[HN Gopher] Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascula...
___________________________________________________________________
Saturated fat: villain and bogeyman of cardiovascular disease?
Author : jbotz
Score : 14 points
Date : 2022-09-05 21:52 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (academic.oup.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (academic.oup.com)
| JoeyJoJoJr wrote:
| Just from my own anecdotal evidence, going clean vegan dropped my
| cholesterol levels from 6.1 to 5.1 in ~3 months. I'm pretty
| convinced there is a lot of truth to high saturated fat/animal
| products negatively impacting cholesterol levels. But that is my
| own personal experience.
|
| I'd encourage anyone seeking insights to just try a vegan diet
| for a while and compare their bloodwork, and how they feel. Seems
| like little point looking for answers in the science because of
| the amount of noise.
| dimensionc132 wrote:
| Collectively, neither observational studies, prospective
| epidemiologic cohort studies, RCTs, systematic reviews and meta
| analyses have conclusively established a significant association
| between SFA in the diet and subsequent cardiovascular risk and
| CAD, MI or mortality nor a benefit of reducing dietary SFAs on
| CVD rick, events and mortality. Beneficial effects of replacement
| of SFA by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat or carbohydrates
| remain elusive.
|
| Normie speak; they don't know.
|
| Next....
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > they don't know
|
| Like in what looks like every other case of diet science.
|
| People are finally questioning and replicating that kind of
| research. The mainstream culture of the field seems to have
| been bad at that on the past, but it changed. Maybe soon we
| will actually know something.
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Diet science is flawed because it does not take personal
| genetics into account. You can take two different sample
| sizes, say one from a largely Inuit population and another
| from a Caucasian farmer population and get two different
| results when changing their diet.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Yep, it is very hard for a lot of reasons. The correct way
| to deal with this is to acknowledge the problem and your
| research's limitations. The wrong way to deal with this is
| to pretend the problem doesn't exist. A lot of the latter
| seem to have happened on the past; not always by the
| original authors, but by the community as a whole.
| hirundo wrote:
| Bogeyman: "Based on the scientific evidence, there is no
| scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA
| naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely
| included in the diet."
|
| After we vanquish the bogeyman, SFA can be revealed as a health
| food.
|
| https://med.umn.edu/news-events/new-research-finds-saturated...
| version_five wrote:
| I know that the Heart and Stroke Foundation (which I assume has
| good intentions) has long been telling people to avoid saturated
| fat and sodium, when it's not completely clear these are bad for
| all people (some can be sensitive to sodium for example). At some
| level it's probably not bad advice to limit intake of these
| things, but what ends up happening is that recommendations are
| for absurdly low levels (2400mg sodium/day eg) that make many
| people not bother even trying.
|
| It's like telling people they need to get 150 minutes of exercise
| a week. How about starting by taking the stairs.
|
| Anyway, I think it makes it even less credible when you see
| things like this that say it may not even be a problem. I believe
| focusing on things that are unambiguously good, and positive
| trumps trying to prohibit or restrict things that are
| cornerstones of many diets.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-05 23:02 UTC)