Butter unlikely to harm health, but margarine could be deadly!

Saturated fat does not increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, diabetes or early death, a study has shown.

Saturated fat found in butter, meat or cream is unlikely to kill you, but margarine just might, new research suggests.

Although traditionally dieticians have advised people to cut down on animal fats, the biggest ever study has shown that it does not increase the risk of stroke, heart disease or diabetes.

However trans-fats, found in processed foods like margarine raises the risk of death by 34 per cent.

"For years everyone has been advised to cut out fats,” said study lead author Doctor Russell de Souza, an assistant professor in the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, at McMaster University in Canada.

"Trans fats have no health benefits and pose a significant risk for heart disease, but the case for saturated fat is less clear.

"That said, we aren't advocating an increase of the allowance for saturated fats in dietary guidelines, as we don't see evidence that higher limits would be specifically beneficial to health."

More on this latest news here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11796834/Butter-unlikely-to-harm-health-but-margarine-could-be-deadly.html

"Victoria Taylor, Senior Dietitian, British Heart Foundation, added: “While saturated fats were not robustly associated with total or deaths from CHD, this does not mean we should all go back to eating butter – the studies that this review is based on can’t show cause and effect."

The British Heart Foundation get huge amounts of money from, you guessed it Flora Margarine Unilever. No wonder Victoria Taylor is giving it large. Another so called health professional putting the sponsors interests before the health of patients.

Well, natural is so much better than artifical! I also believe that the low fat diet industry has a lot to answer for with diabetes. They took all the fat out of things like low fat yogurts and put in loads of sugar instead and therefore put more pressure on the pancreas to try and deal with it, therefore contributing to the diabetes epidemic. That's what I think anyway.

ajsherlock wrote:Well, natural is so much better than artifical!  I also believe that the low fat diet industry has a lot to answer for with diabetes.  They took all the fat out of things like low fat yogurts and put in loads of sugar instead and therefore put more pressure on the pancreas to try and deal with it, therefore contributing to the diabetes epidemic.  That's what I think anyway.

Agree 100% the level of hidden sugars in food is deplorable. And we should not forget about the bent food labelling. Check out a packets of biscuits for example, the info states total sugars per hundred grams 25 grams, total carbs 60 grams. Of course they don't class carbs as sugar, but that is exactly what carbs turn in to when digested.

Carbohydrate from wiki here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

A carbohydrate is a biological molecule consisting of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, usually with a hydrogen:oxygen atom ratio of 2:1 (as in water); in other words, with the empirical formula Cm(H2O)n (where m could be different from n).[1] Some exceptions exist; for example, deoxyribose, a sugar component of DNA,[2] has the empirical formula C5H10O4.[3] Carbohydrates are technically hydrates of carbon;[4] structurally it is more accurate to view them as polyhydroxy aldehydes and ketones.[5]

The term is most common in biochemistry, where it is a synonym of saccharide, a group that includes sugars, starch, and cellulose. The saccharides are divided into four chemical groups: monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. In general, the monosaccharides and disaccharides, which are smaller (lower molecular weight) carbohydrates, are commonly referred to as sugars.[6] The word saccharide comes from the Greek word σάκχαρον (sákkharon), meaning "sugar."

A lot of people have heard of the big metastudy by Patty Siri-Tarino featuring Ron Krauss, past president of the AHA, and Frank Hu from Harvard who coauthored a lot of the Framingham studies.

Not so many have heard of a highly similar study by Andrew Mente pdf here

There WAS a Cochrane Collaboration that came to similar conclusions but it seems to have been withdrawn and replaced by this

Meanwhile there are ever increasing numbers of studies such as by Dariush Mozaffarian who is moving rapidly away from Walt Willett's championing if Omega 6 seed oils.

One thing I will guarantee, your doctor has never heard of ANY of this. Nor obviously has Catherine Collins RD

chris c wrote:A lot of people have heard of the big metastudy by Patty Siri-Tarino featuring Ron Krauss, past president of the AHA, and Frank Hu from Harvard who coauthored a lot of the Framingham studies.

Not so many have heard of a highly similar study by Andrew Mente pdf here

There WAS a Cochrane Collaboration that came to similar conclusions but it seems to have been withdrawn and replaced by this

Meanwhile there are ever increasing numbers of studies such as by Dariush Mozaffarian who is moving rapidly away from Walt Willett's championing if Omega 6 seed oils.

One thing I will guarantee, your doctor has never heard of ANY of this. Nor obviously has Catherine Collins RD

Conclusions:

"In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression."


Nice find Chris. I am sure you have read this.

"A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, pooled together data from 21 unique studies that included almost 350,000 people, about 11,000 of whom developed cardiovascular disease (CVD), tracked for an average of 14 years, and concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."

Err...they will be ya sugars and carbs.

Info from here  http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Saturated fat is the kind of fat found in butter and lard, pies, cakes and biscuits, fatty cuts of meat, sausages and bacon, and cheese and cream.

From the NHS guess which also contain industrial trans fats, yet they are all lumped together as has been the case in many studies over the years, I remember the anti fat brigade gleefully posting a rodent study vilifying sat fat which turned out to be hydrogenated coconut oil 

This is the link to the full BMJ study which the Eddies post refers to.

Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978

Isn't it strange that the same people who lump together trans and saturated fats when even the different saturated fats have different metabolic consequences, and red and processed meats which again are quite different, and who blame sat fats for the excessive amounts of carbs in said pies, biscuits and cakes, are the same people who claim there's a major difference between brown and white bread, which any fool with a glucometer can soon disprove?