Natural Fat Does Not Cause Heart Disease

Putting any sarcasm to one side, the findings of this study are cognitive dissonance bbc.co.uk/news/health-40047262 'Experts' interpreting things to defend their ego/current position.

Each meal has one of the greatest effects on our genes.

In terms of damage to arteries, natural fat is relatively inert. The food-related problems come from man-made fats that the body doesn't recognise, high-glycaemic carbohydrates and excess fructose that disrupt hormones causing abnormal growth of arteries and blood clotting.

Skip

Featured Content

Follow the community

Discuss all aspects of nutrition, from specific foods to recipes and more. Keep motivated to develop healthier eating habits.

Get Started

Featured by HealthUnlocked

19 Replies

oldestnewest
  • IT is isolated to that specific locality or region.

  • That's the point patliputra. Is it isolated to that specific region? No, because anup can cite numerous people that have demonstrated improvements in diabetes and lipid profiles from eating a lower glycaemic load.

    I myself have no calcification of the heart, as a result of eating natural fat in place of carbohydrates that cause over-stimulation of insulin/IGF-1. I eat good quality, low Gi carbs of less than 600 kcal per day. I'm not a genetic anomaly; my mam had T2DM, my dad had heart disease, and my cousin died of a stroke at just 54 years old.

  • Well, It's evident now how the 20% carbs and 60%+ FAT has helped thousands of Indian diabetics to achieve what was / is considered impossible by way of so called "Healthy Diet" that mainstream pushes.

    Everyone needs to focus on residual insulin in blood and modify diet to control that as first step. It has nothing to do with geography.

    Industry has created scare against Good FAT. For personal profits. It all started with that Dubious 7 country (cherry picked on 7 out of 22) study by a marine biologist called Ancel Keys.

  • I'm not so sure I agree Concerned. The majority of studies and meta reviews recommend moderation in eating fat, especially animal fat.

    And I agree that trans fatty acids are particularly dangerous even in moderate amounts. A recent one I've come across is emulsified fats which are in ice creams and margarine. They disrupt the microbiome apparently.

  • As Matthew Syed's 'Black Box Thinking' implies, there are experts that rely on data from reproducible studies, often learning from trial and error, and those that follow flawed doctrine.

    Shashikantiyengar outlines below some of the vested interests that have influenced doctrine.

  • I agree that there have been flawed studies, especially when industry has funded them. However the Cochrane reviewers are skilled in examining methodologies and noting appropriate and inappropriate exclusions.

    Have you read the study upon which this news report is based? I'll admit I haven't. What the report does say is the villagers had a diet "rich in animal fats". I take that to mean a similar level of fat consumption in other regions has been associated with cardiovascular issues. So the key factor there is proportion.

    I will also confess that I have not waded through the meta analyses and the systematic reviews. I might be able to handle a one off study, but the statistical understanding required for reading these is beyond me. I have no reason to think that those in Public Health England etc are stupid and unable to figure things out for themselves.. Why would I? If I did, I would be going along with politicians who say "We don't need experts", "Climate change doesn't exist" and "Smoking does not cause cancer"

    I'm not sure what you mean by trial and error. To my way of thinking most science is a result of trial and error.

    As I see it, industry's most harmful impact was in encouraging focus on over-consumption of fat alone, and dissuading public health bodies from focusing on over-consumption of sugar. Although over-consumption of sugar was never encouraged by the public health bodies, industry was only required to label fat levels and not sugar levels. So their most pernicious input was not so much in relation to funding of research that was included, but in relation to the application of the research to consumer policies.

  • The institute carries a summary that says the animal fat should cause heart disease; hardly impartial.

    The French, Icelandic, Inuit, and many other examples, including more recently Spanish also demonstrate excess carb consumption is a greater risk to health than natural fat.

    PHE have supported COMA recommendations since the early 1980s.

  • All the cultures across the world have taken good amount of good fats always.

    In india we have always taken "Makkan" or butter, ghee etc. Cold pressed oils like Peanut, Sesame, Coconut or Mustard oils.

    In west animal fats like Lard etc. Also cheese varieties.

    Now the US wanted their food industries to flourish & hence demonized these good fats / oils & wanted to push industrial junk oils like Canola and soy bean oil. Hence we will find many studies ( read rigged studies) recommending PUFA based oils & would advise small qty of beneficial fats only.

    So the above article would give that benefit of cheese consumption to some gene.

    If we all dump these PUFA based oils & take the above good fats and or cold pressed oils like coconut oils we will find that our Lipids are at optimum levels.

    Also this optimum lipid levels would depend on how much we take junk refined carbs..

  • I fully agree with you Shashikantiyengar .. we always consumed good amount of butter and Ghee..

    Also curd and butter milk was used liberally in Indian food...

    However consumption of cheese was not very popular among Indians... also until very recent we do not find many varieties of cheese in India..

    May be this is because earlier cheese was manufactured by processing milk with rennet of animal origin.

  • Maybe cure, particularly as the cow is sacred to many Indians. Neither is it mandatory or essential to eat cheese to be healthy, however it is a healthy option for those that wish.

  • yeah sure it is tasty treat..and now days rennet used here in India for cheese processing is not of animal origin...

    Though,we are yet to train ourselves to enjoy various types of cheese.

  • We use paneer however though it's not fermented

  • Every culture has some fermented food

    For Indians it was curd or yogurt and also sirka (fruit vinegar)

    For many other it is kombucha. Cheese. Sauerkraut. Apple cider vinegar. Etc etc

  • fermented food is to increase beneficial gut flora..but I think gut flora differs form culture to culture..depending upon food habits and climate conditions..

    like Kefir..kefir is not available in India...and I don't think even if we import the kefir culture it will survive longer period of time.

    Under such circumstances..how about just feeding gut flora with some useful food on which they can nourish and multiply??? like fertilizing plants..

  • As I understand it, most races are lactose intolerant after the age of about 8. Lactose tolerance persists into adulthood mainly in northern Europeans, predominantly in the British Isles, especially in Ireland (from Alice Roberts). As I understand it some people who are lactose intolerant can take small amounts of cheese.

    Is it possible that is one reason why cheese has not been traditionally popular in India?

  • I don't think that is the reason...lactose intolerance is rare in India..

    Traditionally Indians consume lots of milk.. and milk is mainly from Zebu Cow of mixed bred zebu X western cow..which is more safe.

    Cheese is not popular as the rennet used in processing which is of animal origin.(from stomach of cow)

  • Interesting. The retention of lactase (the enzyme that digests lactose) is obviously more prevalent than I thought it was. Good to know.

  • And of course the reduction in fat consumption has resulted in more consumption of grains and cereals, as we were encouraged to do, and sugar.

  • True

You may also like...