4

votes

What say the Paleo community about recent research showing reduced CVD risk from lower SFA?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 28, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Preface: I have happily eaten Paleo for 2 months and plan to continue doing so... However...

There are 8 "modern" studies from 2008 to 2010 listed on the Wikipedia article titled Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy. Two of the studies (25%) show insignificant effects or no link between saturated fat (SFA) in the diet and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the remaining six studies (75%) show a reduced rate of CVD or mortality from lowering SFA in the diet. Are the two studies that support the Paleo approach considered "good science", and the remaining six that don't support Paleo considered "bad science"?

I understand that there are infinitely many reasons or motivations for any particular study to be bad (confounding variables, poor sampling, politics, funding, etc), but is this a case where all the opposing studies do suffer from such problems and the supporting studies do not?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on April 28, 2011
at 04:29 AM

I am a reader of Ned's work and would guess that he might have something more specific in mind when he writes this answer. Maybe he would want to expand as a way of joining the discussion? I for one would be interested.

4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

(646)

on April 28, 2011
at 02:17 AM

Not that it would change the world, but Dr. K, would you consider writing up a cited statement on that Wiki article with this same claim? Just a sentence or two? The discussion tab on that Wiki page is also interesting.

Cf626d3fba66c18297b3f1116a920e58

(3417)

on April 28, 2011
at 01:14 AM

I don't think it'll be too much of a stretch for anyone in this community to re-examine our motives and beliefs. Our motives are, well, to re-examine constantly so that we feel secure in our beliefs. These types of studies are old news, and they often have iffy designs with a bias that precludes carbohydrates from scrutiny and instead focuses purely on SFAs. I read through some of those abstracts, and it wasn't clear in any how they replaced the SFAs in the diet, just that they "did" replace them. Foods are more complicated than SFAs, so we can't infer more without knowing their methods.

Cf626d3fba66c18297b3f1116a920e58

(3417)

on April 28, 2011
at 01:08 AM

I was going to type a response to this question, but I saw yours and I had absolutely nothing to add. Studies are designed to represent the "average" person, and the average person has so many toxic components in the diet that it's easy to tie SFA intake to overall damage. What has a lot of SFAs? Meat. Toss it on a sandwich, and you have a gluten-filled vein-bomb ready to harden as soon as your immune system can rally. But no one blames good old bread. It was the roast beef in the sandwich! Perform the same studies, focus on fructose intake and allow any fat intake, then see what happens

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 28, 2011
at 12:45 AM

Is it settled no.......but the data is horribly studied. Therefore worthless

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 28, 2011
at 12:44 AM

Carbs specifically wheat is a bigger risk to cardiac tissue. Eat wheat everyday for on straight week then draw your ultra sensitive crp. Then stop all wheat for two weeks and recheck it. You'll never eat it again. It also caves your vitamin d levels and that impairs your ability activate T cell immunity

  • 4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

    asked by

    (646)
  • Views
    1.6K
  • Last Activity
    1457D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

2 Answers

best answer

8
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 28, 2011
at 12:42 AM

All sat fat studies are confounded with PUFA's wheat and carbs.....therefore they are worthless studies. Next.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 28, 2011
at 12:44 AM

Carbs specifically wheat is a bigger risk to cardiac tissue. Eat wheat everyday for on straight week then draw your ultra sensitive crp. Then stop all wheat for two weeks and recheck it. You'll never eat it again. It also caves your vitamin d levels and that impairs your ability activate T cell immunity

4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

(646)

on April 28, 2011
at 02:17 AM

Not that it would change the world, but Dr. K, would you consider writing up a cited statement on that Wiki article with this same claim? Just a sentence or two? The discussion tab on that Wiki page is also interesting.

Cf626d3fba66c18297b3f1116a920e58

(3417)

on April 28, 2011
at 01:08 AM

I was going to type a response to this question, but I saw yours and I had absolutely nothing to add. Studies are designed to represent the "average" person, and the average person has so many toxic components in the diet that it's easy to tie SFA intake to overall damage. What has a lot of SFAs? Meat. Toss it on a sandwich, and you have a gluten-filled vein-bomb ready to harden as soon as your immune system can rally. But no one blames good old bread. It was the roast beef in the sandwich! Perform the same studies, focus on fructose intake and allow any fat intake, then see what happens

2
D9d7415e2a0e7835e164dc93c89988b2

on April 28, 2011
at 12:31 AM

Good link.

ANYONE here who thinks this is a settled issue might re-examine their own motives and beliefs.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on April 28, 2011
at 04:29 AM

I am a reader of Ned's work and would guess that he might have something more specific in mind when he writes this answer. Maybe he would want to expand as a way of joining the discussion? I for one would be interested.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 28, 2011
at 12:45 AM

Is it settled no.......but the data is horribly studied. Therefore worthless

Cf626d3fba66c18297b3f1116a920e58

(3417)

on April 28, 2011
at 01:14 AM

I don't think it'll be too much of a stretch for anyone in this community to re-examine our motives and beliefs. Our motives are, well, to re-examine constantly so that we feel secure in our beliefs. These types of studies are old news, and they often have iffy designs with a bias that precludes carbohydrates from scrutiny and instead focuses purely on SFAs. I read through some of those abstracts, and it wasn't clear in any how they replaced the SFAs in the diet, just that they "did" replace them. Foods are more complicated than SFAs, so we can't infer more without knowing their methods.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!