Eat FATTY FOODS to stay THIN. They might even help your heart

Why gov food advice might have been wrong all along

Have our health authorities been spouting unscientific nonsense for the last few decades? Dr Pan Pantziarka looks at whether official advice on fatty foods has been wrong all along.

Richard Bedford

A reduction in dietary fat consumption, especially saturated fat, has been the cornerstone of official dietary advice for as long as most of us can remember.

Saturated fats are primarily animal fats, including dairy fat – think cheese, butter, lard, eggs – and from a few vegetable sources such as coconut oil. The NHS Live Well website lists reduction in saturated fats as a key objective, suggesting that: “Eating a diet that is high in saturated fat can raise the level of cholesterol in the blood. Having high cholesterol increases the risk of heart disease.”

The guideline is for no more than 30g of saturated fat a day for men and 20g a day for women. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggests saturated fat supplies less than 10 per cent of daily calories.

The rationale is that saturated fats are associated with obesity and risk factors for cardiovascular disease. This is effectively the consensus opinion from government health agencies across much of the world, not just the UK and US.

Does the evidence support this advice? The obvious point is to ask what evidence there is for the core idea that reducing dietary saturated fat intake makes a difference to health. The answer is that there’s not much.

A good place to start is to look at the evidence from clinical trials where dietary fat intake has been modified to see what it does in terms of health and those cardiovascular risk factors. What we’re interested in is human data here, not animal models. More than that, we’re interested not in the molecular effects or the variation in differing serum lipid fractions; we’re interested in actual health outcomes.

Luckily some of the hard work in looking at the data has been done for us by the good people at the Cochrane Collaboration, a global not-for-profit project involving thousands of scientists working to analyse data and perform systematic reviews of evidence in medicine.

In all, the data covered 48 randomised clinical trials, and the headline result is plain – there is no clear effect of dietary fat changes on total mortality or cardiovascular mortality.

The Cochrane Heart Group have carried out a meta-analysis of clinical trials that looked at both dietary fat reduction and modification to see what effect these had in cardiovascular disease. Where the meaning of fat reduction is clear, fat modification means swapping the relative share of types of fat (saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated) in the diet.

The review looked at the data from large interventional trials that tracked health outcomes over a reasonably span of time ( more than six months). In all the data covered 48 randomised clinical trials, and the headline result is plain – there is no clear effect of dietary fat changes on total mortality or cardiovascular mortality.

Does this mean there are no health outcomes associated with dietary fat change? Not quite. When looking at cardiovascular events ( such as heart attacks, strokes and so on) the results are a bit more positive. Overall there is a 14 per cent reduced risk of cardiovascular events due to dietary fat change.

Unpacking this result to get at the detail shows the effect is down to a reduction in risk of men who modify fat intake for more than two years, though it’s not clear what the specific modification should be. While this is certainly a reduction in risk – albeit modest – for a specific population, it is hardly indicative of a major problem in the population at large. And looking at secondary measures, such as cancer incidence or mortality, it appears that dietary fat reduction or modification has minimal effect.

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • India reveals home-grown server that won't worry the leading edge

    And a National Blockchain Strategy that calls for gov to host BaaS

    India's government has revealed a home-grown server design that is unlikely to threaten the pacesetters of high tech, but (it hopes) will attract domestic buyers and manufacturers and help to kickstart the nation's hardware industry.

    The "Rudra" design is a two-socket server that can run Intel's Cascade Lake Xeons. The machines are offered in 1U or 2U form factors, each at half-width. A pair of GPUs can be equipped, as can DDR4 RAM.

    Cascade Lake emerged in 2019 and has since been superseded by the Ice Lake architecture launched in April 2021. Indian authorities know Rudra is off the pace, and said a new design capable of supporting four GPUs is already in the works with a reveal planned for June 2022.

    Continue reading
  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021