Saturated Fat

Often maligned for the damage glucose spiking foods and seed oils have done. Saturated fat has been the whipping boy of observational based researchers since the 1960s. That vilification doesn't hold up if you use a unbiased eye to review the literature: Saturated Fat from animal sources is good for you!

::: spoiler saturate fat easy to read article Saturated fat and health risks: the evidence to date

convincing evidence for a direct link between saturated fat and heart disease is lacking.

:::

::: spoiler saturated fat published paper Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.

Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.

We have done a deep dive on this paper before: https://discuss.online/post/28134438

:::

Animal Protein

The evidence against red meat is tenuous, relying on observational epidemiology (again), it doesn't hold up to unbiased examination.

::: spoiler animal protein easy to read article

What does the research show with respect to meat’s potential harm?

the data linking fat to cancer risk are inconsistent, incomplete, and unreliable.

The most consistent (albeit weak) associations between cancer risk and fat have been found over the years in observational studies looking at red meat and the risk of colorectal cancer. However, two more recent, important papers published in Annals of Internal Medicine make the case that available evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies does not support recommendations to lower red meat intake for prevention of cancer or heart disease.

For more on the science behind concerns about red meat and cancer, see our evidence based red meat guide.

Another question that has received much attention over the years is whether there is an association between fat intake and breast cancer. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), the largest randomized trial to address this issue, found no statistically significant reduction in breast cancer risk with a lower fat diet. In addition, a meta-analysis of seven prospective studies including 337,000 women likewise showed no association between fat intake and breast cancer risk

Quote source

:::

::: spoiler animal protein published paper What is the role of meat in a healthy diet?

Despite claims by the World Health Organization (WHO) that eating processed meat causes colon cancer and red meat probably causes cancer, the observational data used to support the claims are weak, confounded by multiple unmeasured factors, and not supported by other types of research needed for such a conclusion. Although intervention studies are designed to test the validity of associations found in observational studies, two interventions of low-fat, low-meat diets in volunteers that failed to find a benefit on cancer were not considered in the WHO decision.

It is likely that the association of red-meat consumption with colon cancer is explained either by an inability of epidemiology to detect such a small risk or by combinations of other factors such as greater overweight, less exercise, lower vegetable or dietary fiber intake, and perhaps other habits that differentiate those who eat the most meat from those who eat the least.

We have done a deep dive on this paper before: https://discuss.online/post/25112884

:::

---

Philosophical defense of animal foods

The key concept is a food source that has been consumed in abundance throughout all of recorded history is not the cause of modern chronic diseases that only have skyrocketed in the last 100 years.

Fat and Meat didn't cause type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, obesity to explode - something that happened in the last 100 years did.

---

::: spoiler What if I'm wrong?

I'm sure there are lots of people chomping at the bit to tell my why I'm wrong: and I'm open to that. I just ask any evidence you want to argue with you have actually read completely yourself

it would be nice if the counter evidence

• isn't weak observational epidemiology with hazard ratios less then 2
• takes into account carbohydrate and seed oils confounders
• ideally a head to head interventional trial!
• doesn't use intermediate end points, but actually hard outcomes - the gold standard is all cause mortality

just remember: observational data (even meta-analysis of observational data) cannot inform us of cause and effect. The problem with epidemiological studies

If a hypothesis relies only on observational data, it must account for observational data in the other direction. If a hypothesis doesn't account for discordant observational data, it isn't a good hypothesis and must be discarded. i.e. the anti-meat theory needs to account for meat positive observations

:::

::: spoiler Good faith guidelines for literature discussion

• actually read everything you cite before you cite it.
• read the entire citation, not just the abstract and conclusion
• be willing to discuss what you cited in depth: by citing it your asking other people to read it to discuss it with you
• don't use a LLM to generate a wall of 'evidence' without reading it and understanding it completely
• citation bombing, i.e. dropping 20 citations, isn't a show of strength - it demonstrates weakness and an attempt to appeal to consensus
• talk about one point at a time - trying to overwhelm a discussion of one topic with many what-aboutisms, gish galloping, is a sign of weakness. :::

:::spoiler graphical flare :::