The belief that saturated fat will increase your risk of heart attacks is one of the most pervasive health myths in our culture. A recent study seems to bear out this belief, but contains a critical flaw which effectively changes the meaning of the results.
The Strong Heart Study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and funded by the National Institutes of Health, examined nearly 3,000 Native American Indians in the southwestern United States for nearly 10 years.
The study found that both total fat intake and saturated fat intake were correlated with an increase in the risk of heart disease.
How many health experts have you heard tell you should avoid saturated fat, because it is bad for your health and will increase your risk for heart disease and cancer? If it is only a fraction of the time I have heard or read this, probably it's in the thousands.
But humans have eaten animal products for most of their existence on earth and therefore, they have consumed saturated fats for most of that time.
The approach of many mainstream investigators in studying the effect of consuming saturated fats has been narrowly focused to produce and evaluate evidence in support of the hypothesis that dietary saturated fat elevates LDL cholesterol and thus the risk of coronary artery disease. Ancel Keys proposed this theory over 50 years ago.
Unfortunately, this prejudice has blinded researchers to the benefits of saturated fats in human health.
If saturated fats were of no value or were harmful to you, why would breast millk produce saturated fats like butyric, caproic, caprylic, capric, lauric, myristic, palmitic and stearic acids -- that provide a source of nourishment to ensure the growth, development and survival of children
Saturated fats are essential parts of all body tissues, and among their many beneficial effects, they are:
Now, it is very clear that there is some association between fat and heart disease. So why do I strongly disagree with results of the above study and most all of the other studies that adversely comment on saturated fat?
Well, this study and virtually every other study I have reviewed makes no effort to differentiate between saturated fat and trans fat.
I believe the missing link is trans fat.
If researchers were to more carefully evaluate the risks of heart disease by measuring the levels of trans and saturated fat I believe they would find a completely different story.
Trans fat is known to increase blood levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL), or "bad" cholesterol, while lowering levels of high density lipoprotein (HDL), known as "good" cholesterol. It can also cause major clogging of arteries, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems, and was found to increase the risk of heart disease. But many food companies use trans fat instead of oil because it reduces cost, extends storage life of products and can improve flavor and texture.
Your body needs some amount of saturated fat to stay healthy. What none of us need are trans fats.
Earlier this year, food manufacturers were forced to document how much trans fat was in their food, BUT they still had a work around. They manipulated the laws so that they could say it was trans fat-free if had less than 500 mg trans fat per serving. Their loophole: Decrease the serving size and instantly the ratio of trans fat disappears in most of their revised products.
So the take home message is to avoid trans fats, and not to worry much about saturated fat as long as it is from healthy food sources that are not highly processed or contaminated with trans fats.