It's Sunshine Awareness Week at Kitchen Stewardship! I'm burned on half my body as a result of testing natural sunscreens...be sure to check all this week's posts for the scoop on what works, what doesn't, and when (if?) we need sunblock at all, along with over $400 in sun protection giveaways. Check out the natural sunblock review for the scoop.
Make sure you don't miss a thing by subscribing via RSS or email.
Quick quiz: Where have you heard this phrase before?
“…as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol…”
If you ever catch a TV commercial for food or drugs – um, pretty much all of them that are low-fat or cholesterol related – you’ve heard the voiceover say this. Our culture is pretty much brainwashed with the fact (fact?) that saturated fats are bad for you. (Cholesterol gets a bad rap, too, but you’ll have to read about eggs to hit that topic today. We’re talking pure, unadulterated fat around here.) So why all the fuss? What is it about saturated fats that the medical and food processing communities say is so evil?
The Bad Rap for Saturated Fat
Saturated fat has been blamed for causing cancer and heart disease. Bacon, butter, and red meat are the poster children for obesity and heart attacks, are they not? (They may have been framed – keep reading!)
Here are the accusations against saturated fat:
- High saturated fat intake is linked to high blood cholesterol.
- High blood cholesterol is linked to increased rate of heart disease.
- As the rate of heart disease increased over the last century, saturated fat was blamed, in part because foods high in saturated fat are also often high in cholesterol (see above).
- The fat around the heart is highly saturated, so many thought that heart attacks were caused by a build-up of saturated fat caused by eating too much of it.
And the rebuttals:
- From the Framingham Heart Study (Nourishing Traditions, p. 5): “The more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum [blood] cholesterol….the people who ate the most saturated fat…weighed the least and were the most physically active.”
- From a 2001 Harvard research review article (In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan, p. 43): “The amount of saturated fat in the diet may have little if any bearing on the risk of heart disease (Pollan’s words).” And the review found “a weak and nonsignificant positive association between dietary cholesterol and risk of CHD [coronary heart disease].”
- The first case of heart disease was recorded in 1912, and obviously rates have increased ever since (Let’s Get Well by Adelle Davis). Consumption of saturated fats has actually decreased (Real Food by Nina Planck and ibid. Pollan) while hydrogenated oils (aka trans fats) came on the scene in the late 1800s, just in time to be a potential suspect for heart disease’s rise to fame.
- The fat around the heart matches beef fat and other fat only found in animals. The heart needs this fat – “It draws on this reserve in times of stress.” (NT p. 11)
Saturated fats have been called “artery-clogging”. Don’t you get an image of the man eating the steak with the baked potato drowning in butter keeling over from a heart attack? So what is arterial plaque made of? It’s about 26% saturated, and the rest is unsaturated. (from The Lancet, 1994 by Felton, as quoted in NT.) Saturated fats have been given a bad rap. They are not the culprit behind the massive increase in heart disease over the last century.
How Americans have Changed their Fats
The most striking lists I’ve read this year:
Top fats eaten at the turn of the 20th century (1900, for those who get that stuff mixed up, like me):
- butter
- coconut oil
- lard
- tallow (beef fat)
- olive oil
Fats eaten at the turn of the 21st century (or right about now):
- olive oil
- corn oil
- soybean oil
- canola oil
- safflower oil
Notice that olive oil is the only one on both lists, so great has our fat consumption changed. Nothing on the second list is high in saturated fat. If sat-fat is the cause of heart disease, one would think heart disease would be decreasing by leaps and bounds, but it’s doing the opposite.
Why we SHOULD eat Saturated Fats
- They are highly stable and do not go rancid easily. (Just wait until you learn about what rancid fats can do to your body…and which ones might be sitting in your pantry right now!)
- Saturated fats make up half the structure of cell membranes. They are responsible for the stiffness of the cell wall, while unsaturated fats cover flexibility. The cell membrane needs to be just right for the body to function properly, so obviously both kinds of fat are necessary. (from Real Food, p. 175)
- Bone health: For calcium to be effectively incorporated into the skeletal structure, at least 50 percent of the dietary fats should be saturated. (NT p. 11)
- Omega-3s are better retained in the tissues when the diet is rich in saturated fats. (I’m waiting for a commercial to tell me THAT!)
Specifically about butter and coconut oil: - They are used for quick energy.
- They have antimicrobial properties.
- They build your immune system.
(See more at 7 Reasons to Eat More Saturated Fat)
But What About “Saturated Fat is Bad For Me?”
Maybe this doesn’t sound right. Maybe this sounds like the exact opposite of what you’ve always been taught.
It is.
Mayo Clinic will still tell you saturated fats are “harmful fats”, grouped right in there with trans fats. The U.S. Government Dietary Guidelines (which are being revised currently) also say to limit intake of fats and oils high in saturated fats.
I’m sharing the conflicting information with you so you know my head is not in the sand. But I don’t really know what to do with these claims. I have to go with what feels right after praying about it. You may think I ought to base my family’s food choices more in factual information, but “go with my gut” is all I have left when sources are on opposite sides of the issue, and all of them are backed up with research! I’ve found that the philosophy of:
- Eating food that grows or eats things that grow
- Eating food as close to how God created it as possible (little processing)
- Eating foods that have been eaten for centuries
resonates with me. I can buy into traditional foods. Saturated fats have been a part of the diets of cultures throughout time, often quite prized for good health, strength and longevity. Who am I to debate history?
Want to read what others are saying on the topic?
Are you a believer? Take the Monday Mission challenge: switch to butter. Also tell me where are the sneaky trans fats in your house! (And see my guilty list.)
I’d love to see more of you! Sign up for an email subscription or grab my reader feed.
If you missed the last Monday Mission, click here.
Kitchen Stewardship is dedicated to balancing God’s gifts of time, health, earth and money. If you feel called to such a mission, read more at Mission, Method, and Mary and Martha Moments.
Hungry for more? Related posts:
Really interesting. In Canada, they’ve been going back and forth about eggs: sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re bad. I personally do like you, I try to eat as less processed food as possible and I bake my own cookies and sweets. I really like butter and I don’t think eating butter in reasonable quantities (just like everything else) is bad.
kanmuri´s last blog ..A Korean Tale, Part 2
[Reply to this comment]
Dr. Castelli was asked to directly respond to these claims. This is what he said: “That quote is correct but its’ interpretation by Atkins and Sugar Busters and others is wrong. The data are diet history data. Very weak science!!!… Better science, where I lock you up in a metabolic ward has taught us that lowering the saturated fat, the cholesterol in the diet lowers cholesterol. Even better, over a dozen diet trials in the history of medicine which took people off the high fat diet lowered their cholesterols and 4-5 years out they lowered their heart attack rate. Has Atkins or Sugar-busters shown that they lower the heart attack rate?”[1135]
The Framingham Heart Study does not in any way indicate that an increase in saturated fats is good for you. This article is complete bunk.
[Reply to this comment]
Katie Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Mike,
I appreciate your visit and the reply. I’m a little confused though – who are you? Who is Dr. Castelli? When you say “this article is complete bunk” do you mean the post here or something I linked to as a source?
I have a lot to learn about research and evidence. What about the 2001 Harvard review that is starting to crumble the lipid hypothesis?
Also, what would you/Dr. Castelli define as a “healthy fat”, if we can all agree that fats should be eaten more or less in moderation. We have to eat something – if not saturated fats, then what is best?
Thanks, Katie
[Reply to this comment]
Mike Lane Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 3:01 am
That was from an article that was also using the Framingham Heart Study to prop up the notion that saturated fats were good for you. That article was written on behalf of the Atkins diet and I included the whole quote for context.
What I forgot to include was that Dr. Castelli directed the Framingham Heart Study for over 26 years and is currently the Director of the Framingham Cardiovascular Center. So he’s fairly well versed in the results of that study.
You can find information on what fats you should be eating from Harvard itself: http://bit.ly/9nMls.
Here are the World Health Organization dietary guidelines (pdf–http://bit.ly/2IHpsy–page 56 ):
* Total fat – 15 to 30%
o Saturated fatty acids – <10%
o Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) – 6 to 10%
+ Omega-6 Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) – 5 to 8%
+ Omega-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) – 1 to 2%
o Trans fatty acids – <1%
o Monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) – By difference
* Total carbohydrate – 55 to 75%
o Free sugars – <10%
* Protein – 10 to 15%
* Cholesterol – <300 mg per day
* Sodium chloride (sodium) – <5 g per day
* Fruits and vegetables – 5400 g per day
* Total dietary fibre – From foods
* Non-starch polysaccharides (NSP) – From foods
They suggest getting most of your calories from plant-based sources.
The bottom line is that you should avoid trans fats like the plague they are (just as you indicated), you should avoid saturated fats as much as you can, and you should actively seek out omega 3 fats since it is much easier to get omega 6 fats.
[Reply to this comment]
Mike Lane Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:03 am
And, sorry, I had some kind of error in my copy and paste, the Fruits and vegetables should be ≥ 400g (almost 1 lb) per day (not 5400g — 12 lbs!).
[Reply to this comment]
Katie Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Mike,
I can’t tell you how important it is to me to be challenged. I really believe that it is dangerous for me to just go with something without thoroughly researching it, and it would be even worse for me to spread false information…so I’m glad you’re here!
That being said, there are a few specific reasons I respect Dr. Mary Enig, the co-author of Nourishing Traditions and author of Eat Fat, Lose Fat:
1. She was warning about the dangers of trans fat in the 1970s before almost anyone else was. This shows me a depth of reason and a healthy skepticism of “the new thing”, much like a quality I greatly admire in my own mother.
2. I still like the idea of going with what has worked for 1000s of years as opposed to a few decades. Omega-6 fats being a mainstay in the human diet is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore I am skeptical.
I haven’t really seen anyone comment on the increase in heart disease in the 20th century other than the traditional foods crowd with an answer (research-based) that makes SENSE to me. As a faithful person, I have to trust that God left us with good foods to eat, and while plant sources are great, animal sources were given to us as well. That’s my background and the lens through which I’m going to view what I read.
A few comments on your sources:
The WHO guidelines are pretty typical. I don’t think people thrive on 15% fat in their diets, from what I read. That sounds downright dangerous. Similarly, a diet of 75% carbs would be likely to pack on the pounds. I don’t think Dr. Atkins had everything right, but I do think that if people were willing to accept what he said (and obviously MANY were and are), they ought to be willing to at least be open to this information, since it’s using similar information but is more balanced. I think. !!
The Harvard article you shared is also pretty typical, although it does point out that dietary cholesterol is NOT as important to consider for your health as blood cholesterol, which is not impacted by the cholesterol you eat. On the sidebar, the article lists “5 Quick Tips for Choosing Healthy Fats”. I’d like to reply!
1. “Use liquid oils for cooking and baking.” I agree that olive oil is great, but canola oil is under fire (more on that in two weeks). I still firmly believe that butter and coconut oil have their place in our (healthy) diets.
2. “Ditch the trans fat.” Phew! Yes, of course! Thank you, Harvard!
3. “Switch from butter to soft tub margarine.” Obviously by the Monday Mission this week, I disagree. I don’t think you can make liquid oils into solids without doing something dangerous to them. “Soft tub margarines” are an invention, not a gift of creation. How cool is it that butter comes out of cream just by shaking it? God is soooo creative!
4. “Eat one good source of omega-3s per day.” Amen to that!
5. “Go lean on meat and milk.” While I’m not munching on chicken skin – except for one time when I made cracklin’s – I have a pretty big fear of low-fat dairy, for some very good reasons. Historical and scientific evidence abounds about the drawbacks of taking the fat out of milk (and what is added to compensate for the lack of flavor/texture). I’ll be hitting on this later this week, in fact.
Mike, I hope you’ll stick around to challenge my research and share the alternative side of the coin. I think it’s really important for my readers (and me, too!) to be presented with ALL the facts, and they can make their own decision without just trusting li’l ol’ me, a mom in Michigan who is muddling through nutrition by the skin of my teeth.
I wonder if I got a whole pound of fruits and veggies in me today. That could get expensive, and a lot of chewing, depending on the vegetable (greens, for example)! I’ll eat a lot of apples this season…they’re heavy.
Thanks again for the good info – Katie
[Reply to this comment]
Mike Lane Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 3:58 am
You argued that the WHO guidelines were typical and picked the 15% fat and 75% carbohydrates numbers. Why? Why not say the WHO guidelines were atypical and use the 30% fat and 55% carbohydrate numbers to illustrate that? The fact is they use a broad range in those numbers for a reason. Your diet should contain a wide variety and a typical day or week is healthy if you fall within those numbers. They’re not suggesting that you eat 15% (or 30%) of your calories from fat on a regular basis.
Dr. Enig’s assertions are interesting but some are counter to the results of the largest nutritional studies that have ever been conducted. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy her assertion that the studies that clearly show the dangers of saturated fats were influenced by the margarine lobby (as she argues here: http://bit.ly/2xI4Zm). If anything is influenced by powerful lobbies it is the idea that saturated fats are good for you. (You can thank the beef and corn lobbies for that!)
I am not a faithful person. In fact, I’m an atheist (which doesn’t matter to this conversation but there it is). My beliefs are centered around what the studies have shown to be true and how early humans likely ate. We were plant eaters almost exclusively until we learned to cook. Once we were able to cook, we were able to get a wider variety of food and could then start getting some of our food from meat. Our early diet was probably almost entirely foraging for plant food and then occasionally gorging ourselves on the outcome of a good hunt.
The research has shown this is a likely scenario. Our bodies need the things we find in plants but are built to be able to store the energy we find in meat. But consumption of too much meat (animal protein in excess of 10% of our total calories) has been shown to increase our chances of getting diseases of affluence (heart disease, cancer, and autoimmune diseases) markedly. Frankly, it’s not unreasonable to me to be vegetarian exclusively except for special occasions where you can eat a lot of whatever you want (as long as those special occasions are the rare exception and not the rule).
Speaking of which, your 80/20 rule is misguided, it should be a 90/10 rule (as in 90% of your calories from a wide variety of plants and 10% from whatever you want).
I’ll let Harvard speak for itself, my point was that a Harvard study from 2001 is moot if they don’t currently recommend you follow the results of that study.
About the pound of plants… If you do that, yes it could be expensive (Michael Pollan argues we spend too little on food remember) and it will take a while to eat (Pollan also argues that we eat too quickly), but you will see the biggest boost in your energy and overall health if you do. And, no, eating a bunch of apples just to get yourself up to 1lb is counter-productive. Try this, eat 1/2 lb raw and 1/2 lb cooked plants. Make most of your calories come from dark leafy greens (kale, spinach, etc). The majority of the rest should be from other greens (broccoli, asparagus, etc). The remainder should be other veggies and fruits, grains, nuts and seeds.
If you are interested in having all the information, do take a look at a book called The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.
[Reply to this comment]
Very interesting information. I also prefer saturated fats to transfats.
Are you aware of the issue of dioxins in animal fats? They may not cause cardiovascular disease, but they are a serious concern.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/02/nation/na-dioxins2
[Reply to this comment]
Katie Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
CM,
This is a fascinating article. There’s always something evil around the corner, isn’t there? We always have to Trust in the Promise of our Meal Blessings!
I have to quote from the article:
” The Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments, which asked for the study, did not request the exact risk of exposure or the current amount of the compound in foods and animal feeds, and the institute did not provide them.
Instead, the report’s authors asked administrators of the government’s school lunch program to increase the availability of food and milk low in animal fat. And they suggested that young women, especially pregnant and pre-childbearing women, minimize their intake of these foods to reduce exposure by fetuses and nursing infants.
Linda Greer, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s environment and health program, said she was disappointed by the recommendations.
“They didn’t recommend federal regulation — anything that limits the amount of dioxins in food,” Greer said.
“Rather than making food safe, they are opting to educate people that food may not be safe, and I think they owe us more than that. This is the government abdicating responsibility for a safe food supply.”
Me again: Grrrr…just another way to get “low-fat” stuff into our kids, when there are other hazards to low-fat dairy in particular!
It sounds like this is mainly a problem in factory-farmed animals and many fish, so it’s just another motivation to find a safe, local, organic farm and buy your meat and milk there…
Fatfully yours, Katie
[Reply to this comment]
I recently completely read the Nourishing Traditions book and I found it very interesting that before 1920 there was virtually no heart disease, not anywhere like it is today. And that is about the time that people were starting to buy more and more convenience foods than they had previously. I believe that the closer it is to the way God made it, the better it is for us. We have been totally brainwashed into thinking that low-fat, processed foods are actually good for us. I still have so much to learn and that’s why I appreciate your emails. They really help to keep me on track.
[Reply to this comment]
Yes, it is a good reason for eating organic. But it is expensive.
Like Mike Lane, I am skeptical of the historical arguments.
cooking manager´s last blog ..Friday Roundup #15 and Two Carnivals
[Reply to this comment]
One of my favorite quotes is, “What everyone knows is not necessarily true.”
I would highly, highly recommend _The Cholesterol Myths_ for anyone who wants to see how data from scientific studies can be manipulated to “say” what people want them to. “Studies” and experience have not shown that saturated fat and/or dietary cholesterol cause, or even contribute to, heart disease. That’s why we have the so-called “French paradox”! It’s not a paradox unless you start from this unproven assumption.
Rachel R.´s last blog ..25 Minute Chicken and Noodles
[Reply to this comment]
Healthy Holiday Treats from Kitchen Stewardship « Catholic Mommy Brain // Dec 16, 2009 at 3:53 am
[...] If you have a recipe calling for margarine or shortening, it will probably be even better with real butter or coconut oil. I don’t allow compromises for trans fats very often, especially if I’m taking the time to cook/bake from scratch. I also use melted butter or melted coconut oil in place of other liquid oils like canola or vegetable oil, which are full of the omega-6s Americans consume too much of. (Why I’m not afraid of butter: http://www.kitchenstewardship.com/2009/10/05/food-for-thought-the-evils-of-saturated-fats/) [...]
Real food for the right reasons. . . What I’ve been reading up on lately. « The Hansen’s // Feb 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm
[...] and all those “healthy” oils (like canola, soybean, etc.) are actually harming you. See here for more information on that [...]
Just thought I’d post some latest research from:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26285
Vol. 91, No. 3, 502-509, March 2010
© 2010 American Society for Clinical Nut
Abstract:
“A focus of dietary recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and treatment has been a reduction in saturated fat intake, primarily as a means of lowering LDL-cholesterol concentrations. However, the evidence that supports a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients. Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events, although several studies showed no effects. An independent association of saturated fat intake with CVD risk has not been consistently shown in prospective epidemiologic studies, although some have provided evidence of an increased risk in young individuals and in women. Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.”
Take a fish oil supplement, and have as much saturated fat as you like?
“Importantly, the effects of saturated fat on lipids and lipoproteins may be modulated by the content and/or availability of polyunsaturated fatty acids, such that saturated fat only affects LDL cholesterol if the polyunsaturated fat intake is below a threshold level (5% of energy) (58, 59). LDL cholesterol as well as total cholesterol and apolipoprotein B were not different between women who consumed diets high or low in saturated fat but with similar ratios of polyunsaturated to saturated fat (P:S)”
Hmmm…
[Reply to this comment]
Katie Reply:
February 27th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Ellen,
Oh, my goodness, thank you! I’m a big fan of up-to-date research, and this is fascinating! Now, will we see if on the news? Probably not. I’m alarmed that the polys and monos lower HDL along with LDL. HDL is really important. It’s like saying, “This alarm system will fortify your house against thieves, but it will make it easier to steal your ID through the computer.” Duh!
My hub’s HDL went WAY up since we started this real food journey and cut out a lot of polys and added lots of saturated fats. Maybe this is why! I love your assessment of fish oil supp – sounds like that’s kind of what they’re saying. I also like that the stuff about carbs echoes what we’re talking about right now at KS, that we have to be careful with our grains and such.
Thank you soooo much for taking the time to add to this post!
Katie
[Reply to this comment]
Katie,
I started studying nutritional controversies about 32 years ago. In all that time I have never found evidence that there is evidence that saturated fat poses a health hazard. http://www.sciscoop.com/controversial-saturated-fat.html
[Reply to this comment]
Katie Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:07 am
David,
Katie
Thank you for that! Your article seems very thorough, and is a good addition to this post.
[Reply to this comment]
Eat Real Food. « Red and Honey // Apr 27, 2010 at 12:45 am
[...] Consume only healthy, traditional fats. Avoid unhealthy, invented ones. Did you know that the top 5 fats consumed at the turn of the 20th [...]