Doubling saturated fat in diet does not increase saturated fat in blood!

Hot off the press.

Doubling or even nearly tripling saturated fat in the diet does not drive up total levels of saturated fat in the blood, according to a controlled diet study.

However, increasing levels of carbohydrates in the diet during the study promoted a steady increase in the blood of a fatty acid linked to an elevated risk for diabetes and heart disease.

The finding "challenges the conventional wisdom that has demonized saturated fat and extends our knowledge of why dietary saturated fat doesn't correlate with disease," said senior author Jeff Volek, a professor of human sciences at The Ohio State University.

In the study, participants were fed six three-week diets that progressively increased carbs while simultaneously reducing total fat and saturated fat, keeping calories and protein the same.

The researchers found that total saturated fat in the blood did not increase -- and went down in most people -- despite being increased in the diet when carbs were reduced. Palmitoleic acid, a fatty acid associated with unhealthy metabolism of carbohydrates that can promote disease, went down with low-carb intake and gradually increased as carbs were re-introduced to the study diet.

"It's unusual for a marker to track so closely with carbohydrate intake, making this a unique and clinically significant finding. As you increase carbs, this marker predictably goes up," Volek said.

More on this study here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141121151104.htm

Christmas comes early for all us low carb high fat freaky eaters, Ho Ho Ho.

.....and I will continue to enjoy my LCHF lifestyle

Thank you Jeff Volek, professor of human sciences at The Ohio State University.  

Our LCHF dinner is cooking in the oven .......will it be a LCHF cheesecake to follow? Check out some great recipe's on the 'Low Carb Christmas Food Ideas Thread'

All the best Jan

How long before Joe Public, the NHS, docs and dieticians start believing the facts !

At last.  A few more of these and the message might finally get through.

I wonder what will happen when the masses finally realise they've been duped all these years?

The body makes cholesterol as is needed.  If you eat less cholesterol-forming foods it will make more, as you eat more, it will make less.

As the cholesterol level in the body is a marker of inflammation, the key to lowering cholesterol is lowering inflammation.  High carbs and sugars elevate inflammation, low carb lowers it.  So low carb, high fat lowers both inflammation and cholesterol.

Simples.

I found this bit confusing though

After getting them to a baseline reduced-carb diet for three weeks, researchers fed the participants the exact same diets, which changed every three weeks, for 18 weeks. The diets started with 47 grams of carbs and 84 grams of saturated fat each day, and ended with 346 carb grams per day and 32 grams daily of saturated fat.

Each day's meals added up to 2,500 calories and included about 130 grams of protein. The highest-carb level represented 55 percent of daily calories, which roughly matches the estimated daily percentage of energy provided by carbs in the American diet.

Compared to baseline, there were significant improvements in blood glucose, insulin and blood pressure that were similar across diets. Participants, on average, lost almost 22 pounds by the end of the trial.

Isn't this saying that BG improves as you increase carbs from the low-carb baseline? Am I misunderstanding or is it just badly written? I know it says later that low carb is good but this bit just seems clumsy.

sanguine wrote:I found this bit confusing though

After getting them to a baseline reduced-carb diet for three weeks, researchers fed the participants the exact same diets, which changed every three weeks, for 18 weeks. The diets started with 47 grams of carbs and 84 grams of saturated fat each day, and ended with 346 carb grams per day and 32 grams daily of saturated fat.

Each day's meals added up to 2,500 calories and included about 130 grams of protein. The highest-carb level represented 55 percent of daily calories, which roughly matches the estimated daily percentage of energy provided by carbs in the American diet.

Compared to baseline, there were significant improvements in blood glucose, insulin and blood pressure that were similar across diets. Participants, on average, lost almost 22 pounds by the end of the trial.

Isn't this saying that BG improves as you increase carbs from the low-carb baseline?  Am I misunderstanding or is it just badly written?  I know it says later that low carb is good but this bit just seems clumsy.

Here is the full paper. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113605

Abstract

Recent meta-analyses have found no association between heart disease and dietary saturated fat; however, higher proportions of plasma saturated fatty acids (SFA) predict greater risk for developing type-2 diabetes and heart disease. These observations suggest a disconnect between dietary saturated fat and plasma SFA, but few controlled feeding studies have specifically examined how varying saturated fat intake across a broad range affects circulating SFA levels. Sixteen adults with metabolic syndrome (age 44.9±9.9 yr, BMI 37.9±6.3 kg/m2) were fed six 3-wk diets that progressively increased carbohydrate (from 47 to 346 g/day) with concomitant decreases in total and saturated fat. Despite a distinct increase in saturated fat intake from baseline to the low-carbohydrate diet (46 to 84 g/day), and then a gradual decrease in saturated fat to 32 g/day at the highest carbohydrate phase, there were no significant changes in the proportion of total SFA in any plasma lipid fractions. Whereas plasma saturated fat remained relatively stable, the proportion of palmitoleic acid in plasma triglyceride and cholesteryl ester was significantly and uniformly reduced as carbohydrate intake decreased, and then gradually increased as dietary carbohydrate was re-introduced. The results show that dietary and plasma saturated fat are not related, and that increasing dietary carbohydrate across a range of intakes promotes incremental increases in plasma palmitoleic acid, a biomarker consistently associated with adverse health outcomes.

It concludes.

"In summary, high intakes of saturated fat (including regular consumption of whole eggs, full-fat dairy, high-fat beef and other meats) does not contribute to accumulation of plasma SFA in the context of a low carbohydrate intake. A progressive decrease in saturated fat and commensurate increase in carbohydrate intake, on the other hand, is associated with incremental increases in the proportion of plasma palmitoleic acid, which may be signaling impaired metabolism of carbohydrate, even under conditions of negative energy balance and significant weight loss. These findings contradict the perspective that dietary saturated fat per se is harmful, and underscore the importance of considering the level of dietary carbohydrate that accompanies saturated fat consumption."

lol thanks for that Eddie! I think I actually understood it! In terms of my own life, my health, my obesity and insulin resistance, I agree with this abstract and summary. (please don't make me read the full report though)

I know I am a real pain in the arse. I keep forgetting apathy is a man's best friend. I just never learn.

eddie1 wrote:I know I am a real pain in the arse. I keep forgetting apathy is a man's best friend. I just never learn.

Are you calling me apathetic?    Then you don't know me very well!  I'm still not feeling well and my head wouldn't cope with a full report right now, that's all.     It's best left until I can think properly, and right now my husband tells me that ironing his shirts are priority.  

I will read it as soon as I can.    

Anyhow you said 'apathy is a man's best friend' , so that doesn't apply to me as a woman does it? lol  (Running for cover right now!)

"Are you calling me apathetic?" No I am not, but far too many diabetics are. I could say much, but hey, what do I know.