
Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016) - upen
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/is-vegetable-oil-really-better-healthier-for-your-heart-lower-cholesterol/478113/
======
lngnmn
It obviously does not because there are whole populations, such as Tibetans,
who consume butter on daily basis and are still alive and well, without any
cardiovascular epidemic.

What is a risk, by the way? How it is defined, apart from a personal
lifestyle, diet, habits, current set of disorders and chronic illnesses of a
particular person? It is a likelihood? An average of some imagined population
of which some non-representative sample is treated according to some abstract,
disconnected from reality model of a few selected unproven factors in a
complex multiple causation individual phenomena? How the value of that number
related to anything meaningful? It passes peer-reviews because it conforms to
a socially constructed consensus (the current set of memes) but no one does a
review of logic and causality.

~~~
martincmartin
The classic example, since modern nutrition research started in the '50s, is
Inuit/Eskimo. They eat a lot of whale blubber, yet have very low rates of
heart disease.

A good book that presents the case against nutrition research is "The Big Fat
Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet."

~~~
christophilus
I wonder if the Tibetans and Inuits benefit from the fact that their dietary
fats come from animals who lived healthy, whole lives. Much of the US consumes
dairy and meat that comes from animals who were shoved into dark, overcrowded,
stressful, unnatural habitat and fed strange feed that they'd normally not eat
such as corn and grain.

~~~
Elrac
To argue that, you'd have to demonstrate that the fats in animals raised on
what you call healthy food differ chemically from the fats you'd find in
animals fed otherwise.

Related example: The glucose from sugar beets is chemically identical to and
indistinguishable from the glucose from sugar cane or corn. Animal fat tends
to be a more complex mix, but while no expert I suspect there's only so many
different lipid compounds produced and stored in animal cells. After all, the
energy currency in any animal's bloodstream is mainly glucose - the source
information is lost.

There are excellent _ethical_ reasons not to mistreat animals as is today
often the case. I'm not sure that there are chemical reasons related to
nutrition.

~~~
DrScump

      glucose from sugar cane or corn
    

Is there meaningful mass production of _glucose_ (or dextrose) from corn? Corn
_syrup_ is higher in fructose, which is metabolized very differently from
glucose.

~~~
Elrac
Absolutely! The glucose mix initially produced from corn is about 50% glucose
and 42% fructose, which is roughly the same ratio as you get from beets or
cane. You can then _optionally_ raise the percentage of fructose to 55, 65 or
even 90% fructose. The 90% stuff is usually diluted/mixed before use.

HFCS is just sugar syrup with an intentionally elevated level of fructose.
There's nothing that specifically ties corn to high amounts of fructose, other
than that corn is heavily subsidized in the US while other sources of sugar
are hit with import tariffs. So corn is what US sugar producers will tend to
use as a source.

------
nmerouze
Cholesterol isn't bad, it's in fact very important for the production of
testosterone among other things. The problem comes from the inability to use
it because the body isn't healthy. Polyunsaturated fats will produce bad
byproducts when it breaks down and over time makes the body sick.

We crucially lack magnesium and potassium in our diet. There are tons of
studies showing the benefits of magnesium against heart disease. And it's not
just the heart, cholesterol can obstruct the liver and a sick liver will cause
a whole lot of problems.

~~~
brotherAB
The grey matter in your brain is mostly cholesterol. I've personally lost 10
pounds in 10 days eating a high fat, low carb diet, with light excercise about
3 days a week. Kerrygold is my #1 choice for butter, because it comes from
grass-fed cows.

~~~
Xdafjgneoiwe
The problem with ketogenic diets is not the weight loss. The diet works for
weight loss, that is undisputed. The problems are in the longer term with
elevated cholesterol and increasing insulin resistance.

Example:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703903](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703903)

There's however tons of this. Most keto bloggers will try to tell you that
increasing LDL-C is okay for different reasons (depending on who you read).
That is however just not true. The link between LDL-C and heart disease is
very strong and has been proven over decades.

~~~
croon
> The problems are in the longer term with elevated cholesterol...

From your link:

> These differences were not significant at 24 months.

\-----------

> and increasing insulin resistance.

I'm going to need to insist on sources on this.

~~~
Xdafjgneoiwe
Insulin resistance:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427477](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427477)

As for the cholesterol, the study I linked was probably not a very good
example - sorry. Saturated fat does raise cholesterol however - so unless you
are on a vegan low carb diet, you will see it rise. (IF you keep your weight
steady, weight loss almost always lowers cholesterol)

~~~
croon
Counter source:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264021/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264021/)

~~~
Xdafjgneoiwe
Losing weight, especially fat does wonders for insulin sensitivity, though.

The low carb group lost 6.2 kg of fat. That is a lot. I do wonder what happens
if you look at insulin sensitivity when weight and fat mass remains mostly
neutral. I do not know if there are studies done on that (in humans). I will
have a look around.

~~~
croon
> Losing weight, especially fat does wonders for insulin sensitivity, though.

Agreed.

> The low carb group lost 6.2 kg of fat. That is a lot. I do wonder what
> happens if you look at insulin sensitivity when weight and fat mass remains
> mostly neutral. I do not know if there are studies done on that (in humans).
> I will have a look around.

Sure, but if it's purely weight dependant, then high fat isn't a factor. And
if it's not, why did it increase sensitivity?

I'm not trying to say that fat is the one solution to everything, but I'm
definitely saying it's not the one cause for everything. I can cite multiple
studies showing the various detriments of carbs, and likewise the pitfalls of
fat, but when the circumstances are key, then isn't that simply the answer?

Don't be afraid of butter and eggs, don't be afraid of rice and carrots. Eat
everything in moderation. Maybe stay away from sugar and deep fried treats?

------
firasd
In fact the trend to replace butter with vegetable oils has led people to
ingest more trans fats which are provably more dangerous than saturated fat.

~~~
SimeVidas
I thought no reputable vegetable oil brand uses trans fats anymore.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
As far as I know, that shift has only occurred in the past decade or so, after
the FDA started requiring trans fat to be listed on the Nutrition Facts label.
It might be too soon to look for the effects of that change on long-term risks
for cardiovascular disease.

~~~
barney54
The sad thing is that the FDA first had to be convinced to allow trans fats to
be listed. Later it required them to be labeled.

~~~
abecedarius
Also, FDA labeling allows "0g trans fat" for food with 0.5 g per serving, and
listed serving sizes are often laughable, so I wonder. This article I just
found claims "0.56% to 4.2% trans fats" in "soybean and canola oils found on
store shelves in the U.S." ([https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-
vegetable-oils-...](https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-vegetable-
oils-are-toxic/)) Dunno how much weight to give it; I try to avoid those oils
anyway.

~~~
wapz
I've always been taught that after olive oil, canola is the best to use for
cooking. What am I supposed to use?!

~~~
ohkaiby
Interesting. I've been taught the opposite due to the low smoke point of olive
oil.

I use Avocado oil; it has a high smoke point and seems healthier. Other oils
are OK if you don't cook on high heat (use medium heat or lower).

~~~
clarry
Olive oil comes in many varieties, and some of them have a smoke point
comparable to canola, or even higher. Even the unrefined varieties tend to
have a fairly high smoke point. So unless you're searing, olive oil is just
fine for cooking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point)

[https://www.oliveoilsource.com/page/heating-olive-
oil](https://www.oliveoilsource.com/page/heating-olive-oil)

------
teslabox
I try to avoid eating vegetable oil. I understand that the polyunsaturated
oils are preferentially stored to protect the body from these unstable oils.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest needs to eat some crow.

~~~
greglindahl
The entire nutrition science industry needs to start reporting confidence
levels associated with studies. Almost all nutritional advice is based on
small studies. That's why you see them contradict each other on a frequent
basis.

You need a 5 sigma result to discover a new particle. Discovering new
particles doesn't kill people.

~~~
brotherAB
You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a
terrorist attack. Yet the only president talking about nutrition and GMO is
Putin. Crazy based russians. [https://www.rt.com/business/324605-russia-putin-
healthy-food...](https://www.rt.com/business/324605-russia-putin-healthy-
food/)

~~~
grzm
[deleted]

~~~
brotherAB
Not an argument.

------
jelliclesfarm
There is nothing wrong with butter. Oils can become rancid. Clarified butter
or ghee is even better as they have longer shelf life.

~~~
fulafel
It's an animal product with the obvious ethics problems and cow methane
boosting the co2 footprint.

~~~
a3n
> It's an animal product

For which you don't kill the animal.

> with the obvious ethics problems

This may or may not be "obvious" decades or more in the future, but I _think_
people who hold this idea are in the minority at the moment.

> cow methane

Point taken.

~~~
sedachv
> For which you don't kill the animal.

Milk cows are continually raped for the duration of their lives:
[http://www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm](http://www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm)

~~~
adwn
> _Milk cows are continually raped for the duration of their lives_

This is misleading and utter bullshit (no pun intented). By that reasoning,
every routine examination at the gynecologist or proctologist would constitute
rape.

We have no reason to suspect that a cow feels "raped" during artificial
insemination, or anything more than slight physical discomfort.

~~~
sedachv
Your argument is basically "if it feels good, it's not rape." Disgusting and
you should be ashamed of yourself.

~~~
adwn
> _Your argument is basically "if it feels good, it's not rape."_

No, you're misreading my post. My argument boils down to "Stop projecting
complex human emotions onto bovines without evidence."

------
tluyben2
How about olive oil? The oils they name there already got a bad rap in the
press here for not being very good for you. But olive oil persists.

Also; you have to wonder about these tests... Anecdotal, but too many times I
see people take cola light, a light sugar substitute for their tea and veg oil
based butter with their 3000 kcal burger & fries & chocolate sunday.

Also, the more I read up about it, I think stress is far more involved than
food in a lot of cases. And if you feel you have a lot of stress (some people
can handle tons and feel nothing, other get burn out with comparitively
little, so it is personal) then I do not think food matters a lot: exercise
probably does. Just looking at food is not enough there; weight, stress,
genetic factors and exercise have to be equal for all individuals.

~~~
joecool1029
> How about olive oil? The oils they name there already got a bad rap in the
> press here for not being very good for you. But olive oil persists.

Sorta an apples and oranges comparison. Olive oil is primarily a
monounsaturated fat. The article covers polyunsaturated fat. Olive oil is more
stable than linoleic oil, but still less than any decent saturated fat.

I think it's kinda funny the article references cholesterol levels. My
suggestion: They could try and measure the subjects' midichlorian levels.

~~~
tluyben2
Ah, I read vegetable oils. I do not know the difference between
polyunsaturated and monounsaturated, but will read up on it. In our region
they use olive oil for everything hence I was curious.

~~~
dcosson
Some important differences, as I understand it:

\- polyunsaturated fats are the category that includes omega 6 and omega 3
fatty acids. Even further, omega 3's can be ALA (from plants) or DHA (e.g.
salmon) variety. Omega 3's and in particular DHA have been shown to have anti-
inflammatory and other health properties. Which is to say even within
polyunsaturated fats there is a wide variety of alleged health effects, but
when talking about cooking oils and processed foods we're almost certainly
talking about other types than the type known to have health benefits.

\- polyunsaturated fats can be hydrogenated which makes them solid at room
temperature. So replacing butter with margarine typically means these types of
fats. It was discovered relatively recently that trans fats (which are often
the by-products of this) are almost certainly bad for you.

\- polyunsaturated fats are the least stable, meaning they're more likely to
break down into things that are probably not good for you (e.g. if deep frying
with them).

\- highly-processed foods tend to be high in polyunsaturated fats, and omega
6's in particular. This is the same category regular vegetable oil (e.g.
soybean oil) falls in.

\- olive oil is high in monounsaturated fat, is generally thought to be pretty
healthy, and it doesn't have these same kinds of "gotchas" that
polyunsaturated fats can. Historically the main reasons we think olive oil is
healthy are that populations with less heart disease (e.g. Mediterranean
populations) eat a lot of it, I don't know how much more recent research there
is actually proving causation here.

\- saturated fat is the other type, which can occur in plants like coconuts
(healthy) or in butter, fatty meats like bacon and steak, etc. The history
here is pretty fascinating, but through lots of misplaced assumptions of
correlation/causation these are traditionally viewed as unhealthy (thus why
people are doing these studies like replacing butter with other fats). AFAIU
this debate is still ongoing, there is some evidence these really do raise
your cholesterol but also some evidence that the particular kinds of
cholesterol they raise aren't necessarily bad, in otherwise healthy people.
I'm a bit unclear of this aspect.

I've concluded for me personally, this stuff is still so unknown that your
best bet is just to keep your total calories under control and not worry about
types of fat, with the exception of not eating any trans fats and prioritizing
fatty fish if you can.

~~~
joecool1029
Good comment. A few things:

>\- polyunsaturated fats are the category that includes omega 6 and omega 3
fatty acids. Even further, omega 3's can be ALA (from plants) or DHA (e.g.
salmon) variety. Omega 3's and in particular DHA have been shown to have anti-
inflammatory and other health properties.

You missed EPA which is also in fatty fish. ALA doesn't convert very well in
humans to DHA or EPA. So eating lots of flax to get Omega3 is pretty useless.

Opinion: The conclusion I came to a few years ago is that we have too much
PUFA in our foods, of which Omega-6 is just one form. Eating fatty fish and
cutting down on vegetable oils high in O6 help to restore a more natural ratio
that humans are more tolerant to. But ultimately saturated fats are intended
to be the primary fuel.

~~~
dcosson
Good point on PUFA, that was probably worth making it into my conclusion too.

In my home cooking I've started using macadamia nut oil (similar profile to
olive oil, it's high in monounsaturated fats) in place of vegetable oil. You
can get it on Amazon and it has a more neutral, slightly nutty flavor and a
higher smoking point than olive oil, so it's great for slightly higher temps
or cooking foods that you don't want to taste like olive oil.

~~~
loeg
How does macadamia nut oil compare to olive oil on price per liter? Is it
within a factor of 10?

~~~
dcosson
There's such a range of olive oils, but I think it's roughly the same price
for a similar quality. It's just kind of hard to find.

This is the one I buy (it's been prime before, looks like right now it's not)
so $0.52 an ounce.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Macadamia-Bottles-Cold-
Pressed-100/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Macadamia-Bottles-Cold-
Pressed-100/dp/B00LWFLXTE)

~~~
loeg
Thanks. That isn't unreasonable.

------
mark_l_watson
I think that generalizations on fats in diets don't work for analyzing
different diets because of other factors like how much processed foods, sugar,
and meat are in a person's diet.

My wife does well eating lots of butter and more meat. I do well by eating
lots of vegetables. The only thing our diets really have in common is the
avoidance of packaged/processed foods. It is some work, but people need to pay
attention to how eating different foods make them feel, and over a long period
of time.

~~~
VLM
You inadvertently seem to be avoiding grains and carbs. Every livestock farmer
knows nothing makes fat mammals quite like high grain intake.

Government dietary recommendations on grain intake have increased with
excellent correlation to very little other than re-election donations by grain
farmers.

~~~
mark_l_watson
I frequently eat quinoa and brown rice, but only very small portions. Also,
some veggies contain a lot of carbs.

------
trillf0rd
Like almost all nutritional studies, the evidence here is circumstantial and
should be read with significant skepticism. Stephen Pauker, a professor of
medicine at Tufts University and a pioneer in the field of clinical decision
making, says, “Epidemiologic studies, like diagnostic tests, are probabilistic
statements.” They don’t tell us what the truth is, he says, but they allow
both physicians and patients to “estimate the truth” so they can make informed
decisions.' (Excerpt from Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy by Gary
Taubes
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t....](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html))

If you look at the larger body of evidence beyond this study, there are major
reasons why institutional wisdom continues to advocate for the consumption of
mono and polyunsaturated fats over saturated fat. For example, a larger 2016
cohort study of 115,000+ participants concluded high dietary intakes of
saturated fat are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease
([http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796](http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796)).

Eating healthier is all about what categories of food replace current
calories. If similar studies continue to show vegetable oil consumption is not
protective against heart disease, it will probably make more sense to advocate
replacing vegetable oil calories with fatty nuts and avocados that are much
more nutritiously dense than oils (my preference for where to get fats). To
jump to the conclusion we should all eat more butter based on this one study
of n=9,423, however, is bad logic.

~~~
travisp
I would normally agree with you, but did you actually read this study or the
article? This is not the usual "epidemiologic" nutritional study. This was a
"rare randomized controlled trial." It was in fact a double blind randomized
controlled study:
[http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246](http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246)

~~~
trillf0rd
You make a fair point on the quality of the research technique. I did skim
through the study and conclusions and don't deny double blind randomized
control trials are historically the golden standard of scientific evidence
([http://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/06/23/ebmed-2016-11040...](http://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/06/23/ebmed-2016-110401.full)).
Other randomized control trials have found polyunsaturated fat in place of
saturated fat reduces Coronary Heart Disease events (see this meta-analysis of
8 randomized control trials, n=13,000+
[http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...](http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000252)).

It's no doubt an interesting study and makes me question recommendations to
consume oils. Still, based on current scientific evidence, there is good
reason to be cautious about consuming more butter / saturated fats as is being
advocated in numerous comments on this thread. As a reminder to those reading,
there is strong evidence to supports nuts are a much better source of fat for
health than both oils and saturated fat. Here's a meta-analysis of two cohort
studies of 110,000+ that found nut consumption is inversely associated with
total and cause-specific mortality
([http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352)).

------
douche
That whole myth will inevitably be revealed as a coup by the soybean industry,
right? Right up there with the hogwash of the food pyramid.

~~~
sjg007
And big sugar and corn.

~~~
taneq
It's a giant cornspiracy.

------
pombrand
What you really need is a study comparing saturated fats, ideally from butter
AND from coconut oil, with monounsaturated fat which is the plant fat
recommended as healthiest (olive oil, avocados, almonds), not polyunsaturates
that no-one claimed was particularly healthy to begin with. It also needs to
looks at all cardiac events, not just death (having cardiac events can reduce
life quality).

If you read the wiki about saturated fats
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy)
it's clear that there's no benefit from saturated fats, but potential
downfalls.

A more useful headline: "Replacing butter with vegetable oils high in
monounsaturated fatty acid reduces risk of cardiac events and neurological
disorders"
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705810](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705810)

So much butter confirmation bias here.

------
arethuza
One of the most remarkable snacks I've ever had was served on a trawler in the
North Sea - a large number of butteries (pastries from the North East of
Scotland which, as the name suggests, are made with a large amount of butter)
layered in a deep baking tray and covered with a couple of pounds of salted
butter and then baked until nice and hot.

Possibly the most delicious thing I have ever consumed NB (it was shared among
the crew of 6 or so).

~~~
Xdafjgneoiwe
That sounds really delicious. But what does it have to do with heart disease
risk?

~~~
arethuza
Well, means _my_ heart attack risk is lower :-)

------
cel1ne
What would certainly help is adhering to the WHO recommendation of having a
maximum of 25g (0.9 ounces) of sugar daily.

------
Xdafjgneoiwe
Isn't the Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio one important measure of how heart-healthy
a diet is? This could at least in part explain increasing heart disease risk.

I assume using lots of Omega-6 oil would push the ratio to even more unhealthy
levels than what a standard american diet has.

------
mitchtbaum
I've stopped eating oil, and it's helped me significantly. So here are a few
articles about no oil diets:

[http://www.nomeatathlete.com/oil/](http://www.nomeatathlete.com/oil/)

[http://engine2diet.com/the-daily-beet/no-oil/](http://engine2diet.com/the-
daily-beet/no-oil/)

[http://www.theglowingfridge.com/top-3-reasons-to-reduce-
or-e...](http://www.theglowingfridge.com/top-3-reasons-to-reduce-or-eliminate-
oils-in-your-healthy-diet/)

[http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/oil-free-plant-
base...](http://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/oil-free-plant-based-diets-
extreme-or-extremely-necessary-6581738)

------
SimeVidas
What about coconut oil? :)

~~~
joecool1029
The article is focusing on polyunsaturated fat, linoleic oil.

Probably fine sticking with saturated fat coconut oil (and butter, lard, ghee,
etc)

------
eruditely
But what does it reduce the risk of what we DO NOT KNOW is happening to us?
Perhaps a disease or affect that is difficult to measure immediately, but is
affect-ing us ul-tim-at-ely.

------
veritas213
what about replacement with coconut oils?

Would love to see a comparison.

------
SixSigma
It does reduce cow deaths though

------
DrScump
blogspam of:

[http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2016/april/did-butter-
get...](http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2016/april/did-butter-get-a-bad-
rap)

(from April 2016)

ADDENDUM: It was also covered in _The Atlantic_ at the time, for a more
general audience:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/is-
vegeta...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/is-vegetable-
oil-really-better-healthier-for-your-heart-lower-cholesterol/478113/)

~~~
dang
Ok, we changed the URL from
[http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/460.html](http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/460.html)
to the Atlantic article you mentioned, since it gives better context.

(We won't change the title because of the Betteridge trigger.)

~~~
mrskeltal
What's the Betteridge trigger?

~~~
grzm
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

------
pinnbert
I'm a software engineer with a huge ego and thus an opinion on this.

~~~
dang
Please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

Edit: actually, you've done this so much already that we've banned this
account for trolling. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to
email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the
rules in the future.

