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 This latest evidence comes from an analysis of previously unpublished data of a large controlled trial conducted in Minnesota nearly 50 years ago, as well as a broader analysis of published data from all similar trials of this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).
Much more importantly, butter is a known quantity. Margarine could be ANYTHING.
This completely blows away any comparison you could make between now and when Margarine was first discovered harmful. It started getting a bad rep because of trans fat. But today's margarine has probably been re-formulated to get rid of that.
I dumped margarine before dumping margarine was cool because I didn't trust what it was. That and it tastes like sh*t. Plus I don't actually use enough of butter for it's "evilness" to be a problem.
You know, that whole "moderation" thing...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
But, but, but... It must've at some point... The benevolent and omniscient government officials kept telling us, that butter is evil. They could not ban it outright for the adults, insisting on their silly "liberties" and "freedoms, but they did ban it for children. As recently as in 2013!
Oh yeah, the science was settled. Only deniers would ever believe anything but the evils of butter. The. Science. Was. Settled. Anyone not accepting that is in the pocket of "big butter" and should be sent to jail.
But, but, but... It must've at some point... The benevolent and omniscient government officials kept telling us, that butter is evil. They could not ban it outright for the adults, insisting on their silly "liberties" and "freedoms, but they did ban it for children. As recently as in 2013!
Oh yeah, the science was settled. Only deniers would ever believe anything but the evils of butter. The. Science. Was. Settled. Anyone not accepting that is in the pocket of "big butter" and should be sent to jail.
The science was never settled. The research funding dictated who had a voice.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It's not an oops, it was intentional. Selling a few cents of grain based food for several dollars is big business.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I don't think that diet and fitness are a science fail. They are a pseudo-science fail.
Plenty of mainstream scientific institutions pushed the "high carb, low fat" diet for an entire generation. The government promoted carbs and spent billions subsidizing high carb diets (and, of course, the subsidies continue to be paid, as all subsidies do, even though they are now recognized as a mistake). To claim that it was all mere pseudo-science is just a No True Scotsman fallacy. Nobody was calling it pseudo-science back in the 1970s and 1980s. In fact it was the opposite: most scientists attacked Atkins and others as "frauds" when they questioned the prevailing dogma.
This was a colossal failure of the scientific establishment, and you cannot just hand-wave that away.
No it could not. The science of evolution is well founded. Climate science has a harder problem to address, but is as rigorous as is reasonable in the circumstances. Nutritional science is a joke.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Oh yeah, the science was settled.
The science was never settled.
Science will never be "settled."
My question, why are the people who are most strongly against the principles of science the ones who wave the Science flag most vigorously? If they don't believe in the principles, why do they want to be seen as being on some sort of Science Team? Is it as simple as ignorance of what science is, or is it something deeper and more complicated?
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.
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.
I like how the bad data about salt came from a company making salt substitutes...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
And that includes your good carbs bad carbs BS. Primal blueprint indeed. It may have worked for you. But not for the reasons you think.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?