Slashdot Mirror
Replacing Butter With Vegetable Oils Doesn't Decrease Risk of Heart Disease, Says Study (medicalxpress.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A research team led by scientists at the UNC School of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health has unearthed more evidence that casts doubt on the traditional "heart healthy" practice of replacing butter and other saturated fats with corn oil and other vegetable oils high in linoleic acid. The findings, reported today in the British Medical Journal, suggest that using vegetable oils high in linoleic acid might be worse than using butter when it comes to preventing heart disease, though more research needs to be done on that front. This latest evidence comes from an analysis of previously unpublished data of a large controlled trial conducted in Minnesota nearly 50 years ago, as well as a broader analysis of published data from all similar trials of this dietary intervention. The analyses show that interventions using linoleic acid-rich oils failed to reduce heart disease and overall mortality even though the intervention reduced cholesterol levels. In the Minnesota study, participants who had greater reduction in serum cholesterol had higher rather than lower risk of death. Two things to note about the study: 75% of the participants left in less than a year (perhaps not uncommon, the study doesn't explain why these people left); the vegetable oils mentioned in the article are not necessarily the most commonly used (which are oils made of olive, sunflower, coconut, and palm).
see Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
Most of the dietary advice we have been fed (pun intended) in the last 50 years or so is not based on any real science.
I could go into details, but I am not the expert. Listen to people much smarter than me. Watch this video as a primer: https://vimeo.com/45485034
Then go read Good Calories Bad Calories, and The Primal Blueprint.
Personally, I have been grain and grain product free for 3 years by following the principles put in the above (and some other) resources. No low-fat BS, no whole-grain BS. No fad diets. I won't preach, just do a little research on your own. Once the physical addiction to carbs/sugar was broken, my body doesn't want them anymore. I'm in my 40s, and I only wish I could have done this earlier in my life.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Good old fashioned butter takes very little processing to create. It's about a 3 step process from animal to butter. Milk the cow/goat/sheep, remove cream, churn the cream, done you have butter. Vegetable oils on the other hand, not so much.
I've said this 100s of times now, if a food product took a lot of processing to create, it's not good for you period. All of those body builders consuming powered whey are doing nothing for themselves. That powered whey is dead product that your body doesn't know how to handle. Sugar from honey or maple trees is NOT the same as sugar from a sugar cane. Honey is perfect as is, maple syrup is simple to create, however, to extract sugar from the sugar cane takes a massive amount of processing and effort.
All of those boxed Annie's "health" foods horrible food for the human diet. The only thing Annie has going for her is that they are organic junk food, meaning they just don't have the chemicals in them that other junk food has.
....something that was considered scientific fact just a few short years ago has no been disproven via scientific method and years of empirical evidence. Wonder what other hot topics this might apply to once people pull their heads out of their azzes....
Seriously, I thought this was settled many years ago. Heart docs stopped telling patients to eat margarine, etc. because you can't digest its components nearly as easily so it clogs up your arteries.
I graduated from UNC and have respect for the institution, but this is a single study with several problems when applying the results to the general populace as advice or counter advice on nutrition. Rather than grabbing hold of a set of results that shows some ambiguity, investigate the field itself. In practice that means realizing you are not an expert in nutrition, and consulting someone who is. That's hard for geeks but these are are real biochemistry problems that require skill and training to understand, much less interpret meaning from current research.
This study used a dataset of 1968-1973. At that time, processing techniques created a lot of trans fats in making the replacement products. Those trans fats have their own effect. Processes have now been changed, so that data set doesn't relate to what would happen with today's use of those same foods.
That said, you can pry my Kerrygold butter from my pudgy, pasty hands!
Margarine was never considered healthy by some people because they already understood that the state of saturation is a gross simplification of the issue when structure, chain length and conformation have such a large influence on the specific bioactivity of each of the huge number of molecules that constitute lipids, not to mention the impact of the volume ratios of the types consumed. If you didn't already know this you should stop getting your knowledge from the fools in the media and actually study some science.
Todays health.. Tomorrows horror..
I don't think that diet and fitness are a science fail. They are a pseudo-science fail.
At this point what fields are not at least half pseudo-science? Certainly everything that makes it to press can be classified as such.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Honestly. These food and body researchers have a horrible track record here with these things. I saw someone wrote Today's Health...Tomorrows horror.. No shit. These people have a worse track record than weatherman in calling it. These are 'scientists'? 'Engineers"? What the hell is going on.
using vegetable oils high in linoleic acid might be worse than using butter .....
the vegetable oils mentioned in the article are not necessarily the most commonly used (which are oils made of olive, sunflower, coconut, and palm).
Ummm..this looks wrong. The most common two cooking oils in the USA are Soybean Oil and Canola Oil. Soybean alone dwarfs everything else put together (but I threw in Canola because that's what my family uses for most needs). Soybean oil is a bit over 50% linoleic acid. Canola is about 20%.
So if you live and eat in the USA, this probably applies to you.
While the how might be in doubt, the actual benefits, at least for me, are in no doubt. I take 3000mg of it per day to help ease joint pain from spending too many years at a mouse and keyboard. This tends to keep it all down to an acceptable amount of pain.
If I go without it for a week or more I start to feel aches and pains not only in my wrists and knuckles, but my back, knees and other major joints. It actually becomes quite unpleasant for me.
Hard to say anything definite about the skin claims, other than my skin is now almost 50 years old and I still look like a 30 something. I do however religiously stay out of direct sunlight and have almost never used anything to wash my face other than cold running tap water and my hands. I apply a moderate priced moisturiser most days as it can get quite dry here in winter.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
...Plus I don't actually use enough of butter for it's "evilness" to be a problem.
You know, that whole "moderation" thing...
The whole moderation is a myth. I use lots of butter, and olive oil, and coconut oil. Don't believe the BS about saturated fat being bad for you. Don't believe the BS about cholesterol. 80-90% of the cholesterol in your blood is produced by your body, not consumed. It *can* be influenced by what you eat, but in the way that you eat garbage that puts your hormones (insulin and others) on a roller coaster. There is no definitive link between saturated fat and blood cholesterol and heart disease. 50% of people who have heart attacks have "normal" cholesterol levels. Just let that one sink in. And I know there are stats about everything, but that is a big one.
When I started eating this way I weighed 175 lbs. Within 2 months I had dropped 15, and it has stayed off for 3 years - effortlessly - by eating a high-fat, low-carb diet of the best foods I can get. No grains, no grain products, very little to no sugar. It's not hard. I am in fantastic health.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
tl;dr: there are no shortcuts in nutrition, you can't eat tons of fatty food and be healthy just by eating the right fatty foods, you have to exercise actual self control, and you should exercise too.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
And those with the voice, can get more research funding. Is not it nice, when the government is picking winners?
I wonder, what you mean by "rigorous" here. Lysenko, for example, rigorously persecuted adherents of the reactionary Mendelian genetics. And, when their activities endangered the favor he held with the government, denounced them as "enemies of the people".
Something that could never happen in a free country. Right?
Is it really a reliable scientific theory, if police are called on to silence its opponents?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yup, the dangers of corn oil have been out there for at least 20 years.
These are PUFA -poly unsaturated fatty acids, and they are much more subject to oxidation.
And oxidized oils are bad to eat, and bad to circulate in the blood.
The only plant oil I eat is olive oil, a fat with a track record of health going back thousands of years, and widely supported in the Mediterranean diet, proven to be healthy. If you are not overweight, and don't consume excessive calories especially in the form of carbs, then eating animal fat (including butter) is not bad for most people.
The big surprise is those that lowered their cholesterol more had higher mortality !!!!
Make you wonder if the statins will be found to be really beneficial.
There have been no actual actions of police anyway. But there have been calls for actions. Which means, the inference is unconvincing and the inferrers — unscientific (and totalitarian).
But we knew that already — Climate Science is notoriously short on scientific statements, that have come out true. Falsifiable, but not falsified in due time.
Just try to cite any... Here are the rules: your list of scientific statements must have two links per entry: the first link pointing at a prediction made, the second — to its confirmation with reasonable accuracy (say, 80%, if quantifiable). The two links in each entry must be several years apart — "predictions" publicized after coming true do not count. The predictions need to be at least marginally useful — something promising, for example, that the temperatures will rise or fall aren't.
The rules are reasonable, but you will not be able to succeed — many have tried. Depending on your personality, you may make several attempts omitting some of the requirements, and then give up (calling me names is optional).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
75% of the participants left in less than a year
They died from heard disease?
For deep frying, use lard or canola oil. Deep frying with lard gets you a better result, and it's likely better for you, but canola is monumentally more convenient for occasional home use.
For baking or anything high temperature, use butter.
For all other cooking, use olive oil or butter, your choice.
PS: Peanut oil tastes like fucking ass. Fuck you if you deep fry a turkey (or anything else) in peanut oil.
PPS: The perfect french fry is achieved by: Peeling, cutting to size and shape, rinsing in cold water, par boiling until they begin to soften (before they fall apart), freezing over night, deep frying until barely blonde, draining thoroughly, deep frying again until golden brown, draining and seasoning (immediately). Restaurants with good fries start with frozen, par boiled fries and throw them into a 2-stage fryer. If you watch, you'll see a fry jockey dump a bag of fries into one fryer and later pull the basket up, shake it off, and dump it into the adjacent fryer. The basket from that fryer is lifted and the fries seasoned, then fries are served.
PPPS: The perfect fried chicken is achieved by brining. Brining does not need to be done overnight - just a few hours makes a world of difference. Any frying method (deep or otherwise, battered or not) takes a back seat to the importance of brining. Chicken breasts are the worst thing to deep fry without brining. If you absolutely can't brine, use chicken thighs or drumsticks instead, since they have fat to add some flavor of their own.
So years ago I decided to avoid all these harmful oils/chemicals still under study, and opted to spread Mobil 1 on my toast each morning instead.
They stopped adding 'tetraethylead' to these oils years ago mind, which is a pity as the anti-knocking effect was very handy when I was revving up the reps at the gym - where I'd forego the risk of steroids, and inject nitric oxide into my muscles instead.
50% of people who have heart attacks have "normal" cholesterol levels. Just let that one sink in. And I know there are stats about everything, but that is a big one.
I don't actually know enough about the context here to evaluate that claim, but more importantly -- your statistic is insufficient to conclude anything.
A statement like "50% of people who have heart attacks have 'normal' cholesterol levels" is absolutely useless for evaluating the potential link between heart attacks and cholesterol without a sense of incidence of "high cholesterol" and "heart attacks" within the population.
Just for a quick statistical primer, imagine the following scenario:
1000 people
100 people have high cholesterol
100 people have heart attacks
Let's take your claim: 50% of people who had heart attacks had normal cholesterol. Knowing the above stats, that implies:
(1) 50% of heart attacks were people with high cholesterol.
(2) Thus, chances of having a heart attack with high cholesterol = 50/100 = 50%.
(3) Chances of having a heart attack without high cholesterol = 50/900 = 5.55%.
Overall, those with high cholesterol have about 9 times greater chance of having a heart attack. High cholesterol appears to be a VERY STRONG PREDICTOR of heart attacks.
(We could go even more extreme and imagine there were 200 people with heart attacks, in which case 100% of people with high cholesterol had heart attacks... even though your "50%" stat is still true. In that case, I think I'd be really concerned if someone had high cholesterol.)
Alternatively, consider a different scenario:
1000 people
400 people have high cholesterol
10 people have heart attacks
Again, using your assumption that 50% of heart attacks are in people with normal cholesterol, that means:
(1) Chances of having a heart attack with high cholesterol = 5/300 = 1.25%.
(2) Chances of having a heart attack with normal cholesterol = 5/600 = 0.83%.
In this case, things are much more equal -- high cholesterol has higher risk, but less than 50% higher.
In this case, heart attacks are much more rare, and high cholesterol might be a factor, but it seems there are a lot of other things to look at.
Bottom line -- your statistic is meaningless without context. Citing a rate of incidence for a subgroup tells you nothing about whether that subgroup is significant or not... you'd need more stats to evaluate your claim. Depending on the larger population stats, your "50%" statistic might even be incredibly strong evidence that high cholesterol is the best factor we have to predict heart attacks... which I think is the opposite point that you wanted us to have "sink in." (I don't think this latter hypothesis is true, merely that your stat is quite ambiguous.)
Note -- in second scenario, there's a typo: it should obviously say 5/400 = 1.25% for high cholesterol, given the stats listed.
It gets better yet. It's not enough just to get adequate omega-3, it has to be the right type (especially if you're older). DHA is the mostly-needed variety of omega-3, and there generally isn't DHA in vegetable sources of omega-3 (which contain mostly EPA).
So, eat salmon or fish oil. Keep your DHA intake up to at least half of your omega-6 intake, and don't stress out if you have some saturated fats (particularly coconut oil).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Empirical data based on repeatable science just doesn't have that 'feel good' ring to it. The USG seems to prefer half-baked ideas based on trendy hypotheses that are difficult to prove out - especially when underfunded or outright blacklisted. Imagine trying to get a "butter is actually healthy for you" paper funded and peer-reviewed in 1980. As is frequently the case with government funded science, they get what we pay for.
Organization? You must be joking..
Last I checked (and I check often), we have about as much idea how the mitochondria of a organic cell functioned as we do about the cultural habits of a octoped race from planet Kolob. We have absolutely no idea how cells work and we sure as hell have back asswards ideas about how the human body works. We try to apply science to things like nutrition and diet, but the truth is, we have absolutely no idea how the body works and we pretty much just guess our way along.
Don't get me wrong... I don't want us to stop, we probably will never understand how a human cell works. We will try this magical trial and error approach getting things wrong for thousands of years to come. Maybe we'll eventually have something representing a clue. For now, let's make sure that the whackos who become doctors and think they actually understand anything about the human body have some tools to try and keep us alive a bit longer. Sooner or later, we'll have to replace them... they really really suck at it
The article states that the recommendation is to replace butter and other saturated fats with corn oil and other vegetable oils high in linoleic acid.
Linoleic acid is an omega-6 fatty acid. Science seems to be inclined these days to the consensus that fatty acids should rather be fairly balanced between omega-6 and omega-3 (due to competition for rate-limiting enzymes in the body). Opinions for a good ratio range from 4, down to 1, (omega-6) against 1 (omega-3). However, most modern crops (and the oil gained from them) are rich in omega-6 fatty acids: corn, soy, sunflower, wheat... Expensive products like extra virgin, cold-pressed olive, flax (linseed) and macadamia oil seem to be fairly balanced or have more omega-3 than omega-6.
Also, because these fatty acids are "essential" (meaning they need to be obtained from diet and can't be synthesized in the body), modern agricultural practices of feeding or finishing off livestock on the above-mentioned crops means that their products (meat, eggs, milk, butter, cheese...) also exhibits an omega-6:omega-3 ratio that is heavily skewed towards omega-6. When animals and poultry are pasture fed (and not just allowed to roam free on bare ground, still being fed on these crops), the ratio starts to be much more balanced. Apparently, green spring growth is the most beneficial (producing rich yellow butter), and chickens need to hunt for insects, larvae etc., which also produces much richer yellow yolks (and better tasting eggs, from own experience).
Modern western diets however often show a 10:1 or even 16:1 ratio of omega-6:omega-3 - right in line with the recommendations, but apparently quite unhealthy. The reason for this is that omega-6 fatty acids promote inflammation and also storing of fat, while omega-3 does the opposite. (That's why those crops work so well to quickly fatten up the animals before slaughter).
Of course, both inflammation and fat storage have their purpose in maintaining a healthy organism, but it needs to be balanced out with the opposing process - once it becomes a runaway process, then problems start to occur. Many medical practitioners these days are aware of the role inflammation plays in coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and a slew of other modern "lifestyle" diseases.
References: You may read the Wikipedia pages on Omega-6 fatty acids and Omega-3 fatty acids on your own. This one section however may be a good introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid#Suggested_negative_health_effects. Many explanations of promoters of modern diet plans (paleo, clean eating, banting) might include some of the same information, the book "Nourishing Traditions" by Sally Fallon (a dietician) is an extensive tome on this theme and includes many further sources.
Yes, of course the above-mentioned omega-6:omega-3 ratio is just one factor and a simplification to boot. There are other fatty acids; various sugars also come into play regarding inflammation and obesity; then processed foods (trans fats, oxidized cholesterol, etc.) are apparently quite harmful, and don't forget about the various negative effects of chemicals like pesticides and preservatives... By and large, it seems to be more prudent to eat as much "natural" foods as possible (food grown on plants and not food manufactured in plants); often this then needs to be a DIY approach as even in food the market seems to be for (cheap) quantity over quality. Obviously, producing your own food is not possible or at least easy for city-dwellers. Some basic reading I've done a while back shows that one would need around 120 square meters of arable land per adult to produce a sufficient but mainly vegetarian diet, including eggs, and maybe the occasional chicken - for red meat the size needed does increase considerably.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I'd love to see your grocery bills before and after this change, adjusted for inflation. High carbs = cheap food, thus the seeming contradiction of obesity even in low-income households.
Advocates of this stuff always remind me of Oprah, et al breezily giving advice along the lines of "just have your personal shopper and chef..."
We have known this for a long time already.
Plus, butter is way tastier!
This information seems to be presented in a deliberately misleading way. We should not be surprised that so many posters here have completely misunderstood the results of the study.
This study does not say that butter, saturated fats, triglycerides, or cholesterol have been proved healthy. Far from it.
Rather, this study seems to indicate that linoleic acid is so horribly unhealthy that it compares to butter.
Furthermore, linoleic acid is *not* commonly used in margarine. Direct quote from the post: "the vegetable oils mentioned in the article are not necessarily the most commonly used (which are oils made of olive, sunflower, coconut, and palm)."
So, 50 years demonstrating Butter brings on heart disease and you psuedoliberals say "See? Settled science isn't when there is one competing study OF MENTAL PATIENTS AND GERIATRICS ON THEIR LAST LEGS!
The former are on antidepressants and antipsychotics, KNOWN for inducing cholesterol raising conditions
The latter won't change body mass while still alive.
This is thy the VWRC is ALWAYS WRONG!
You don't bother to READ
Fair enough, I didn't cite it well and didn't back it up. My post wasn't meant to be an entire essay or statistics lesson. It was one of those things that I remembered from the various books / papers I have read on the topic. It was based on a fairly large set of data. And this is NOTHING NEW by the way.
Google turned up a few hits - please by all means look up more. They are out there.
dietheartpublishing
sciencedaily
The above were from 2009, and look like they may have some redundant data. And actually, this points to a higher percentage and focuses on LDL. But, my point stands that there is no definitive link between saturated fat and blood cholesterol and heart disease. You are correct, there are MANY factors, but our "scienticians" boil it down to good-cholesterol bad-cholesterol. Nearly any doctor in the country will tell you "raise your HDL, lower your LDL - here take these drugs to do it." It's not only quite wrong, it could be exacerbating the problem!
A really good one was a 10 part series by Dr Peter Attia around cholesterol. The series gets pretty deep into the topic, but here is a good summary: marksdailyapple
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You have misinterpreted the study, and come to many bad conclusions.
Educate yourself:
August 31st 2011 Michael Greger, M.D.
Egg Cholesterol in the Diet
Cardiology experts warn that eating even a single egg a day may exceed the safe upper limit for cholesterol intake.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/egg-cholesterol-in-the-diet/
September 2nd 2011 Michael Greger, M.D.
Egg Industry Blind Spot
To help deflect criticism from the cholesterol content of their product, the egg industry touts the benefits of two phytonutrients, lutein and zeaxanthin, that have indeed been shown to be beneficial in protecting one's eyesight against vision threatening conditions such as cataracts and macular degeneration. But how do eggs stack up against plant-based sources?
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/egg-industry-blind-spot/
March 11th 2013 Michael Greger, M.D.
Eggs vs. Cigarettes in Atherosclerosis
A similar exponential increase in carotid artery plaque buildup was found for smokers and egg eaters.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-vs-cigarettes-in-atherosclerosis/
July 3rd 2013 Michael Greger, M.D.
Eggs and Cholesterol: Patently False and Misleading Claims
Egg industry claims about egg safety found to be patently false, misleading, and deceptive by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-cholesterol-patently-false-and-misleading-claims/
February 17th 2014 Michael Greger, M.D.
Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe?
Freedom of Information Act documents reveal that the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned the egg industry that saying eggs are nutritious or safe may violate rules against false and misleading advertising.
Linda Carney, M.D.
Unscrambling the Truth About Eggs
http://www.drcarney.com/topics/item/262-unscrambling-the-truth-about-eggs#.Vw7hbGErIW0
AUGUST 31, 2012 BY JOEL FUHRMAN, M.D.
Comparing eggs to cigarettes
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cardiovascular-disease-comparing-eggs-to-cigarettes.html
An Independent Critique of Low-carb Diets: Cracking Down on Eggs and Cholesterol
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/may/travis.pdf
Meta-analysis
> Compilation of all the best studies on egg consumption and risk of heart disease going back to 1930, found that, overall, those who ate the most eggs had a 19% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, a 68% increased risk of diabetes, and, once you have diabetes, an even greater 85% increased risk of heart disease
2013 Apr 17
Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a meta-analysis
CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that there is a dose-response positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD and diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23643053
Intakes of meat, fish, poultry, and eggs and risk of prostate cancer progression.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042525
Egg consumption in relation to cardiovascular disease and mortality: the Physicians' Health Study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18400720
Sep 9, 2015 - Bite Size Vegan
The GREAT EGG CONSPIRACY: Lies, Corruption & Kevin Bacon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsgDwSvkJdM
EGG-GATE: The American Egg Board Conspiracy Plot Thickens
http://www.mfablog.org/egg-gate-the-american-egg-board-conspiracy
If you want to go the full-bore "primal blueprint" way, and get the best quality you can, it will cost you. For the most part, organic will cost you more than non-organic. If you want to go grass-fed pasture raised beef... free-range chickens and eggs... local pigs where each one is named and watches only re-runs of I Love Lucy while being massaged by Swedish women..... you get the point. Shopping in bulk helps on more expensive items - olive oil, nuts, coconut oil. If you buy 30 eggs - much better deal.
Yes, buying meat/eggs/cheese from massive brand farms probably isn't really the best food you can buy. But I am better off than eating just filler foods that make me feel terrible. Reducing inflammation is such a big part of it.
I am an advocate of it, because it has worked for me. And a few of my friends, and my wife. But I don't preach. It's funny how riled some people get about it, and aren't interested in hearing how our bodies actually work. They just want to stick with what they know, think they know, or what they want to believe.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.