Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

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?

[Abaddon_ire]

Well, first of all, it is not a real controversy. It is simply yet another area where the science is not yet conclusive and more research is needed and indeed, ongoing. As new evidence emerges, the consensus will simply move with the validated evidence. That is how science fundamentally works.

That said, there are three groups of fats. Trans, saturated and unsaturated.

Trans fats are universally found to be bad news in pretty much every study. Eat a lot of trans fats and have a free heart attack/stroke/whatever.

Unsaturated fats are almost universally found to be beneficial. We need them to survive.

Saturated fats sit ambiguously in the middle. Are they good? Are they bad? The scientific jury is out on that score.

Is that a "controversy"? Well, no, not really. The scientific method includes "I don't know" as a valid answer. For some unidentified reason, that answer scares some people. Last I looked, research suggests that while saturated fats do not particularly increase health risks, switching to unsaturated fats does reduce health risks.
Those are not the same things.

And so to your Michael Greger. Frankly, the last place I will seek dietary advice is from a vegan with an agenda. This is a man who has claimed that death is a foodborne illness. That is a stupid claim. Single issue cranks are never a good source of data. He claims that humans are vegan by nature, a claim destroyed by the entire field of evolutionary biology. Or fucking medicine.

Maybe it is just me, but any diet that requires it's adherents to take artificially created supplements can hardly be termed "natural", can it?

You might as well be promoting that infamous fail of a product known as "Huel". Because that is where you are going with the Vegan religion.

And make no mistake. Veganism is a religion espoused with the very same glassy eyed fervour of religious nuts who fly planes into buildings for their chosen religious nuttery. Much like PETA, who make a big deal about their care for animal welfare while euthanising the animals they "rescue". Were I a cat or dog astray, I would run for cover when PETA showed up. That is an animal death sentence. As is veganism. One cannot simply release all of the cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc into the wild. They are domesticated. Left to the wild, they will simply die horrible protracted deaths watched by the uncaring gaze of the vegans. And they want that. They really do.

So what is their actual motive? Holier than thou ego preening and nothing more. They don't seek solutions. They seek an astonishing animal apocalypse. Sure, they try to sugar coat it. "Wont somebody think of the animal welfare?" they decry. "Let's leave them to die horribly" they conclude.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sometimes, when I'm at a restaurant, I'll ask the waiter, 'Is the fat in this food saturated?'.  If he says no, I'll tell him to take it away and saturate it.

Boru

[EgoDeath]

To be honest, I'm not too educated on food science. I know that I began counting calories; once I started taking in less calories than I was burning, I started losing weight. I dropped over one hundred pounds in a relatively short amount of time. At the time, I don't really focus on sodium or other things that people get hung up on... maybe I'll pay for that later - I don't know. I just know that, regardless of fat, when I started counting calories, I lost weight.

[FlatAssembler]

Unsaturated fats are almost universally found to be beneficial.

As far as I understand it, the supposed health benefits of consuming unsaturated fats, especially omega-3-acids (in fish, flax...), are greatly exaggerated.

And so to your Michael Greger. Frankly, the last place I will seek dietary advice is from a vegan with an agenda.

As far as I can see, Michael Greger is, at least in this case, promoting mainstream science. Is there somebody who claims he or she can debunk his arguments that saturated fats almost certainly cause heart disease, and that those "controlled" studies that show they don't are seriously flawed?
And an attempt to do ad-hominem against an expert talking about something in his own field makes you sound rather silly, to be honest.

This is a man who has claimed that death is a foodborne illness. That is a stupid claim.

Why exactly? Is there any doubt Vitamin K deficiency is one of the biggest causes of heart disease today, if not the biggest? Is there any doubt most of the cancer is caused by food? Not that it can really be avoided, nearly all animal-derived food contains carcinogens, and plant-derived food full of nutrients also tends to contain them.

He claims that humans are vegan by nature, a claim destroyed by the entire field of evolutionary biology.

How exactly? I am not aware of that.

Or fucking medicine.

How exactly?

Maybe it is just me, but any diet that requires it's adherents to take artificially created supplements can hardly be termed "natural", can it?

I think you know what kind of answer you'll get here.
B12 deficiency wasn't a problem when we lived in less sterile environments. Before that, people ingested the bacteria that produce B12 with nearly all food (together with the dangerous bacteria, of course). But eating sterile or nearly-sterile food is less of the two evils than eating natural food.
Plus, where do you think you are getting B12 from? Of the animal products you can buy in a super-market, only fish and seafood contain enough B12. Other animals that people eat today are constantly being fed with antibiotics, which kill those bacteria in their intestines that produce B12.
For the time being, the supplements are the cheapest remotely safe way to get B12.

You might as well be promoting that infamous fail of a product known as "Huel". Because that is where you are going with the Vegan religion.

Never heard of that before. Well, if you ask me, that "GMO-free" nearly always raises the red flags. It can be read as "Probably contains carcinogens that we know how to remove by modifying the DNA, but are preserved in the name of 'nature'.".

One cannot simply release all of the cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc into the wild. They are domesticated. Left to the wild, they will simply die horrible protracted deaths watched by the uncaring gaze of the vegans.

Yes, they are domesticated. That's a problem we created, and we can't get out of a hole by digging. Gradually decreasing meat consumption is probably the best solution.

[Fake Messiah]

One cannot simply release all of the cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc into the wild. They are domesticated. Left to the wild, they will simply die horrible protracted deaths watched by the uncaring gaze of the vegans. And they want that. They really do.

Die horrible deaths? Doesn't look like it

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

One cannot simply release all of the cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc into the wild. They are domesticated. Left to the wild, they will simply die horrible protracted deaths watched by the uncaring gaze of the vegans. And they want that. They really do.

Die horrible deaths? Doesn't look like it

It also doesn't look like these particular cows were 'released into the wild'.  It's a sanctuary, which means no predators or disease or starvation.

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

Unsaturated fats are almost universally found to be beneficial.

As far as I understand it, the supposed health benefits of consuming unsaturated fats, especially omega-3-acids (in fish, flax...), are greatly exaggerated.

Therefore a vegan diet is not really beneficial? Are you sure you want to make that claim? OK, then.

And so to your Michael Greger. Frankly, the last place I will seek dietary advice is from a vegan with an agenda.

As far as I can see, Michael Greger is, at least in this case, promoting mainstream science.

Then you have not looked very far.

Is there somebody who claims he or she can debunk his arguments that saturated fats almost certainly cause heart disease,

Sure, he has been debunked, but...

and that those "controlled" studies that show they don't are seriously flawed?

If you are going to a priori reject and replicable scientific study, then what's the point?

And an attempt to do ad-hominem against an expert talking about something in his own field makes you sound rather silly, to be honest.

Rejecting wild claims which can be demonstrated to be false is in no way an "ad hom".

This is a man who has claimed that death is a foodborne illness. That is a stupid claim.

Why exactly? Is there any doubt Vitamin K deficiency is one of the biggest causes of heart disease today, if not the biggest? Is there any doubt most of the cancer is caused by food? Not that it can really be avoided, nearly all animal-derived food contains carcinogens, and plant-derived food full of nutrients also tends to contain them.

Should everybody therefore stop eating?

He claims that humans are vegan by nature, a claim destroyed by the entire field of evolutionary biology.

How exactly? I am not aware of that.

Then look it the fuck up.

Or fucking medicine.

How exactly?

An enormous amount of drugs that you or I take for granted are developed from and tested on animals.

Maybe it is just me, but any diet that requires it's adherents to take artificially created supplements can hardly be termed "natural", can it?

I think you know what kind of answer you'll get here.
B12 deficiency wasn't a problem when we lived in less sterile environments. Before that, people ingested the bacteria that produce B12 with nearly all food (together with the dangerous bacteria, of course). But eating sterile or nearly-sterile food is less of the two evils than eating natural food.
Plus, where do you think you are getting B12 from?

A balanced diet. Not a pill.

the animal products you can buy in a super-market, only fish and seafood contain enough B12.

Bullshit. Another lie invented by the vegan terrorists. Any fresh animal flesh supplies copious B12. And besides, I eat plenty of fresh seafood as well as red meat and fowl. Going vegan requires replacing those sources.

Other animals that people eat today are constantly being fed with antibiotics, which kill those bacteria in their intestines that produce B12.

And that is a different issue which has real ramifications. But fuck all to do with veganism.

For the time being, the supplements are the cheapest remotely safe way to get B12.

Or alternatively, don't be a vegan.

You might as well be promoting that infamous fail of a product known as "Huel". Because that is where you are going with the Vegan religion.

Never heard of that before. Well, if you ask me, that "GMO-free" nearly always raises the red flags. It can be read as "Probably contains carcinogens that we know how to remove by modifying the DNA, but are preserved in the name of 'nature'.".

Another vegan lie. Bananas are and always have been a GMO. Corn is and always has been a GMO. There is virtually nothing that we eat that has not been genetically modified by human intervention.

One cannot simply release all of the cows, chickens, sheep, pigs, etc into the wild. They are domesticated. Left to the wild, they will simply die horrible protracted deaths watched by the uncaring gaze of the vegans.

Yes, they are domesticated. That's a problem we created, and we can't get out of a hole by digging. Gradually decreasing meat consumption is probably the best solution.

Baloney. If demand for meat disappears, not one person will care about the unemployed cows, pigs, chickens and whatever. Left to their own devices, their lives will necessarily be nasty, brutish and short. In fact, it will probably fall to the likes of PETA to expand their animal euthanasia policy to even wilder excesses.

[FlatAssembler]

Therefore a vegan diet is not really beneficial?

Er, no, I am saying that the claims such as "Fish contains good fats, including omega-3-acids, so it protects against heart disease." or "Flax contains a lot of omega-3-acids, therefore it protects against heart disease." aren't based on solid evidence.

Then you have not looked very far.

You are one making an extraordinary claim (that one of the most respected nutritionists of our time has said obviously wrong stuff), so the burden of proof is on you.

If you are going to a priori reject and replicable scientific study, then what's the point?

If it doesn't control for a known and a huge factor (make sure that it's not that most of the participants already have high cholesterol levels), then it can't really be called "scientific".

Should everybody therefore stop eating?

No, what I am saying is that GMOs can save us from cancer, and that it perhaps could have already if it hadn't been for the anti-GMO movement.

Then look it the fuck up.

Again, you are one making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

An enormous amount of drugs that you or I take for granted are developed from and tested on animals.

How do you know? What I do know is that insulin used to be extracted from horse blood, but now it's synthesized from oil-derived compounds.
As for testing on animals, I think you know it's a very controversial topic, and that the evidence that testing on animals helps is very wobbly.

Bullshit. Another lie invented by the vegan terrorists. Any fresh animal flesh supplies copious B12.

Claiming that some well-known thing (that meat from factory-farmed animals doesn't contain adequate amount of B12 because of the antibiotics) is false places the burden of proof on you.

And that is a different issue which has real ramifications. But fuck all to do with veganism.

It's quite well-accepted that people switching to a vegetarian diet would greatly reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance.

Or alternatively, don't be a vegan.

OK, so, if you are not a vegan, you essentially have four ways of getting B12:
1. Eat a lot of sea-food. (Which is expensive.)
2. Make sure the meat you eat comes from animals that haven't been treated with antibiotics. (Which is inconvenient and expensive.)
3. Eat unclean fruits and vegetables. (Which is not safe.)
4. Get the pills.
If you are a vegan, then there are two ways, namely, the last two of those mentioned.
Either way, the best way appears to be the 4th one.

Another vegan lie.

What does that have to do with veganism?

Left to their own devices, their lives will necessarily be nasty, brutish and short.

First, what makes you think their lives would necessarily be shorter than in factory farms? In a factory farm, a cow lives 5-7 years, and a grass-fed cow lives 20-30 years.
Second, why would they be bred in the first place if nobody is eating meat?

[Abaddon_ire]

Therefore a vegan diet is not really beneficial?

Er, no, I am saying that the claims such as "Fish contains good fats, including omega-3-acids, so it protects against heart disease." or "Flax contains a lot of omega-3-acids, therefore it protects against heart disease." aren't based on solid evidence.

Then you have not looked very far.

You are one making an extraordinary claim (that one of the most respected nutritionists of our time has said obviously wrong stuff), so the burden of proof is on you.

Fine. Since you are too bone ass lazy to google.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225

If you are going to a priori reject and replicable scientific study, then what's the point?

If it doesn't control for a known and a huge factor (make sure that it's not that most of the participants already have high cholesterol levels), then it can't really be called "scientific".

See the above study. It is just one of many you could find if you got off your butt.

Should everybody therefore stop eating?

No, what I am saying is that GMOs can save us from cancer, and that it perhaps could have already if it hadn't been for the anti-GMO movement.

Then look it the fuck up.

Again, you are one making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

See the above study. It is just one of many you could find if you got off your butt.

An enormous amount of drugs that you or I take for granted are developed from and tested on animals.

How do you know?

I can fucking read. How about you?

What I do know is that insulin used to be extracted from horse blood, but now it's synthesized from oil-derived compounds.
As for testing on animals, I think you know it's a very controversial topic, and that the evidence that testing on animals helps is very wobbly.

Bullshit. Another lie invented by the vegan terrorists. Any fresh animal flesh supplies copious B12.

Claiming that some well-known thing (that meat from factory-farmed animals doesn't contain adequate amount of B12 because of the antibiotics) is false places the burden of proof on you.

Bullshit. Meat and fish contain 3 and 4 times as much B12 as any vegetable respectively. While antibiotics are a problem, that is for other reasons, not B12.

And that is a different issue which has real ramifications. But fuck all to do with veganism.

It's quite well-accepted that people switching to a vegetarian diet would greatly reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance.

Stop conflating two different issues.

Or alternatively, don't be a vegan.

OK, so, if you are not a vegan, you essentially have four ways of getting B12:
1. Eat a lot of sea-food. (Which is expensive.)

I eat a fair amount of fresh seafood. It isn't particularly expensive.

2. Make sure the meat you eat comes from animals that haven't been treated with antibiotics. (Which is inconvenient and expensive.)

And utterly irrelevant to B12 content.

3. Eat unclean fruits and vegetables. (Which is not safe.)

FFS.

4. Get the pills.

No thanks. I prefer a balanced diet.

If you are a vegan, then there are two ways, namely, the last two of those mentioned.
Either way, the best way appears to be the 4th one.

And there is the problem. Veganism only works with artificial supplements. That is, by definition, unnatural.

Another vegan lie.

What does that have to do with veganism?

Vegans reject GMO crops while being unaware that EVERYTHING they eat actually is a GMO. I reject that nonsense out of hand for the baloney that it really is.

Left to their own devices, their lives will necessarily be nasty, brutish and short.

First, what makes you think their lives would necessarily be shorter than in factory farms? In a factory farm, a cow lives 5-7 years, and a grass-fed cow lives 20-30 years.

And in the wild? Because there exists a huge population of them. And they are alive right now. How will they thrive if we simply release them?

Second, why would they be bred in the first place if nobody is eating meat?

They wouldn't. That still leaves you with the millions that are currently alive. Shall we apply the PETA final solution of simply killing them all?