
The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease - fhoxh
http://on.wsj.com/1mmGdca
======
ams6110
Wait a minute... I thought the notion that saturated fat caused heart disease
was settled science. That we had a consensus. Now we realize we're wrong? That
scientists cherry-picked data, had inadequate controls? That "too much
institutional energy and research money had already been spent ... A bias in
its favor had grown so strong that the idea just started to seem like common
sense."

The tragedy is that after generations of blind, almost religious belief in
flawed science those raised on a diet of synthetic fats, sugar, and refined
flour are suffering obesity and diabetes like never before.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
This is the same problem I have with the extreme push towards global warming
mitigation.

Half a century ago we were worried sick about global _cooling_. Sure, we know
more now than we did then. But that is not a valid response: in any decade we
know more than in decades before that.

Most of the measures for global warming mitigation either directly cause
massive economic costs (large taxes, etc, etc, which all end up preventing the
same sort of progression that is allowing us to bootstrap!), are short-sighted
(Carbon credits leading to old-growth forests being cut down), directly cause
deaths (banning of CFCs leading to deaths due to the alternative puffer
propellants not working as well), etc. Or end up as a combination of both.

For that matter: there are viking farms in what has been permafrost for the
last ~500 years. We (assumption here) were not industrialized at the time. So:
why was it not permafrost? And for that matter, considering the greenland ice
sheet was not the size it is today at that time (again: assumption based on
the fact that, you know, it wasn't permafrost at the time), why was the sea
level not higher to the extent that people are predicting?

And the question is: for what gain? (For example: a large chunk of the
Canadian shield, while good farmland, is primarily growing season limited. It
seems plausible that higher temperatures could increase their yields. So: has
anyone crunched the numbers? Plants grow better in higher CO2 concentrations.
Etc.) And what alternative measures could be taken? (For example: dropping a
nuke to trigger a volcano would lower global temperatures. We _know_ this.)

It's my children's world that I'd like to build up here, and my children's
children. I'd like to make _rather_ sure that we know what we're doing. There
is no rash decision quite like one affecting the entire globe for centuries.

~~~
higherpurpose
It's not just about coal and oil's effect on global warming, but their effect
on human health, too. The faster we move to cleaner technologies, the better.
Wouldn't you like the children to grow in a healthier world?

The situations are different here. It's not like in 50 years we'll discover
that "hey, wait a minute - inhaling coal fumes is actually _good_ for us!" \-
which is what you're trying to imply with your comment.

~~~
TheLoneWolfling
Notice: I did not mention air quality.

Notice: modern scrubbers are rather efficient

Not to mention that coal is one of those things that I am all for _us_ getting
rid of. But _not_ to ban _other_ countries from using. Spending 20-30 years
bootstrapping themselves to alternative methods very well may be better than
building up a massive population base because they couldn't get themselves to
the point where birth rates drop.

Not to mention that half of the alternatives to coal have been EPA-d (is that
a verb? Now it is) to the point where "dirty" fuels are the best option from a
straight economic point of view.

A better example for your comment might be nuclear power. Where a large chunk
of the reason behind why nuclear power is not more widely used is public
(panicked) response to radiation concerns. Even though burning coal ends up
with a larger radiation dose per MWH. Even though the alternative tends to be
coal or oil fired power plants. Even though nuclear power (with suitable
reprocessing) is the cleanest general-purpose form of power generation we
have. (And yes, this includes "green" energy. Solar/wind require rare earth
elements / batteries / etc, geothermal is highly regional, hydro causes issues
with fish/etc, biomass is sooty, etc)

------
IvyMike
In Greg Egan's story Crystal Nights, one of the characters became rich by
making a site called "FoodExcuses.com", where you input what you eat and it
gathers all of the scientific literature justifying it as a healthy diet.

It's just a throwaway joke in the story but I'm convinced it would absolutely
work in real life.

[http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-
egan/](http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/)

~~~
gojomo
Every day I find more evidence that the internet mainly serves to confirm for
people what they already believe. Just like I always suspected.

~~~
anigbrowl
Ha :)

Seriously, this is a worry. When I was younger I thought the Internet would
make the scientific method go mainstream, with Usenet and later the web
functioning as a sort of intellectual meritocracy.

Note to idealists: expect less and you won't be disappointed.

~~~
tim333
I'm an optimist and think it works a bit. Amongst all the rubbish there's some
well thought out stuff out there on the interwebs and those that are
interested may be able to find it. The people who like reading nonsense for
entertainment don't matter that much. Except they vote. So maybe they do.
Anyway...

------
jacques_chester
The most recent research still upholds that saturated fats, over and above
their contribution to obesity, are a worse risk than polyunsaturated fats.

A meta-analysis of 8 randomised controlled trials with 13 thousand subjects
showed that a 5% total energy substitution from saturated to polyunsaturated
fats reduced risk of coronary heart disease by 10%.[1]

The point about substituting hydrogenated fats is good; but it's hardly an
argument for switching back to saturated fat. It's an argument in favour of
not eating unhealthy food in the first place.

But that's not how you sell books, is it?

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20351774/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20351774/)

~~~
kareemm
A meta analysis of 80 studies involving more than a half million people found
no evidence of dangers from saturated fat, or benefits from other kinds of
polyunsaturated fats (excluding trans fats, which were shown to be
terrible)[1].

[1] [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-
fat...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-fat-and-
heart-disease-link/)

~~~
jacques_chester
That meta-analysis was not based on randomised controlled trials. It was
largely based on observational and self-reporting studies, which are
notoriously inaccurate.

Moreover, it was subject to numerous corrections due to sloppy work by the
authors:

[http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/03/scientists-fix-
err...](http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/03/scientists-fix-errors-
controversial-paper-about-saturated-fats)

~~~
kareemm
Thanks, hadn't seen this link. I'd like to see the specifics of what the
errors are. Agree that observational and self-reporting are inaccurate, though
unfortunately they're some of the best data we've got wrt nutrition.

Also, looks like there were some random trials in the meta analysis. From your
link:

"These included trials in which participants were randomly assigned to
different diets, as well as observational studies in which participants'
intake of fatty acids was determined by asking them about their diet or by
measuring the fatty acids circulating in the bloodstream."

~~~
jacques_chester
> _Also, looks like there were some random trials in the meta analysis._

There were, but the statistical effect is drowned by the much larger pool of
observational/self-reporting studies.

Observational studies are a useful place to find potential leads, but they are
nowhere near as reliable as RCTs for many reasons. Observational studies can
tell you that the fall in piracy is causing global warming. Short of a
randomised controlled trial involving the introduction of pirates or non-
pirates at random to 13,000 Earth-like planets, it's hard to know how strongly
that relationship holds.

~~~
kareemm
I agree with you about observational studies when I wrote in the grandparent:

> Agree that observational and self-reporting are inaccurate, though
> unfortunately they're some of the best data we've got wrt nutrition.

~~~
MDS100
They are not the best data. It's just too widely used.

------
jlehman
I've followed the Paleo diet for over two years now and the health benefits
have been great for me (an incidental part of eating tons of meat is getting a
good amount of animal-based saturated fat).

After many discussions with many people about what is or is not healthy and a
lot of reading, I've come to believe two things:

1\. We (scientific and non-scientific community) have no clue what is or is
not healthy, and it probably varies from person to person, and

2\. The human body is really good at giving indicators as to whether or not it
is healthy. With a bit of experimentation (food/exercise) and attention to
physical and mental well-being it's not hard to assess one's health.

The difference for me after going Paleo was noticeable after about two weeks
-- improved memory, energy, happiness, sleep, lots of other stuff. I've heard
similar stories from others that have become vegan, vegetarian, discovered
high-FODMAP insensitivity, etc.

Shameless self-promotion: I built
[http://www.fitsmeapp.com](http://www.fitsmeapp.com) to help find food
(currently just recipes) based on arbitrary user-defined "diets". Feedback is
always appreciated.

~~~
newaccountfool
Can I ask what you have in your Paleo diet? Because I once witnessed some one
mention 'Paleo Cookies' which is completely ridiculous which led me to believe
it was a fad die that went along with Crossfit.

~~~
jlehman
Sure -- assuming you mean personally:

Any meat, any vegetables, decent amount of fruit, any kind of potatoes,
butter, some nuts. It's a bit of a deviation from the by-the-book version
(whatever that actually is -- it varies depending on who you talk to) because
of potatoes and butter.

People will make "Paleo Cookies" and other baked goods usually with a
combination of nut-flours, potato starch/flour and honey for sweetener (among
other things). They tend to look ugly and taste pretty bad. Not to mention
contain lots of sugar (which, even if it's honey, ends up defeating the
purpose proportional to how cookie-like you want it to taste). I have made
things like that though -- cookie cravings happen.

If you mean in Fitsme:

We have something fairly close to what's probably mentioned by Crossfit -- but
it's 100% configurable, so it can have whatever you want it to.

------
nickpp
I don't think i know anything anymore.

~~~
skylan_q
Admitting ignorance is better than repetition of unfounded "common wisdom".
Disbelief in one's own understanding of something is the first step towards
developing a better understanding of something.

------
ericxb
Related:

Study Questions Fat Heart Disease Link
[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-
fat...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-fat-and-
heart-disease-link/)

A Lifelong Fight Against Trans Fats
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/health/a-lifelong-fight-
ag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/health/a-lifelong-fight-against-
trans-fat.html?_r=1&)

The Oiling of America
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8)

------
jimhefferon
I really want this to be true.

------
smtddr
I would just like to point out that earlier[1] there was a discussion around
science not showing any evidence of GMO harm. We don't have a complete
understanding of nutrition and the human body; and there's a lot of money to
be made making everyone believe one thing or another. Anyone who thinks they
have it _" all figured out"_ is setting themselves up for a surprise.

Even I admit that my chasing of labels such as Non-GMO and USDA Organic could
also be a big marketing scam and they could very well be selling me the same
pesticide-soaked, GMO-glued-together, sweetener-laced, antibiotic+steroids
pumped food that everyone else is buying while charging me a 40% markup for a
lie. But since I'm confident we're all just rolling dice here, I choose to
gamble on chasing food that's supposedly very similar to what my family has
been getting it for generations in Nigeria with no particularly notable health
issues except 2 instances of diabetes. One of them came to America, started
eating all the common fast foods, drinking, smoking, etc for over a decade.
The other is related to depression and change of eating habits while still in
Nigeria.

If I'm wrong... I'm wrong. But I hope this lets people know that our current
science _(and social /economical incentives around it)_ is not good enough to
use as a debate-closer of health & fitness discussions. There are
contradictions[2][3] out there. I suspect that at the end of the day, what's
good for one person can be poison for another and all our attempts at
generalizing health & fitness guidelines for everyone will ultimate end in
failure. We'll all have to go into the hospital, get a DNA sample and get
customized health & fitness advice - and that's assuming we can remove the
economic incentives for hospitals/doctors to just tell us whatever it takes to
sell some expensive "solution".

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7671699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7671699)

2\. _" Many of the bacteria are species that the researchers had never seen
before. And even familiar microbes were present in unusual levels in the Hadza
belly. “The Hadza not only lack the ‘healthy bacteria,’ and they don’t suffer
from the diseases we suffer from, but they also have high levels of bacteria
that are associated with disease,” Crittenden said."_ \----
[http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-
micro...](http://www.wired.com/2014/04/hadza-hunter-gatherer-gut-microbiome/)

3\. _" Unlike their Western counterparts, the Tarahumara don't replenish their
bodies with electrolyte-rich sports drinks. They don't rebuild between
workouts with protein bars; in fact, they barely eat any protein at all,
living on little more than ground corn spiced up by their favourite delicacy,
barbecued mouse._ \----
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-
painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html)

------
bikamonki
Have we become stupid to the point that we need the Internet to tell us what
to eat? What were we eating for millenia before we invented nutrition experts?
Is this article of relevance/interest to HN?

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Diet matters. There are good scientifically informed choices that can reduce
your risk of horrible diseases like cancer and alzheimers.

Even in the context of traditional diets there are good ones and bad ones.

Do you want to look like this guy: [http://www.kimmacquarrie.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Mash...](http://www.kimmacquarrie.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Mashco-Piro.jpg)

Or this guy: [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rTRD-
USWhSk/UTIwrhmGFcI/AAAAAAAAAT...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rTRD-
USWhSk/UTIwrhmGFcI/AAAAAAAAATM/ot7IrIUE2HQ/s400/moran-masai-warrior_1.jpg)

They both eat traditional diets, clearly with very different physiological
outcomes.

~~~
newaccountfool
Your making the assumption that because one guy is skinny he is healthier than
the other. The 2nd picture (Darker Skinned) is a Maasai Warrior and the other
are Mascho Piro. They will probably have different diets and do differencing
amounts of exercise daily, but just because one is thin and one is not as
thin, doesn't say anything about health.

