico; and Honolulu answered questions about their eating habits. Six years later, in 1981, the researchers compared the diets of those who had heart attacks and those who had not. The most significant finding was the fact that the heart attack victims had eaten more polyunsaturated oils than the other group.

Parisian Study:
In 1998, a Parisian study published in The Lancet found that those who live the longest are old women with very high cholesterol levels. Women with very low levels had a death rate over five times higher.

Denmark Study:
The results of a study conducted by researchers in Denmark and published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2002, indicated no association between dietary patterns and coronary heart disease. The study looked at the diets of patients admitted to the hospital for diagnosis of heart disease. Patients were divided into three groups: two groups ate diets that were "healthy" according to established standards—they avoided animal fats and frequently ate whole grains, fruit, and vegetables. The third group consumed a so-called Western diet with a lot of meat, butter, and white bread. Again, the study indicated no association between dietary patterns and coronary heart disease, even though the otherwise healthy "Western" diet contained white bread.

A Swedish study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, 2004, found that consumption of milk fat (that is, butterfat) was negatively associated with the risk factors for heart disease and also for actual heart attack, In other words, butterfat protects against heart disease.

The Honolulu Heart Program:
A report published in The Lancet, 2001, as part of the Honolulu Heart Program, an ongoing study, looked at lowering cholesterol in the elderly. Researchers compared changes in cholesterol concentrations over 20 years with mortality from all causes. The results completely contradict the lipid hypothesis. Said the researchers, "Our data accords with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that...the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death..." That is, when people maintain low levels of cholesterol in their blood over a long period of time — for example, by eating the kind of low-fat diet that government agencies recommend—their risk of death from all causes will increase.

Russian Low Cholesterol = Increased Risk:
A study carried out by a research team from the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences in St. Petersburg and published in the journal Circulation, 1993, found that it was low levels of LDL (the "bad" cholesterol that we're always told to keep as low as possible) that were associated with increased risk of heart disease. Nor was this higher risk the result of lower levels of HDL (the "good" cholesterol), for the people with low LDL were the ones with the highest HDL levels.

The International Atherosclerosis Project:
The lipid hypothesis could have been laid to rest as far back as 1968, with the publication of the results of the International Atherosclerosis Project in the journal Laboratory Investigations. Researchers performed detailed autopsies on 22,000 corpses in 14 nations. This study showed the same degree of atheroma (fatty plaques that block arteries) in all parts of the world—in populations that consumed large amounts of fatty animal products and those that were largely vegetarian; and in populations that suffered from a great deal of heart disease and in populations that very little or none at all. Furthermore, the researchers found just as much artery blockage in people who had low levels of cholesterol compared to those whose cholesterol was high.

Canadian Study:
A team of researchers in London, Canada, conducted a long-term study of 800 war veterans confined to a hospital, published in Circulation, 1963. For years, the researchers analyzed the veterans' cholesterol levels and studied the arteries of those who died to determine the level of arteriosclerosis for each veteran. They found that, although the levels of cholesterol varied considerably from one individual to another, each man's cholesterol remained more or less the same during the entire period of the study. That is, if a veteran had low cholesterol at the beginning of the study, it was still low when he died. Yet the men who had low cholesterol had just as much arteriosclerosis as those with high cholesterol.
Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=XHlJMN ... &q&f=false

There are dozens of studies like these.

So.. the research is pretty inconclusive when looked at a whole. You can find a study that says one thing, and other study that completely defies common modern logic.

But, if we look at human history, we see that heart disease is a modern disease. And yet, people have been eating diets that are high in animal fats for thousands of years. So, why should we believe that eating animal fats leads to heart disease? Human history says otherwise.

From a wild, unmolested biological perspective, there is simply not enough nutrition in nature for us to do anything but breed in the early-to-mid teens and then wither away and die.  Today's 30 is grandfather age by Paleo standards.  We, as modern humans, have extended our natural lifespans unnaturally with technology.  But that the human body can live so long past 25-30 in a chronically suboptimal state of nutrition and other abuse is more a testament to the power of nature, than human intelligence.

That's totally not true. Most adults in the middle ages lived well beyond 30 years of age — often into their 60s, 70s, and some even older. Most of these people were just living off of subsistence farming.

Furthermore brains, livers, offal, bone broths, animal fats, fish, raw milk, etc. are all nutrient dense foods.

For instance, look at the amount of vitamins in Calf's liver:

Nutrients in Calf Liver
4.00 oz-wt (113.40 grams)

Nutrient  % Daily Value
vitamin A  1600.3%
vitamin B12  121598.8%
copper  847%
vitamin B2  2190.5%
tryptophan  125%
choline  106.4%
folate  93.8%
zinc  84.8%
vitamin B3  374.5%
vitamin B5  574.3%
protein  64.4%
phosphorus  52.1%
vitamin B6  652%
iron  32.1%
selenium  31.2%

Calories (217)  12%
Source: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tnam ... e&dbid=129

Not enough nutrition in nature? I beg to differ. Organ meat is like a multi-vitamin in one serving. And it's been well-established that natural forms of vitamins and nutrients are more easily absorbed by the body than synthetic versions.

[MachineGhost]

So.. the research is pretty inconclusive when looked at a whole. You can find a study that says one thing, and other study that completely defies common modern logic.

I would call the research very sloppy as results seem to depend on how heart disease is defined.  One study will compare to atheriosclerosis, another will compare to strokes, another will compare to coronary artery disease, another will compare to endothelial dysfunction, etc..  And then if the study doesn't separate saturated from transfats, refined from unrefined, Omega-6 vs Omega-3, inflammation vs vitamins, it's way more noise than signal.  Yet, I think there is a "preponderence of the evidence" that saturated fats and Omega-6's are inflammatory which contributes to the generalized cornucopia of heart disease.  I don't believe that anyone can say with a straight face that saturated fats alone cause heart diseases when the latest scientific evidence indicates it is a multi-factoral disease with 16 other risk factors, all of which are a result of suboptimal nutritional and lifestyle factors with a genetic tweak thrown in here or there.

The cruel irony is its not really hard to fix certain of these heart diseases.  All they require is addressing the real problem instead of covering over an unhealthy nutritional and lifestyle basis wth drugs or surgery.  But in this age of rampant obesity and ignorance, it is probably too much to ask for anyone to become self-responsible and enlightened for their own health instead of lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex stakeholders.

That's totally not true. Most adults in the middle ages lived well beyond 30 years of age — often into their 60s, 70s, and some even older. Most of these people were just living off of subsistence farming.

Do you have a reference that proves that life expectancy was alot more than the 34 years of age going back to the Stone Age since our present genomic state has existed?

Furthermore brains, livers, offal, bone broths, animal fats, fish, raw milk, etc. are all nutrient dense foods.
Not enough nutrition in nature? I beg to differ. Organ meat is like a multi-vitamin in one serving. And it's been well-established that natural forms of vitamins and nutrients are more easily absorbed by the body than synthetic versions.

That's an excellent observation, except humans are not stage 1 carnivores that eat fresh offal.  We have a instinctual aversion to fresh kills.  We like our meat (muscle) aged ala stage 2.  So, did our short-lived ancestors not eat the offal or was it just those in the 17th and 18th centuries that allegedly lived exceptionally long?  UK denizens are famous for their offal dishes, but they're generally unhealthy appearing, lack pleasing symmetry, have bad teeth and narrow dental archways, hallmarks of generations of accumulated poor nutrition ala Price.  What do you say to that?

[Gumby]

Yet, I think there is a "preponderence of the evidence" that saturated fats and Omega-6's are inflammatory which contributes to the generalized cornucopia of heart disease.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that animal fats suppress inflammation — while trans fats increase inflammation. Studies that suggest that saturated fats cause inflammation usually lump trans fats and saturated fats together.

I don't see how saturated fats could be in any way related to heart disease if heart disease is largely a modern disease and people are now eating way less saturated fats than they used to.

[align=center][/align]

[align=center][/align]

How can saturated fats be related to heart disease if people ate extraordinary amounts of saturated fats before heart disease became an epidemic? Heart disease was rare before the invention of modern cooking oils. Now people eat less saturated fats than ever before. Heart disease should be far from an epidemic if saturated fats are to blame.

Two things that come to mind are: A) people eat much less Omega 3's than they used to and B) people are treating their saturated fats differently than they used to: Homogenized/pasteurized milk instead of traditional raw milk. Cooking saturated fats in synthetic oils and trans fats instead of traditional tallow, lard and butter. etc. etc... I doubt any study ever looks into those sorts of things, especially since the food industry prefers people not look into those modifications.

For what it's worth, there are other less-noticed theories as to what causes heart disease.

Other Theories Proposed to Explain CHD Epidemic
PriceDeficiency of fat-soluble vitamins A and D
Yudkin, AhrensRefined carbohydrates
Kummerow, MannTrans fatty acids from hydrogenated fats
HodgsonExcess omega-6 from refined vegetable oils
AddisOxidized cholesterol and oxidized fats (free radicals)
ShuteVitamin E deficiency
PaulingVitamin C deficiency
McCullyDeficiency of folic acid, B6 and B12
WebbProtein deficiency
AndersonMagnesium deficiency
HuttunenSelenium deficiency
KlevayCopper Deficiency
GeliejnseK2 Deficiency
AnnandHeated milk protein
OsterHomogenization
EllisMicrobial agents (viruses, bacteria)
BendittMonoclonal tumor theory
GofmanExposure to x-rays
de BruinThyroid deficiency
LaCroixCoffee consumption
MorrisLack of exercise
SternExposure to carbon monoxide
PurdeyExposure to pesticides
RidkerInflammation
MarmotStress
RavnskovInfection
de Mesquita Acidosis of the Heart
BarkerLow Birth Weight
SmithChanges & fashions in reporting cause of death

I don't believe that anyone can say with a straight face that saturated fats alone cause heart diseases when the latest scientific evidence indicates it is a multi-factoral disease with 16 other risk factors, all of which are a result of suboptimal nutritional and lifestyle factors with a genetic tweak thrown in here or there.

Then I don't know how anyone can definitively say that saturated fats contribute to heart disease, given there are so many variables. The fact remains that heart disease was quite rare before 1900 and saturated fat consumption was very high.

The cruel irony is its not really hard to fix certain of these heart diseases.  All they require is addressing the real problem instead of covering over an unhealthy nutritional and lifestyle basis wth drugs or surgery.  But in this age of rampant obesity and ignorance, it is probably too much to ask for anyone to become self-responsible and enlightened for their own health instead of lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex stakeholders.

Agreed.

Do you have a reference that proves that life expectancy was alot more than the 34 years of age going back to the Stone Age since our present genomic state has existed?

Sure. See here...

"Infant mortality has a profound effect on life expectancy, which is simply an average of age at death. For instance, at the start of the 20th century in England, more than one-third of all deaths occurred before the age of 4 years. By the year 2000 less than 1 percent of children younger than four years had died. But if a Stone Age individual was lucky enough to avoid the perils of being born and to be agile enough to escape human and animal predators, he or she could expect to reach the age of 60 or 70. About 10 percent of them did!" — Philip J. Goscienski, M.D.
Source: http://www.stoneagedoc.com/Livinglonger.htm

The reason why the data is skewed towards 30 is because of infant mortality and predators.

Furthermore brains, livers, offal, bone broths, animal fats, fish, raw milk, etc. are all nutrient dense foods.
Not enough nutrition in nature? I beg to differ. Organ meat is like a multi-vitamin in one serving. And it's been well-established that natural forms of vitamins and nutrients are more easily absorbed by the body than synthetic versions.

That's an excellent observation, except humans are not stage 1 carnivores that eat fresh offal.  We have a instinctual aversion to fresh kills.  We like our meat (muscle) aged ala stage 2.  So, did our short-lived ancestors not eat the offal or was it just those in the 17th and 18th centuries that allegedly lived exceptionally long?

Huh? Why would anyone think that early humans would kill an animal and not eat the liver? Of course they would eat the liver. And they would eat the fat too. They wouldn't waste any part of the animal. It's complete nonsense to suggest that humans were picky about the organs and meat they ate. They ate everything to avoid starvation.

UK denizens are famous for their offal dishes, but they're generally unhealthy appearing, lack pleasing symmetry, have bad teeth and narrow dental archways, hallmarks of generations of accumulated poor nutrition ala Price.  What do you say to that?

That's partially a myth. See:

http://www.healthiro.com/dental-care/wh ... teeth.html

Anyway, it's well known that cavities are mainly caused by modern diets — especially sugar (both natural and artificial) in one's diet. Cavities are rare in diets that are rich in protein, and have no sugar. For example...

...Dental cavities were almost unheard of in the Mesolithic period. Such holes in teeth are caused by poor oral hygiene and a sugary diet. In Denmark the diet was rich in protein and there was no access to sweet, sun-ripened fruit, which could produce dental cavities.
Source: http://natmus.dk/en/historisk-viden/dan ... ic-period/

And as I'm sure you're aware, remarkably, you can actually heal cavities with proper nutrition. Additionally, sugar consumption was relatively high in the British/European diet during the 17th Century — when it was more readily available.

[MachineGhost]

Good stuff!

I think it is fine to quote opinions from medical doctors or so-called experts, but if you're going to convince anyone that saturated fats are indeed healthy and overturn 60 years of consensus, it has to be actual scientific studies that specifically address the issue, so theres no confounding variables or personal bias.  Such evidence must exist somewhere in the morass...

It may not matter to harp on saturated fats per se when it comes to multi-factoral heart disease, but lean meat is part and parcel of the government's Recommended Food Pyramid (33% less risk of all cause mortality, remember) which is derived from scientific consensus (and hopefully evidence, but they don't always respect it) from the Institute of Medicine.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so now I'm left wondering if there is extraordinary proof to be had on either side.

Let's not overlook that arachidonic acid (AA) is still highly inflammatory and is almost always contained in meats high in saturated fat.  Perhaps AA is the real demon and not saturated fat.  Saturated fats could be guilty by association, similar to its association with cholesterol which has a perverse profit-incentive attached to it.  Saturated fats also collect and concentrate pesticides, antibiotics, xenoestrogens, synthetic chemicals and all the other nasty toxins.

[Gumby]

I think it is fine to quote opinions from medical doctors or so-called experts, but if you're going to convince anyone that saturated fats are indeed healthy and overturn 60 years of consensus, it has to be actual scientific studies that specifically address the issue, so theres no confounding variables or personal bias.  Such evidence must exist somewhere in the morass...

The second-half of the following article shows evidence/theories why saturated fats are good for you...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller38.1.html

But, even if the research is somehow flawed, my overall point is that people used to eat more saturated fats than I would ever choose to eat, and heart disease wasn't an issue. And they got a lot of their fat-soluble vitamins that way. So, my sense is that if I was transported back to the mid-1800s and ate a diet that was high in raw milk, pastured butter, pastured cream, traditional porridges (pre-soaking, etc), and animal meat, I probably wouldn't get heart disease. I don't need a flawed study to tell me this. The historical record already supports it.

Keep in mind that there will probably never be a study sponsored to look into this — since studies are usually funded by corporate interests (not local farmers). If Kraft funds a study to look into the effect of eating one of their products, you can bet that the data will be fudged to support their claims or the study will be buried if they can't prove what they want to.

It may not matter to harp on saturated fats per se when it comes to multi-factoral heart disease, but lean meat is part and parcel of the government's Recommended Food Pyramid (33% less risk of all cause mortality, remember) which is derived from scientific consensus (and hopefully evidence, but they don't always respect it) from the Institute of Medicine.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so now I'm left wondering if there is extraordinary proof to be had on either side.

Call me crazy, but I think studies — and sometimes the journals that publish them — are often skewed by corporate interests and corporate biases.

Let's not overlook that arachidonic acid (AA) is still highly inflammatory and is almost always contained in meats high in saturated fat.  Perhaps AA is the real demon and not saturated fat.  Saturated fats could be guilty by association, similar to its association with cholesterol which has a perverse profit-incentive attached to it.  Saturated fats also collect and concentrate pesticides, antibiotics, xenoestrogens, synthetic chemicals and all the other nasty toxins.

I'm curious as to why you think AA is so bad for us. I'm no expert, but that doesn't seem to be the reality from what I've read. According to Wikipedia...

Dietary arachidonic acid and inflammation

Under normal metabolic conditions, the increased consumption of arachidonic acid is unlikely to increase inflammation. ARA is metabolized to both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory molecules. Studies giving between 840 mg and 2,000 mg per day to healthy individuals for up to 50 days have shown no increases in inflammation or related metabolic activities. Increased arachidonic acid levels are actually associated with reduced pro-inflammatory IL-6 and IL-1 levels, and increased anti-inflammatory tumor necrosis factor-beta. This may result in a reduction in systemic inflammation.

Arachidonic acid does still play a central role in inflammation related to injury and many diseased states. How it is metabolized in the body dictates its inflammatory or anti-inflammatory activity. Individuals suffering from joint pains or active inflammatory disease may find that increased arachidonic acid consumption exacerbates symptoms, presumably because it is being more readily converted to inflammatory compounds. Likewise, high arachidonic acid consumption is not advised for individuals with a history of inflammatory disease, or who are in compromised health. Of note, while ARA supplementation does not appear to have proinflammatory effects in healthy individuals, it may counter the anti-inflammatory effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachidoni ... flammation

I have to say, that doesn't sound like the inflammatory demon you describe. I'm not afraid of eating AA after reading that.

We know that saturated fat intake was high while heart disease was rare — before modern cooking oils entered the picture — so I still don't see how anyone can suggest that saturated fats and AA are responsible for all this inflammation you speak of, particularly when saturated animal fats provide vitamins A and D, nutrients the body uses to prevent inflammation. It just doesn't add up the way you are suggesting.

My sense is that the common consensus against saturated fat is built on a lot of (purposefully) flawed studies that corporate America has spoon fed us. These studies are part of a tremendous moneymaking operation.

[WildAboutHarry]

If the real concern is with inflammation, I think a hearty regimen of brushing and flossing will do more to minimize chronic inflammation than worrying about a natural (saturated) fat in the diet.

[Gumby]

Interesting look at the diet of Deacon John Whitman (of East Bridgewater, Massachusetts) — who died in 1842, at the age of 107 of no apparent disease.

[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]

[align=center]Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=DxUCAA ... &q&f=false[/align]

What we know as Lunch was called "Dinner" and was typically the large meal of the day; What we know as Dinner was called "Supper", which was traditionally just a few bites of leftovers.

The Deacon followed a typical New England diet of porridge for breakfast and occasionally lunch (soaked traditionally overnight), lots of raw whole pastured milk, traditional bone broths, beans/grains (traditionally soaked overnight), moderate portions of pastured meat (likely various organs cooked in a little saturated fat) on a regular basis and a diet of little to no sugar. My guess is that he didn't suffer from a lot of inflammation. Heart disease was very rare in his day, yet today we would consider this to be an "unhealthy" diet.

Now, obviously very few people lived to 107 in the mid-1800s — adult life spans were closer to 68. But, it's still a fascinating look into the traditional diet of an individual who lived a nice long life.

[Gosso]

Just came across this Forbes article, Fish Oil or Snake Oil:

[...]The study showed that the 6,281 patients who got fish oil were no more or less likely to die from cardiovascular causes than the 6,255 who received placebo. Taking fish oil did not lead to fewer heart attacks, fewer strokes, fewer hospitalizations for heart problems, fewer stent procedures, or less chest pain.
[...]
This clinical trial is not the final word on whether omega-3 fatty acids can help the heart. The dose was only a quarter as much as the normal four gram prescription dose of fish oil. It’s possible that in other types of patients, who are either sicker, healthier, or just different, the benefits will be bigger. Nor does the study have anything to say about the benefits of omega-3 fats on other parts of the body, like the brain, or their use in infant formula, which is the biggest source of omega-3 sales.
[...]
Monsanto has been developing a genetically modified soybean that contains the EPA fish oil. New products like that would be endangered if future fish oil studies come up negative.
[...]
Could those older studies simply be wrong? That’s what Nissen, from the Cleveland Clinic, suspects. In the first two trials, patients and doctors knew whether or not they were getting extra fish and fish oil, potentially confounding the results. In the third, there was an unusual statistical adjustment made. He also suspects that when researchers did studies that did not find a benefit, they may not have published them.

That last part is what really bothers me about scientific research.

So, I'll stick with simply eating fish.  It has fish oil AND hundreds of other awesome "stuff" in it -- maybe even beneficial stuff that we have yet to discover.

[Gumby]

Just came across this Forbes article..

It's hard to take some of these studies too seriously — particularly when most of the population is using modern processed cooking oils, which may very well be one of the main causes of heart disease.

Ancient Romans, vikings and many other cultures up until the mid-1850s used fermented fish oils for supplementation — back when heart disease was very rare. Fishermen would throw the livers into a barrel, add a little sea water, and then leave it to ferment for 6 months to a year. The result is a much more potent fish oil. Today, almost all cod liver oil is processed by heating it — rendering the benefits mostly useless.

Of course, if you're eating lots of fish guts every week (livers, heads, etc), then you probably don't need to take fish oil.

[smurff]

Blue Ice makes fermented cod liver oil, which is sold in lots of health food stores as well as online.

[Gosso]

Just came across this Forbes article..

It's hard to take some of these studies too seriously — particularly when most of the population is using modern processed cooking oils, which may very well be one of the main causes of heart disease.

Ancient Romans, vikings and many other cultures up until the mid-1850s used fermented fish oils for supplementation — back when heart disease was very rare. Fishermen would throw the livers into a barrel, add a little sea water, and then leave it to ferment for 6 months to a year. The result is a much more potent fish oil. Today, almost all cod liver oil is processed by heating it — rendering the benefits mostly useless.

Of course, if you're eating lots of fish guts every week (livers, heads, etc), then you probably don't need to take fish oil.

You are likely correct.  But the more I have researched diet and health the more skeptical I have become of any supplements (although I do take some b and d vitamins, since I live and work in an unnaturally stressful environment).  I think health has a lot more do with the mind than anything else, ie the placebo effect.  I find it amazing that most scientific studies attempt to control for the placebo effect by including a control group, but I never see any studies simply studying the placebo effect...this is likely because it doesn't have a good ROI (damn you capitalism ).

Of course it is important to eat a whole foods diet, but it can only do so much.