Tag Archive for: saturated fat

The Bottom Line on Omega-3s

/in /by

When you consider the research studies I reviewed last week and this week on omega-3 fatty acids, they may seem confusing. The reason is that in both of those studies, they were looking at very specific outcomes. In last Thursday’s memo, it was changes in the quantity of specific cytokines, chemicals that are inflammatory in nature. In the study from Tuesday, it was for reduction of cardiac events. There are other ways that omega-3s can contribute to health, and I thought a little review would be in order.

Cellular Membranes

Cells seem to work better when they contain omega-3 fatty acids. Remember, a cell has an exterior wall of a lipid bilayer. If the diet contains a high amount of saturated fat, a high amount of saturated fat becomes part of that lipid bilayer. If the diet contains more omega-3 fatty acids, whether by eating fish or by taking a dietary supplement, the cell membranes contain a higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids. While the mechanisms are not known, the cells seem to function better when they contain more omega-3s.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Nerve tissue seems to function better when there’s a high amount of DHA in the bloodstream; DHA supplementation seems to be beneficial for nerve problems such as migraine headaches, depression, and Parkinson’s disease. It’s not a cure, but somehow the omega-3s become integrated into those nerve cells and they work better. The same holds true for the eyes; vision is dependent on the nervous system to operate properly, and high DHA appears to benefit eye health as well.

Hormone Control

The study I reviewed last Thursday focused on one type of inflammatory chemicals called the cytokines, but there are other pro-inflammatory hormones that may be better controlled with both high EPA and DHA supplementation. Cortisol is a known stress hormone. In times like we’re experiencing now and for those who are overweight or obese, cortisol levels are higher; that may be due to the increased presence of saturated fat. If omega-3s become part of triglycerides, the potential for inflammatory hormones such as cortisol can be decreased.

There’s also the possibility that persistent use of both EPA and DHA reduces atherosclerotic plaque, the hard layer of fat that builds up in arteries, or it may prevent cholesterol from being manufactured in the first place. While it’s too long of a process to explain in a Memo, our bodies make cholesterol two carbon molecules at a time. When there’s a higher amount of saturated fat, the process can speed along unabated; but when there’s a high percentage of omega-3 fatty acids present, the process gets interrupted. We don’t know the mechanisms; we just know omega-3s help.

The Bottom Line

Those are some of the possible ways omega-3 fatty acids are used for our health. Undoubtedly there are many more that haven’t been discovered or haven’t been examined in enough clinical trials at this point. The most important thing for you and me is to make sure that either we eat several servings of fatty fish per week or we take up to four grams of high EPA-DHA omega-3 supplements every day—let the science work it out later. Our job is to provide our body with nutrients that are beneficial.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Cost vs. Benefit for Saturated Fat

/in /by

In Tuesday’s Memo, I suggested that I don’t like speaking in absolutes when it comes to health recommendations; I’ve seen too many exceptions. What about our Michigan cardiologist? Was he correct? Yes and no, but mostly no.

He implied in the interview that the source of saturated fat is animal products. That isn’t true. In fact, someone could be a vegan and still over-consume saturated fats from using vegetable oils. Palm oil, vegetable oil, even almonds and other nuts that contain monounsaturated and polyunsaturated oils also contain saturated fats. My point is that even without any animal products such as cheese or milk, you can still get a lot of saturated fat in a vegan diet.

He was also overstating the positive effects of lowering saturated fat intake. I read the abstract; it said that it would take 56 people lowering their saturated fat intake for two years to prevent a single cardiac event. Further, the review did not show any reduction in mortality. To me, it raised a lot of questions that may have been answered but not reported.

Should we lower our saturated fat intake? Probably, but it’s going to take a lot more answers to swing the cost to benefit ratio in favor of giving up animal products for the potential benefits we may get.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: Cochrane Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2

“Give Up Meat or Else!”

/in /by

“Animal Foods Conclusively Cause Heart Disease!” was the title in my news feed that attracted my attention. I had to check it out, because I’m not a fan of absolute statements in the health field; too often, some facts have to be ignored to make definitive statements such as that true. Was this any different?

A cardiologist from Michigan was interviewed in response to a recently published paper in the Cochrane Review. The review updated the information related to saturated fat intake and the rate of cardiovascular disease and mortality. After reading the paper, that’s the response the doctor gave to an interviewer from the Plant Based News. He suggested that the review conclusively shows that reducing saturated fat intake will result in a 21% decrease in CVD events. The implication is that most saturated fat comes from animal products: if we really buckle down and reduce our saturated fat consumption more, we can reduce events even further.

He makes the connection between animal products and saturated fat. But is that correct? It would mean that vegans, who consume no animal products, are protected from cardiovascular disease. Is that true? I’ll let you know on Thursday

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Why I’ll Keep Using Coconut Oil

/in /by

The research that the authors of the American Heart Association Presidential Advisory on Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease, specifically on coconut oil, seems to be in conflict. The authors suggested coconut oil is bad for us, but the research studies they used didn’t really seem to confirm that conclusion. What gives?

The criteria that the Advisory’s panel used were limited in scope. There’s no evidence that the regular use of coconut oil contributes to CVD, even in cultures that regularly use coconut oil. They used a part-equals-whole logic. As they reported, there were significant increases in LDL-cholesterol when subjects increased coconut oil in their diet in the studies they cited. Because a high LDL-cholesterol level contributes to CVD, therefore coconut oil must contribute to CVD. That’s why the Panel does not recommend its use.

I understand what they said. The data they used supported their conclusion. However, they used a very narrow use of the data on coconut oil to support their recommendation.

They are correct when they state that coconut oil is high in saturated fat; in fact, it has the highest percentage of saturated fat of all fats and oils including lard and butter. But it also has a very high percentage of short- and medium-chain saturated fatty acids as opposed to longer chain fatty acids. The advantage is that short- and medium-chain fatty acids can by-pass the liver and be used directly to produce energy in most organs of the body, which makes coconut oil an option for getting energy quickly.

Let’s examine the statement that LDL cholesterol increased when subjects were taking coconut oil (1). In one study, LDL rose from 166 to 171 mg/dl in men and 155 to 156 in women (2). In another study, LDL rose from 118 to 128 mg/dl in a study of men and women (3). These were studies that lasted six weeks and five weeks respectively. There’s no evidence it would continue to rise had the subjects continued to use coconut oil. An increase of 3–6% in LDL-cholesterol wasn’t translated into a risk for CVD. Statistically significant? Yes. Meaningful in the real world? No.

The panel did not recommend coconut oil because it has saturated fat and has no other health benefits, but that point is debatable. Research on other benefits of coconut oil is really just beginning. Too many health gurus are overstating the benefits, especially when it comes to Alzheimer’s disease, and that creates the hype and most likely, the reason the Panel singled out coconut oil to examine more closely.

 

The Bottom Line

The Panel suggested we keep fat intake to no more than 30% of dietary intake; of that, only 10% should be saturated fat. They recommend that we substitute poly-unsaturated and mono-unsaturated fats and oils for saturated fat. That’s not really controversial and it’s a good idea.

What they did not say was that we couldn’t use coconut oil as one of our sources of saturated fat. If we eat 2,000 calories per day, that would mean up to 200 calories per day can come from saturated fat; that’s about two tablespoons per day, and that seems to be a reasonable source of saturated fat consistent with their recommendation.

Here’s the real bottom line: if you’re going to use a sat fat as a source of immediate energy, coconut oil is a healthier choice than lard or butter. And that’s why I use coconut oil; I don’t use a lot, but it works for me and makes sense to me as a scientist.

My recommendations never change. Eat less. Eat better. Move more. And in my opinion, using coconut oil is eating better.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference:
1. Circulation. 2017;135:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510
2. J Lipid Res. 1995;36:1787–1795.
3. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94:1451–1457

 

Coconut Oil Research vs. the AHA

/in /by

For this memo, I’ll print conclusions from the papers cited in the American Heart Association Presidential Advisory on Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease and then print what the authors wrote about the research studies they used to assess coconut oil (1). I’ll confess, it’s hard to understand how they reached some of these conclusions.

The study:
The findings suggest that, in certain circumstances, coconut oil might be a useful alternative to butter and hydrogenated vegetable fats (2).

AHA:
“A carefully controlled experiment compared the effects of coconut oil, butter, and safflower oil supplying polyunsaturated linoleic acid. Both butter and coconut oil raised LDL cholesterol compared with safflower oil, butter more than coconut oil.”


The study:
In conclusion, the results of this study indicated that it may be premature to judge SFA-rich diets as contributing to CVD risk solely on the basis of their SFA (saturated fatty acid) content.

AHA:
“Another carefully controlled experiment found that coconut oil significantly increased LDL cholesterol compared with olive oil (3).”


The study:
There was no evidence that coconut oil acted consistently different from other saturated fats in terms of its effects on blood lipids and lipoproteins.

AHA:
“A recent systematic review found seven controlled trials, including the two just mentioned, that compared coconut oil with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated oils. Coconut oil raised LDL cholesterol in all seven of these trials, significantly in six of them.”

The Advisory’s conclusion: “Because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause of CVD, and has no known offsetting favorable effects, we advise against the use of coconut oil.”

Significantly. That’s a meaningful word in statistics but how about in the real world? I’ll finish this up in Saturday’s memo.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

References:
1. Circulation. 2017;135:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510
2. J Lipid Res. 1995;36:1787–1795.
3. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94:1451–1457
4. Nutr Rev. 2016;74:267–280.

 

Coconut Oil: Healthy or Not?

/in /by

The headlines screamed “Coconut Oil is Alarmingly High in Saturated Fats!” News post after news post talked about how Americans have been sold a bill of goods on the health benefits of coconut oil. Now the American Heart Association says it’s harmful. They published a Presidential Advisory on Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease, a review paper to examine one issue: does saturated fat contribute to cardiovascular disease? They state that both the public and healthcare professionals are confused over this issue. The reasons are complex but primarily due to recent research publications that questioned the role saturated fat plays in the development of CVD.

The paper is 19 pages long with six pages of references. I’m not going to cover the entire paper because for the most part, there’s nothing new in what they’ve said. I’m only going to address a single issue: coconut oil. They begin the section by citing a New York Times survey that looked at which foods nutritionists consider healthy and what a group of registered voters consider healthy; nutritionists say coconut oil is not healthy while the public believes it is. The authors speculate that this is the result of the marketing of coconut oil in the popular press. Evidently they don’t spend much time on the Internet, because that’s where the bulk of claims for coconut oil are made.

I’m a fan of coconut oil for one primary reason (other than the fact that I love coconut): it contains short- and medium-chain fatty acids that can by-pass the liver and be used as energy for most organs. Is it still a saturated fat? Absolutely. Does it cause an increase in your risk of CVD? I’ll review their research on Thursday.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: Circulation. 2017;135:00–00. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

 

The Bottom Line on the Saturated Fat Debate

/in /by

Finishing up this look at saturated fat and the Dietary Guidelines, those who oppose the limit on saturated fat argue that saturated fat is not related to cardiovascular disease. They go on to argue that if fat is limited, carbohydrates will take their place—and high carbohydrate intake is the real cause of obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.

Before I go any further, if you’re reading this at home, write down three of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines that you remember. How about two? One? Exactly. Unless you’ve just taken a course in healthier eating, you don . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.

Handpicking the Data

/in /by

I’m continuing my look at a recent paper that called into question the process for limiting saturated fat intake to less than 10% in the new Dietary Guidelines (1). What else should we know about how the conclusions were derived and who wrote the op-ed? Let’s start with the author.

Nina Teicholz is an investigative journalist and accomplished writer and has more of a scientific background than most health and nutrition writers today. That’s great, but it’s just not good enough. After reading the article, I watched a TEDx talk she gave. She has a . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.

Saturated Fat Debate

/in /by

The new Dietary Guidelines for 2015 have stirred a lot of controversy this year and they aren’t even published yet. The latest headline related to the new Dietary Guidelines has been an op-ed piece written by a journalist and published in the British Medical Journal (1). It has everything a good mystery has: potential conspiracy, implied payoffs, big business, ignoring facts. I’m going to take a look at it this week.

The paper The Scientific Report Guiding the U.S. Dietary Guidelines: Is It Scientific? was written by Nina Teicholz, an investigative journalist who has . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.

The Link Between Fat Intake and Heart Disease

/in /by

The second batch of headlines I referred to Tuesday related to an article published in the journal Open Heart (1). The study was a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials done before the dietary guidelines on fat were put in place in 1977. The studies analyzed showed no reduction of heart disease when subjects were placed on a low-fat diet; therefore the current study’s authors concluded that the original low-fat recommendations in the 1970s had no scientific basis.

Sorry, but we didn’t need randomized controlled trials in this case—and here’s why.

In the late . . .

We're sorry, but this content is available to Members and Insiders only.

If you're already a DrChet.com Member or Insider, click on the Membership Login link on the top menu. Members may upgrade to Insider by going to the Store and clicking Membership; your membership fee will be prorated automatically.