So saturated fat is good or bad?

[Semidevil]

so after looking around the net, it sounds like that fats and saturated fat is not so bad after all. Transfat is bad, but fats and saturated fats is not bad.

So if that is the case, what is the cause of high cholesterol (the 'bad' kind)? and heart disease and clogging of arteries? Is it the transfat, processed food, sugar, refined starches?

Im just curious because along with weight training, I've changed my diet, to a higher protein, more complex carbs (veggies), and also more fat containing foods (lots of eggs, avocados, various nuts).

Am I okay with eating all these food that have such high fat content?

 

[mple]

Saturated fats are not bad for you. There are many many many variables involved in the development of hypercholesterolemia outside of just dieting alone.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/535.full.html
meta-analysis on sat fats.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981
Good resource for calculating macronutrient needs

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Saturated fat isn't bad, but in high quantities, it will cause bad things to occur. Saturated fat intake is the main predictor for overall cholesterol and LDL levels. If you exercise, these effects are lessened as the exercise actually skews HDL, LDL, triglycerides, and total cholesterol in a positive way. There's no way you should cut saturated fat out of your diet, but then again you shouldn't be dowsing everything in butter and cheese. Be reasonable. Better sources of fats are from monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (except from processed vegetable oils) - this includes foods like olive oil, avocado, seeds, nuts, etc.

Also, to address the article mple posted, there may or may not be a risk correlation between risk and saturated fat intake. Firstly, that's only one article. Others have shown the exact opposite. However, there is a significant correlation between saturated fat intake and hypercholesterolemia. Hypercholesterolemia IS significantly correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, etc, especially in conjunction with other issues like high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, etc.

 

[bononos]

.............
Also, to address the article mple posted, there may or may not be a risk correlation between risk and saturated fat intake. Firstly, that's only one article. Others have shown the exact opposite. However, there is a significant correlation between saturated fat intake and hypercholesterolemia. Hypercholesterolemia IS significantly correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, etc, especially in conjunction with other issues like high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, etc.

Well that 'one article' wasn't just one study was a meta-analysis comprising of a total of 347k subjects. And its not surprising since there have been big studies for decades now which show little/no relationship btwn saturated fat intake and heart disease eg MRFIT.

The A->B, B->C means A will lead to C hypothesis is shaky and I think still largely unsupported.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Well that 'one article' wasn't just one study was a meta-analysis comprising of a total of 347k subjects. And its not surprising since there have been big studies for decades now which show little/no relationship btwn saturated fat intake and heart disease eg MRFIT.

The A->B, B->C means A will lead to C hypothesis is shaky and I think still largely unsupported.

Well, there are many, many studies that consistently show that increased animal fat intake (especially red meat) does realistically increase risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Considering many people get saturated fat from this source, it's not outlandish to extrapolate that information. Granted, I have much less of a problem if someone is getting their saturated fat from things like coconut milk as opposed to getting it from a double cheeseburger.

 

[bononos]

The many many studies must be balanced against the huge well funded and designed prospective studies that were supposed to put the final stamp on the sat-fat-heart-disease but failed to do so. The hypothesis is at a tipping point at the moment with the sort of uncomfortable questions that are cropping up which are challenging the conventional wisdom.

Unsaturated fats is also implicated in aortic plaques at least as much if not more than sat-fat. Lowering triglyceride levels (with unsaturated fats) may not mean much if VLDL levels increase disproportionately. Theres recent news about oxidised cholesterol being very bad. All of this has added more dimensions to the saturated fat-heart disease issue.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

The many many studies must be balanced against the huge well funded and designed prospective studies that were supposed to put the final stamp on the sat-fat-heart-disease but failed to do so. The hypothesis is at a tipping point at the moment with the sort of uncomfortable questions that are cropping up which are challenging the conventional wisdom.

Unsaturated fats is also implicated in aortic plaques at least as much if not more than sat-fat. Lowering triglyceride levels (with unsaturated fats) may not mean much if VLDL levels increase disproportionately. Theres recent news about oxidised cholesterol being very bad. All of this has added more dimensions to the saturated fat-heart disease issue.

I agree that a lot of the views on cholesterol, what affects it, etc have been changing. For example, a lot of doctors don't even mention sugar consumption when trying to correct someone's cholesterol skews while research has shown it has some of the most detrimental effects (moreso than sat fat with worse distributions of small, dense LDLs). I'm not a low saturated fat diet kinda guy. I'm against portions of the ketogenic and Paleo diets that stress taking in a lot of animal products (and thus saturated fat). I definitely think that the RDA of saturated fat is fairly low. However, I do like to point out that saturated fat, in the history, has been a fairly good predictor of hypercholesterolemia. If that's being treated, then saturated fat should be less than what I consider normal. But as I said, my healthy normal intake is higher than the nutritional suggestions.

I think most of the research of unsaturated fats has been using vegetable oils, which have a whole set of their own problems. If getting them from good, whole sources like seeds, nuts, avocados, olive oil, etc, then I don't foresee too many bad consequences.

My solution to all of this: exercise. Exercise has consistently been the one thing that assuredly 1) reduces cholesterol and improves HDL:LDL skews, 2) reduces risk of cardiovascular disease, and 3) and improves lifespan. People have different viewpoints as to how you should diet with high cholesterol and it's fairly easy - don't eat like a complete idiot. And then exercise.

 

[bononos]

I agree that a lot of the views on cholesterol, what affects it, etc have been changing. For example, a lot of doctors don't even mention sugar consumption when trying to correct someone's cholesterol skews while research has shown it has some of the most detrimental effects (moreso than sat fat with worse distributions of small, dense LDLs). I'm not a low saturated fat diet kinda guy. I'm against portions of the ketogenic and Paleo diets that stress taking in a lot of animal products (and thus saturated fat). I definitely think that the RDA of saturated fat is fairly low. However, I do like to point out that saturated fat, in the history, has been a fairly good predictor of hypercholesterolemia. If that's being treated, then saturated fat should be less than what I consider normal. But as I said, my healthy normal intake is higher than the nutritional suggestions.
............

I'm not going to dispute the sat-fat->hypercholesterolemia link. What is disputed is the sat-fat->hypercholesterolemia + hypercholesterolemia->heart-disease = sat-fat->heart-disease hypothesis.

There are holes in the hypercholesterolemia->heart disease link and it is doubtful that high cholesterol is harmful in normal healthy people without a family history of heart disease.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I'm not going to dispute the sat-fat->hypercholesterolemia link. What is disputed is the sat-fat->hypercholesterolemia + hypercholesterolemia->heart-disease = sat-fat->heart-disease hypothesis.

There are holes in the hypercholesterolemia->heart disease link and it is doubtful that high cholesterol is harmful in normal healthy people without a family history of heart disease.

Right, but the question here is "Is saturated fat good or bad?" You're referring to the risk of cardiovascular disease. I'm referring to it in relationship to a clinical condition that raises the risks of other pathologies. I'm answering the question, "Is it bad?" with a "yes" if you're eating something like a typical southern diet. Having high cholesterol is not without incident.

Some of the studies they can't do in humans:

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/19/11/2776.short

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/2056597/reload=0;jsessionid=GIYDlWvnt2wONM3z4ugs.0

http://journals.lww.com/otology-neu...al_Effects_of_Hypercholesterolemia_on.12.aspx

You are thinking solely about effects on the heart, as in risk of cardiovascular disease. There's a lot of other research that shows it can damage nerve structures, reduce recovery from vessel or heart damage, and contribute to difficulty with vasoregulation. Hypercholesterolemia isn't just a condition for the sake of it. It poses a serious risk to many mammals, if significantly elevated.

 

[bononos]

Right, but the question here is "Is saturated fat good or bad?" You're referring to the risk of cardiovascular disease. I'm referring to it in relationship to a clinical condition that raises the risks of other pathologies. I'm answering the question, "Is it bad?" with a "yes" if you're eating something like a typical southern diet. Having high cholesterol is not without incident.

Some of the studies they can't do in humans:

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/19/11/2776.short

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/2056597/reload=0;jsessionid=GIYDlWvnt2wONM3z4ugs.0

http://journals.lww.com/otology-neu...al_Effects_of_Hypercholesterolemia_on.12.aspx

You are thinking solely about effects on the heart, as in risk of cardiovascular disease. There's a lot of other research that shows it can damage nerve structures, reduce recovery from vessel or heart damage, and contribute to difficulty with vasoregulation. Hypercholesterolemia isn't just a condition for the sake of it. It poses a serious risk to many mammals, if significantly elevated.

The first (mice) study seems(correct me if I'm wrong) to say that LDL receptor deficient mice after short term high chol feeding had worse outcomes in heart attack injury, but long term high chol feeding conferred cardio protective effects.
The normal control mice on short term high chol feeding had no change but on longer term high chol feeding received some additional protection from heart attacks.
So what does it say? Eat lots of cholesterol and your health will improve barring some short term risk for the ones who are susceptible to heart disease? Not the sort of study that I would show that cholesterol can screw up recovery from heart attack injury.

The 2nd and 3rd studies you linked used rabbits and guinea pigs, both of which are herbivores and will do poorly on a carnivorous or high fat or high chol diet.

Statins which lower cholesterol the recent news was implicated in dementia and alzheimer symptoms in human beings. And it isn't too far off the mark given that cholesterol is an important component in nerve/brain tissue.