So, what do you guys here think about the saturated fat controversy? I've studied it a bit, and I've explained my stance here.
Though it's usually seen as a part of the vegetarian/vegan/meat-eater debate, I don't think it really has to be. A vegetarian diet can be, and often is (especially in India), high in saturated fat (milk, avocado...).
So, slightly shorter, my stance is:
1. It's often stated, by the opponents of the claim that saturated fat leads to heart disease, that controlled studies are worth more than epidemiological studies. Well, this is only true if those controlled studies are properly done. As Michael Greger explained, the studies cited by those opponents are not properly done, a proper study of that issue would make sure it includes both people who have low blood cholesterol and people who have high blood cholesterol. As those "controlled" studies generally don't do that, their conclusions are nearly worthless. In fact, those studies shouldn't have even passed the peer-review, as they are obviously made either by very ignorant people or by people who want to make ignorant people doubt well-established facts from nutritional science.
2. Like Michael Greger says, the claim that there have been no controlled studies that support the notion that saturated fat leads to heart disease is not true. In fact, the results of those studies kind of explain the results of the studies the opponents cite: saturated fat increases the blood cholesterol level and the risk from heart disease, but the correlation is greater in people who have low cholesterol levels in blood. So, if a study only includes people with high cholesterol levels, naturally it will find low correlation. Furthermore, there are studies that show it's a spike in cholesterol levels after a fat meal that's particularly dangerous.
3. Even if saturated fat in diet doesn't increase the risk of heart disease (even though there are many reasons to think it does, and no good reason to think it doesn't), in no way does it follow that a primarily plant-based diet isn't healthier, since there are, as far as I am aware of, no studies that cast a doubt on the notion that Vitamin K protects from heart-disease, and Vitamin K is primarily found in vegetables. In other words, even if saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease, "If you are afraid of heart disease, eat more vegetables." is still a good advice.
A thing I find rather weird here is that English Wikipedia appears to be particularly biased towards the notion that the link between saturated fat and heart disease is invalid. I don't see why Michael Greger isn't often cited on Wikipedia about nutrition. What he says makes sense to me. And that's obviously the stance of most of the dietetic organizations on this issue. So, is something causing Wikipedia to be so heavily biased to the wrong side of the story here? Or am I missing something?
Though it's usually seen as a part of the vegetarian/vegan/meat-eater debate, I don't think it really has to be. A vegetarian diet can be, and often is (especially in India), high in saturated fat (milk, avocado...).
So, slightly shorter, my stance is:
1. It's often stated, by the opponents of the claim that saturated fat leads to heart disease, that controlled studies are worth more than epidemiological studies. Well, this is only true if those controlled studies are properly done. As Michael Greger explained, the studies cited by those opponents are not properly done, a proper study of that issue would make sure it includes both people who have low blood cholesterol and people who have high blood cholesterol. As those "controlled" studies generally don't do that, their conclusions are nearly worthless. In fact, those studies shouldn't have even passed the peer-review, as they are obviously made either by very ignorant people or by people who want to make ignorant people doubt well-established facts from nutritional science.
2. Like Michael Greger says, the claim that there have been no controlled studies that support the notion that saturated fat leads to heart disease is not true. In fact, the results of those studies kind of explain the results of the studies the opponents cite: saturated fat increases the blood cholesterol level and the risk from heart disease, but the correlation is greater in people who have low cholesterol levels in blood. So, if a study only includes people with high cholesterol levels, naturally it will find low correlation. Furthermore, there are studies that show it's a spike in cholesterol levels after a fat meal that's particularly dangerous.
3. Even if saturated fat in diet doesn't increase the risk of heart disease (even though there are many reasons to think it does, and no good reason to think it doesn't), in no way does it follow that a primarily plant-based diet isn't healthier, since there are, as far as I am aware of, no studies that cast a doubt on the notion that Vitamin K protects from heart-disease, and Vitamin K is primarily found in vegetables. In other words, even if saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease, "If you are afraid of heart disease, eat more vegetables." is still a good advice.
A thing I find rather weird here is that English Wikipedia appears to be particularly biased towards the notion that the link between saturated fat and heart disease is invalid. I don't see why Michael Greger isn't often cited on Wikipedia about nutrition. What he says makes sense to me. And that's obviously the stance of most of the dietetic organizations on this issue. So, is something causing Wikipedia to be so heavily biased to the wrong side of the story here? Or am I missing something?
