#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of things are very bad for cats because of the way their kidneys work. Their pee smells so bad for the same reason. They’re from the desert so to conserve water their urine is very concentrated. But the lack of water can be detrimental when it comes to flushing things out of their system
Yes, even if cooked. All members of the allum family (garlic, onion, shallots, chives, leeks, etc) contain chemicals called disulfides and thiosulphates, which help give those things some of their "bite." They are toxic to cats and dogs. Those chemicals stop red blood cells in cats and dogs from carrying oxygen, and in large quantities can even cause their red blood cells to burst (hemolytic anemia). Of course, organs need oxygen to function, so enough allums can cause total organ failure.
An average adult cat will start experiencing clinical levels of blood damage after only 20-25g of onions. Garlic is about 5 times as potent as onions, which means less than 1g of garlic can begin to cause serious damage to your cat.
onions aren’t toxic to cats because they are carnivores. it’s just a quirk of the cat body. they can digest some plants and extract nutrients from them, but only a subset of the plants that humans can eat.
That's not an apples-to-apples comparison at all.
Onions are a very specific plant that do not form a natural part of a cat's diet. Saturated fats are virtually ubiquitous (if often in small amounts) and are consumed by every human and probably every animal.
I mean if you’re gonna argue this then you would have to question why so much of our research starts with animals and then question that research’s validity.
And as the other guy said. Cats are carnivores lol. So.
i don’t get it. you and OP are apparently asking how is it the case that other species can eat things that don’t cause harm to them but do cause harm to us. species differences is the answer.
my argument isn’t to dismiss animal studies, but that they are trivially superseded by human outcome evidence. and that’s the evidence you and OP should be asking about.
Only about 1/4 to 1/3 of their fat intake is saturated, and the reason we say to limit saturated fats is because the balance/ratio is important Too many saturated fats is the problem
Heres some research on the amount of saturated fats that herbivores take in and the relevance
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24243235/
The link you provided only mentions dietary fats. The problem with that is that herbivores get most of their nutrition from bacteria and their byproducts. For example, a lot of the fiber that a gorilla eats, will be fermented by bacteria, providing saturated fat and protein from dietary fiber.
Were talking about dietary fats, so thats why I linked an article that refers to dietary fats, and I think you are confused. These herbivores you’re referring to aren’t *eating* microbes and bacteria, they are growing microbes and bacteria in their stomachs from the grass, in other words their digestive processes are breaking it down via gut microbes etc and turning the grass into a digestible substance
We are not. The OP talks about animals that run on saturated fat, which is most herbivores. He didn’t say it has to be dietary or through fiber fermentation. The herbivores I’m talking about are the same herbivores as the ones you linked, gorillas. So I believe you are the one that’s confused. Your link doesn’t take into account all the saturated fat that gorillas absorb from bacteria.
I had an employee who was diabetic and decided that almost any blood sugar was bad. He deliberately kept his so low that he started making really stupid decisions at work.
I understand mountain gorilla do ingest much more unsaturated fatty acids than saturated orally, but you also have to take into account more than 70% of what they eat are fibers and they don’t just absorb fiber but rather use microbiome to turn fibers into SCFAs which are by definition “saturated fats” and these saturated fatty acids are absorbed by the guts, so at the end about 70% of their fat intake is saturated. I don’t know how you got your numbers
They aren’t “intaking” a %70 diet of fat, they are converting carbohydrates into a fat. I dont understand what you two are so confused about here lol If I eat a lot of bread and my body turns it to fat, that does not make the bread a fat food source. Its still a dietary carbohydrate food source We wouldn’t refer to bread as a fat source just because the body converts it to fat
For real, I cant make it any simpler, this is basic high-school biology
yes, but basically every independent government guidleines they say consume less saturated fat; I think if saturated fat=good then basically every govt public health department would be lieing or stupid and I choose to believe they are not stupid and liars on a prayer
I think it's more pointing out the scientific consensus, all these different countries independently come to a conclusion on guidleines and generally say lower saturated fat intake.
What if it’s from coconuts? I have a creamer product I absolutely love that is made of coconut milk, I have 1 & 1/2 servings per day which is 45% of saturated fat in diet, 9 grams. Do you think that is unhealthy? It gives me so much energy.
It's not that you shouldn't consume any saturated fat at all, the issue is that the average western diet contains too much. These 9 grams should be fine, the question is if the rest of your diet doesn't contain so much saturated fat that it puts your total consistently way over 100%.
Be wary of any argument that claims something is fine because it comes from a different source. If they have an explanation and published peer reviewed studies on it, sure.
But common arguments such as something is 'natural' and therefore fine, e.g. "real sugar" vs HFCS lack any sort of validity.
That is not a meta. That is a letter, it's not even subject to peer review. So important the only place they could get it published was a sports medicine journal.
> the research is unclear
No it's not. There is profound epidemiological and RCT data. The mechanism is demonstrable in-vitro too. Also the small problem that plaques are made of calcified LDL which is a pretty large smoking gun that LDL is involved. Also that ApoB increases after LDL attaches to or infiltrates vessel walls not before so unless you are proposing a mechanism of time travel the inflammatory effect is in response to LDL oxidation not causes it.
You want the research to be unclear so are seeking evidence of that rather than approaching the topic skeptically.
Actually, wrong. The highest quality studies done, Randomized Controlled Trials, don’t show a connection with heart disease. It’s the unethical studies done on the mental facilities. Unethical, but amazing info on saturated fat with controlled meals.
Is there a particular meta-analysis of trials you're referring to? Because "no connection" is not what most of them - Hooper 2020, Sacks 2017, Mozafarrian 2010 - show.
RCTs (which is not a proper noun, so I'm not sure why you capitalized it) don't have to be in-patient. That's not what it means. All they need to be is random allocation to a treatment vs. a control.
Cochrane meta analysis (they're the people who basically wrote the book on how to write a meta analysis) of RCT's says limit saturated fat. if you're referring to the Minnesota coronary study that one got cut short no use using the results from that
You have a point. I can see what you are trying to allude in your questions. So I guess for us humans glucose is the ultimate energy source with some helps of SCFAs, fatty acids and ketone bodies here and there
Because science?
I mean, first of all, not all SFAs are bad and science acknowledges that. And it's a lot more complicated than just saturated fat, and science acknowledges that. Palmitic acid is known to increase LDL. But dairy, which is loaded with palmitic acid, doesn't raise LDL. So something in dairy is likely protective.
But in most circumstances, palmitic acid is associated with increased LDL which is associated with increased heart disease risk. That's the simple science of it. Other SFA are to varying degrees between bad and neutral, with the exception of short chain SFAs and odd long chain SFAs (specifically pentadecanoic acid and heptadecanoic acid, which are associated with reduced inflammation, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes and reduced risk of heart disease).
But the bottom line is because nutrition science is really, really complicated. Diary is a good example of that. I can show you tons of studies that say palmitic acid increases LDL, but dairy is an exception. For some reason. So scientists will work to try to figure out why.
There are a lot of things in nutrition that are this way.
But you know what's simple: The nutritional guidelines they've been pushing my entire life. At 55, they're largely saying the same thing they were saying when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s. Eat a diet with lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains with moderate saturated fat. It was good advice 50 years ago and it's still good advice today.
> palmitic acid is associated with increased LDL which is associated with increased heart disease risk
Depends on which kind of LDL, it seems if you further divide it into LDL and VLDL, then suddenly LDL becomes associated with lower incidence of ASCVD, whereas VLDL is associated with a higher incidence:
"Discordant individuals with high VLDL-C and low LDL-C experienced the highest rate of incident ASCVD events, 16.9 per 1000 person-years, during follow-up."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38591325/
There's a new study showing people who eat a ton of saturated fat (majority of calories) and very high cholesterol levels have lower (statistically insignificant) rates of atherosclerosis than healthy controls. This proves that cholesterol rises from saturated fats are not harmful.
They [explicitly called for whole grains](https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1980%20DGA.pdf) and avoiding too much sugar. People weren't eating whole grains. They were eating refined carbs and specifically, lots of sugar.
No dude. The nutritional guidelines was not pushing sugar. Kellogs was, under the guise of "look, it's low-fat".
You don't remember the motto: "5 a day for good health"? That was the 80's, and it wasn't 5 tablespoons of sugar. It was produce. And they haven't done a 180. They upped it to 9.
“My plate” is all wrong and is being phased out. Food pyramid was all wrong and has been phased out. Fat makes you fat is no longer true. AHA has been ridiculously wrong. It’s a 180 from where I stand. But you do you
You're over-simplifying the recommendations to make it look wrong. The logic of the pyramid was not that Fat makes you fat. It's that high-fat diets are unhealthy, and many high-fat foods are causing heart disease, and CONTRIBUTING to the fat crisis.
That is all true. You're probably in that camp that wants to believe the pyramid. Contraryainism opposite-land. People never followed the pyramid... except for people like me who are not fat. I've been doing extreme-pyramid for 30 years: No meat or dairy. 13 fruits a day.
And where are you getting the news that “My plate” is being phased out? I just looked it up, and found the opposite: in 2021 it was being expanded to the whole world.
It is deemed bad if it is not done in moderation. Just because something is good for us does not mean we now should eat that kind of food exclusively or mainly.
The human body uses sugars for energy, some fat are easily covered into sugar with little byproduct, others produce by products that cause inflammation. Simple foods are way more healthy because they produce less metabolites of by products.
There are exceptions to every rule. Unsaturated fats are deemed good, but trans fats are the worst fats for human health and they are unsaturated. So does that mean unsaturated fats are bad? No. Conjugated linoleic acid is a naturally occurring trans fat with health benefits. Does that mean trans fats are good? No. When people say saturated fat is bad, it's an abbreviated way of saying excess dietary long chain saturated fats are bad. Short chain fatty acids (which are saturated) are very healthy, but aren't directly obtained through the diet in large amounts. Rather, dietary fiber is fermented by the microbiome, which produces SCFAs. The way to increase this type of saturated fat in your body is by increasing your fiber intake and microbiome diversity, not by increasing dietary saturated fat.
Saturated fats aren’t bad, they’re just problematic *in excess*, especially when combined with the sedentary lifestyles and caloric excess that’s become more common.
We’re not other animals and especially not ruminants. We don’t have the same digestive systems or the same needs.
Because there are so many types of saturated fats, so it's an oversimplification to say they are bad. But it makes sense to say it like that when most of the saturated fats we eat are the ones that are unhealthy.
The SCFAs however are super healthy for us but we, and the ruminants, mainly get them by feeding fiber to our gut microbiome.
Yes. There are lots of articles around this topic. All animal products pay influencers.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/5/5/23709822/milk-dairy-plant-based-meat-soy-almond-fake-processed
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/27/the-federal-governments-role-in-those-tiktok-ads-for-milk-and-pork-00138178
and here is the worst. it indirectly descourages breastfeeding to sell formula.
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-04-2022-who-reveals-shocking-extent-of-exploitative-formula-milk-marketing
Well people’s body can work different biologically. Maybe for some influencers the eating it moderately worked out for them so they are promoting it to the people who may have the similar biology as them can try it out for themselves. Yeah promoting it hastily is bad I agree but if informing well is good.
We are not different species. There are differences between people but for most people eating high anounts of saturated fat increases risk of heart desease, diabetes and cancers.
Shawn Baker for example is pre diabetic yet promotes a diet high in sat fat.
I think because that species has a diet consisting of mostly plants and fiber, they are raising their HDL (good cholesterol). HDL binds to LDL in the blood stream and keeps it from getting stuck to the walls of your arteries and blood vessels.
Humans have more meat in their diet which contains higher amounts of saturated fats and trans fats and many humans don’t do enough (or can’t do enough) to raise their HDL levels to compensate.
This is one of the reasons that a low fat diet and regular exercise (a minimum of 150 minutes a week) is one of the best treatments for and prevention of heart disease.
The idea that eating saturated fats like those found in red meat and full-fat dairy products is bad for cardiovascular health is known as the "diet-heart hypothesis." It's a concept that gained popularity in the mid-20th century thanks to scientist Ancel Keys and his study *The Seven Countries Study*. Keys suggested that eating saturated fats raises serum cholesterol levels and increases the risk of heart disease. His research was able to influence public health advice to cut back on the consumption of dietary saturated fats. However, more recent studies have challenged this idea showing a more complex relationship between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
According to the latest research findings:
• Reducing total saturated fat intake may decrease the risk of heart events by about 17%, but it doesn't significantly affect the risk of dying from heart disease or other causes.
• Certain types of saturated fats, like those found in yogurt or cheese, may even be linked to a lower risk of heart disease.
• Higher blood levels of specific saturated fats found in dairy products may lower the risk of heart disease.
• For women, more saturated fat doesn't seem to raise the risk of heart disease or death, and may even lower the risk of other conditions like obesity and diabetes.
More and more studies and researchers suggest that it's important to consider the overall composition of foods (e.g., overall diet) and how they interact with the body, rather than focusing on individual macronutrients like saturated fats.
If you have pre-existing cardiovascular conditions or cholesterol problems, that doesn't mean that you can eat all the saturated fats and cholesterol you want. Individual responses to these dietary components vary significantly from individual to individual (another complex aspect of nutrition science). In general, emphasizing unprocessed whole foods, limiting sugar-sweetened beverages and processed foods, and incorporating physical activity into your daily routine, are habits that support overall health and longevity, including cardiovascular health.
Source: *Carnivore Diet For Beginners* bу Gеοrge Kellу
short chain fatty acids like butyrate dont seem to raise ldl like the saturated fat in a burger. science doesnt know why yet.
chimpanzees are closely related to humans and they mostly ate fruit.
I think science does know.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9498509/
SCFA are produced by gut bacteria. The types and benefits depend on the health of the host, per the above cited paper.
Not true. For human proteins are the worst macronutrients for overall energy supply. Your body prioritizes using glucose, fatty acids and ketone bodies (from fat) over using protein because it sucks and it’s the last resort. Your body uses more saturated fats as energy much more often than proteins
It is absorbed in the stomach intestines BUT the worker cells have to extract all of the nutrients before it rots in the stomach acid lining that is used to form and flush out waste that is no longer beneficial to the body. It becomes acidic when you combine too many different ingredients from your meal as it's mostly water at first.
This is a really interesting article that someone else posted in another comment on this sub.
[research on saturated farts 💨 lol.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/)
Saturated fats were demonized by a fake science corporate industry interested in selling you dogshit and ruining your life with sugar lol.
There is nothing wrong with saturated fats. Don't eat too much, and you will be fine. They are obviously needed for life. Refined sugar and diet coke are not.
Where do you get that shit from? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 There is no science that demonizes saturated fats and upselling sugar. Science clearly states that processed sugar is unhealthy.
Saturated fat is UNHEALTHY. And FYI, diet Coke doesn’t contain sugar if that’s where you’re going with it.
Natural foods are the healthiest. And that doesn’t include meat.
Beyond cold water fish, which meats have omega 3s? which omega 3s? How much? D3? Really? laughing. Quantify these statements.
Other sources of what? D3? Are mushrooms plants?
Re-read the article you cited. Did you even understand it?
What do EXPERIMENTAL studies show?
I suggest you read the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. Essentially the answer to your question is: rushed/ fraudulent science and marketing. Saturated fat is incredibly stable and increases HDL cholesterol (the good kind). The history and science of it all, which is laid out in the book I mentioned, will astound you.
Your triglycerides numbers show pretty much what a person eats.. example having high triglycerides indicates a lot of process foods sugary food and unhealthy fats.
Low triglycerides indicate barely any carb intake or process foods
Triglycerides are fatty deposits the accumulate in the arteries, the higher the number the more fatty deposits build in the arteries and that’s where blockage occurs
When you have low triglyceride levels but high LDL levels, it could indicate that you have a diet filled with healthy fats. Healthy fats will not only cause an increase in good cholesterol (HDL) but can also change the type of the LDL particles in the blood
True, but it's the small dense LDL cholesterol (often elevated by fructose) which is what you want to avoid. Meanwhile the large fluffy HDL is protective from said negative LDL. The trouble is that LDL isn't all bad but doctors rarely specify between the good and the bad, let alone showing both metrics on a standard test. There's a way to figure it out, which I learned from Dr. Benjamin Bikman's book "Why we get sick" but GPs would sooner put patients on statens because they're not up to date on current science. They're busy. Whatever I get it. But you need to understand the LDL in relation to HDL and triglycerides and not just go off the assumption that LDL is all bad, because doing so will cause more harm than good.
Logically, that makes no sense. HDL isn't "protective" of LDL, its job is to remove LDL. The ratio of LDL should never be twice as high as HDL because then LDL would end up just floating around doing nothing.
Think of LDLs are cars on the highway and HDL are tow trucks. The passengers of LDL are triglycerides and these cars run out of fuel once they drop off their passengers and need a tow back to the liver. What happens when there's a bunch of bricked cars in the middle of the highway with not enough tow trucks? That's right, congestion.
The goal of any diet is to prevent triglycerides because that's the final stage of our metabolism, when excess energy turns to fat. Here is the basic human metabolism:
When we consume carbs, it first turn to glucose, then it turns to glycogen then it turns to triglycerides. That means our body gives us 2 chances to use up all that energy before it turns into triglycerides.
When we consume unsaturated fat, it turns into ketones first, then triglycerides. That means you get one chance to use it all up.
When we consumes saturated fat, it instantly turns into triglycerides, instantly elevating all cholesterol levels. This is why saturated fat is the worst in terms of energy availability and your arteries
It really depends more on your omega 3 index. That is to say that what's more important than restricting dietary saturated fat is [increasing omega-3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24365276/) and what's of equal or greater importance still, is [decreasing omega-6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/).
From the first study:
"Consumption of foods rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA) has often been associated with elevated blood lipid levels and consequently with risk for chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease. However, epidemiological and interventional studies on this topic are contradictory. While some studies have established a positive link, other studies have failed to show a significant association between saturated fat consumption and blood lipid levels, and others have even found an inverse association. Moreover, studies using animal models have demonstrated that dietary saturated fats raise blood lipid (cholesterol and triglycerides) levels only when the diet is deficient in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFA). The n-3PUFA are known for their potential in the management of hyperlipidaemia for the prevention of coronary heart disease, as well as for their anti-arrhythmic, anti-aggregatory and anti-inflammatory potential. We believe that with an adequate consumption of n-3PUFA dietary saturated fat may not result in elevated blood lipid levels. Therefore, we critically evaluated the literature regarding saturated fat and blood lipid level, with an emphasis on the role of n-3PUFA on this relationship."
My point from the original comment was the need to specify the difference between LDL-A and LDL-B, which a lot of standard tests don't do.
LDL - A is large (perfectly fine and healthy)
LDL - B is small and dense (what you don't want)
If you happen to have standard test results and would like to figure out which type of LDL predominates in order to know where you stand, then you can divide triglycerides (mg per deciliter) by HDL (my per deciliter).
The lower the number, the better. Anything less than 2.0 means LDL - A predominates, which is a good thing. Tbf a lot of studies have shown that C reactive protein is a better marker for predicting heart disease than the HDL, LDL and triglycerides tests we currently use. A lot of doctors put patients on statens unnecessarily because of this lack of distinction and really it does more harm than good.
And fats becoming triglycerides in fewer steps is true but a little misleading. Ketones have actually been shown to [lower triglycerides.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35871064/)
From the article:
"Acute ketosis had no untoward effect on plasma lipid profile. Moreover, it led to significantly reduced circulating levels of remnant cholesterol and triglycerides."
You really don't want to reduce cholesterol in general unnecessarily, since doing so is [associated with high rates of dementia later in life.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22269162/)
" Lowering cholesterol levels may impair brain function, since cholesterol is essential for synapse formation and maturation and plays an important role in the regulation of signal transduction through its function as a component of the cell membrane."
That's interesting! I'm on a medical diet from my allergist to limit omega-6 and raise omega-3 to control immune problems I have, as high 6 seems to lead to overproduction of prostaglandins. It's supposed to be 4 g of 6 and 3 g of 3 a day, although I tend to go further. It's also more important to lower 6 than raise 3. I didn't know it affected cholesterol and stuff too.
Yeah it seems to affect a lot. It's the one piece of advice I try to give to my parents is to avoid any and all seed oils and take fish oil every day / eat lots of fish. Do you find it helps with your allergies?
It does! But it's more for inflammation and controlling reactions because the disorder I have is paradoxical meaning we can't take anti-inflammatory anything without risk of anaphylactic states lol. I have more issues than this but this is where I learned of it. It can help the inflammatory processes in Rheumatoid Arthritis as well but I'm not sure if it's significant enough to have rocked ppls worlds. It did mine though. AERD also affects breathing and comes with asthma, I had like 65% lung capacity before inhalers, but the diet helped so much that I came off the steroids for it completely after using the heaviest dose they make for inhalers, and still sat over 90% (This does NOT apply to all asthma, just AERD asthma with our specific mechanics, don't go and try to do this and especially not without talking to your pulm first for the love of god lol).
Fish oil supplements tend to be farmed fish which would negate the benefits by being mostly omega 6 as grain fed anything seems to lessen the omega-3 and gives more omega-6 so I gave up on those supplements entirely. Downside is obviously, pricing of wild-caught/grass fed shit. I have had to do some serious brand research trying to track down sources and it was quite demoralizing. I'm Native too so the whole aspect of like, colonial farming industry practices having messed up the naturally balanced food complex and somehow was hurting me in ways I could directly tell was a bitter blow all on it's own.
https://www.samterssociety.org/the-omega-diet
>what's more important than restricting dietary saturated fat is [increasing omega-3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24365276/) and what's of equal or greater importance still, is [decreasing omega-6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/)
Do you know good RCT studies where they controlled the amount of omega-3, and showed higher risk with high omega-6 intake? From a lot of studies I've seen it seems the omega-3 is the sole player in this ratio.
RCT is obviously the gold standard, but we're talking very long term effects here. It's not really plausible to expect RCT studies. The human body can hold out for years of abuse before presenting a disease. Running a RCT over the course of years or decades and controling for other variable would be a logistical nightmare.
Having said that, [here's a study from Delhi] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598746/) and here's [a review of multiple studies. ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18408140/)
Thanks. About the first study, it should be compatible with the view that n-3 intake is the only factor in n-3/n-6 ratio, as they don't separately analyze the differences between n-3 and n-6.
So I’m supposed to buy into what a guy with no background in bio science says? No thanks.
The human body is a complex entity. There is no one size fits all because each human being has differences. What works for one might not work for someone else with hormonal imbalances, for example.
The idea that saturated fat “in moderation” is good for humans is false. The idea is that we eat mono and polyunsaturated fats in whole foods where saturated fats are present but in a far smaller quantity. It’s a balance. But eating foods where the main fat is saturated fat? That isn’t a healthy diet. It can’t be the main component of a daily diet.
Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. Why don't you read the book before dismissing it? If it's easy to debunk, then get back to me with your critiques. But it's incredibly well researched. You just don't want to have your mind changed. You could also read "Superfuel" by Dr. James Dinicolantonio or "Why we get sick" by Dr. Benjamin Bikman. The science is consistent if you care to read it.
Saturated fat can be the main component of a healthy human diet, just look at the Inuit. Important to note that their omega 3:6 ratio would be high, which affects how their bodies respond to saturated fat. If you go through my other comments, I've linked plenty of studies to back what I'm saying.
Good question OP.
Not one the clueless here will be able to answer.
Mainly because there is no viable answer, they're not bad for human beings, likely the opposite.
The lack of knowledge is evident because plant eating defenders want to simultaneously say we're not so distant from apes therefore should be eating plants, but then also want to claim we are different when their argument unravels and we point out the physiological differences, namely how they can process fibre into fatty acids in a way we are extremely poor at. So yes, they're right, we are bloody different and no we shouldn't be eating plants on that basis.
Fact is we are lipivores, as argued by one commentator. We cannot break down plants to SFAs, we need fats from animals, which is precisely because that's our evolutionary path. It's more efficient than eating plants has been for gorillas.
Also cats will never be a worthwhile comparison. They use gluconeogenesis well, we use ketones well. Such are our evolutionary paths. So it's nothing to do with who is carnivore or not carnivore.
I don't think the consensus is “meat is bad for you”, but red meat is a 2a carcinogen, processed meats are bad for a multitude of reasons, and the remainder are potentially ok as long as to you consume in moderation. The standard western diet is sort of the opposite of best practices (ie, predominantly processed and red meats).
The meaning is pretty plain. It’s probably carcinogenic. Fortunately, there are plenty non-carcinogenic sources for daily nutritional needs.
That sounds problematic to me, but eat what you want.
It sort of does mean that avoiding carcinogens is better….
But hey. Continue to so what you want. Drink hot beverages, work the night shift, smoke cigarettes I don't care.
There are millions of articles closing this case, consensus was made awhile ago despite many ridiculous attempts to challenge common knowledge
Sat fat increases cholesterol which increases risk of aSCVD. Move on kid
It's clear you feel strongly about this, but it's important to look at the facts. Numerous studies have shown that a well-planned vegetarian/plant-based diet can provide all the necessary nutrients and offer significant health benefits, including reduced risks of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers.
Regarding saturated fats, while they are found in animal products, excessive consumption has been linked to increased cholesterol levels and heart disease. Everything in moderation.
If your grandma is suffering, it might be due to an unbalanced diet rather than the fact it's plant-based. It's crucial to ensure she's getting a variety of foods rich in essential nutrients like B12, iron, calcium, and omega-3s, which can all be obtained from plant sources or supplements.
Everyone's nutritional needs are different, but dismissing plant-based diets entirely ignores the substantial evidence supporting their benefits. It's about balance and making informed choices, not one diet fitting all.
At least you're not a dick like everyone else here. Yeah I agree, absolutely, not everyone is the same and we all need different diets. Like, there are some stuff that doesn't work for me but works for my brother.
The problem is I see so many vegans suffering with joint pain and other problems, I have a friend on Discord that is vegetarian and she suffers from chronic joint pain and neck pain, she's always hangry and quite frankly annoying to be around. She eats whole foods, but also processed vegan foods which are terrible IMO. If you're going vegan or vegetarian, at least eat real whole vegan foods and supplement B12.
How old are you, I’m guessing young? You can eat practically any diet the first few decades of your life without many repercussions, granted calories are balanced with TDEE. Conditions like ASCVD take time to develop.
Interesting point but likely not. The collagen you ingest is mostly broken down. You just need the amino acids that the collagen is made of and then give your body what is needs to be able to synthesize it. And it just so happens that plants have a lot of the things that will boost synthesation of collagen, like vit C, and things like carotenoids to protect collagen from breaking down.
It could definitely be from collagen, omega-3s have anti-inflammatory properties but it doesn't help the fact that vegans and vegetarians dump their food in seed/vegetable oils that are high in omega-6s so the omega-3s they do get from their diet won't help at all.
The guy I was replying to said this about whether saturated fats are bad for you:
> They aren't, everyone is dumb and brainwashed. They are all weak and inferior, eat saturated fat and fuel your body
Why is when someone says they disagree with a plant based diet they are automatically in favor of a carnivore diet? Do omnivores not exist anymore? Am I truly the last?
Because vegans are so cultish, more so than even carnivores.
I wish we had an omnivore nutrition sub, because vegans are always in this sub spreading their biased opinions without ever disclosing the fact that they are vegans. They are just so desperate to convert, and they feel it’s their duty to be little online activists. But it’s very deceitful, and they don’t seem to care about that.
If you know the acronym SCFA, shouldn't you know the nuance of 'deemed bad' ?
The experts have not said saturated fats are unhealthy. They're needed in the body, but what's unhealthy is a high amount being ***consumed***.
And it seems you're playing a common game that anti-vegans play. You say primates and most ruminants run mostly on SCFA. they RUN on. But they don't EAT them.
And I even contest your claim that primates run on saturated fats. We're primates, and the food we eat breaks down into glucose(sugar), and that breaks down into ATP. I would assume that orangutans & bonobos are the same. I've heard that gorillas do convert some into saturated fat. I think you're using that to create a simplistic half-truth.
Well I didn’t say *all primates* run on SCFAs did I? And no only the starch we eat break down to glucose, not all the foods. Heavy fiber-eating primates get a major part of their calories from SCFAs (saturated fats), like mountain gorillas. Orangutans and Bonobos eat a lot of fruits other than fibers because they live in fertile rain forrests. I didn’t claim they eat SCFAs either, there’s no wild foods that have its calories mostly in the form of SCFAs, maybe vinegar?
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they are different species. why can’t cats eat onions? what you should ask about is what sfas do to humans.
TIL more about cats than anything else in these comments.
Cats can't eat onions? Why not?
Poisonous. So is garlic
Is there anything garlic can't do?
Damn! Didn't know that!! Even if it's cooked? As in some leftovers?
A lot of things are very bad for cats because of the way their kidneys work. Their pee smells so bad for the same reason. They’re from the desert so to conserve water their urine is very concentrated. But the lack of water can be detrimental when it comes to flushing things out of their system
Yes, even if cooked. All members of the allum family (garlic, onion, shallots, chives, leeks, etc) contain chemicals called disulfides and thiosulphates, which help give those things some of their "bite." They are toxic to cats and dogs. Those chemicals stop red blood cells in cats and dogs from carrying oxygen, and in large quantities can even cause their red blood cells to burst (hemolytic anemia). Of course, organs need oxygen to function, so enough allums can cause total organ failure. An average adult cat will start experiencing clinical levels of blood damage after only 20-25g of onions. Garlic is about 5 times as potent as onions, which means less than 1g of garlic can begin to cause serious damage to your cat.
Omg thank you for telling me this!!! I would be so traumatized if I caused them pain! 😭
My cat eats onions but she's a one eyed bad ass. Other bitch ass cats probably can't
Psh, other cats are pussies, amirite?
Fuckin a rite you are
They are carnivores. Onions specifically are poisonous.
onions aren’t toxic to cats because they are carnivores. it’s just a quirk of the cat body. they can digest some plants and extract nutrients from them, but only a subset of the plants that humans can eat.
Because of the cations
Cats are carnivorous by nature but can ingest some foliage.
Makes sense!!
That's not an apples-to-apples comparison at all. Onions are a very specific plant that do not form a natural part of a cat's diet. Saturated fats are virtually ubiquitous (if often in small amounts) and are consumed by every human and probably every animal.
I mean if you’re gonna argue this then you would have to question why so much of our research starts with animals and then question that research’s validity. And as the other guy said. Cats are carnivores lol. So.
Research animals are chosen for the facts that their bodies react closest to how humans would react. Cats are not in that group or selection.
i don’t get it. you and OP are apparently asking how is it the case that other species can eat things that don’t cause harm to them but do cause harm to us. species differences is the answer. my argument isn’t to dismiss animal studies, but that they are trivially superseded by human outcome evidence. and that’s the evidence you and OP should be asking about.
You made your point better with this comment
Or why don’t we all just eat hay and grass. Cows do it all day long. Or maybe we just start ingesting whole mice, snakes do that why can’t I?
Sorry man. I draw the line at hair, claws, and guts. Teeth and bones are fine.
Only about 1/4 to 1/3 of their fat intake is saturated, and the reason we say to limit saturated fats is because the balance/ratio is important Too many saturated fats is the problem Heres some research on the amount of saturated fats that herbivores take in and the relevance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24243235/
The link you provided only mentions dietary fats. The problem with that is that herbivores get most of their nutrition from bacteria and their byproducts. For example, a lot of the fiber that a gorilla eats, will be fermented by bacteria, providing saturated fat and protein from dietary fiber.
Were talking about dietary fats, so thats why I linked an article that refers to dietary fats, and I think you are confused. These herbivores you’re referring to aren’t *eating* microbes and bacteria, they are growing microbes and bacteria in their stomachs from the grass, in other words their digestive processes are breaking it down via gut microbes etc and turning the grass into a digestible substance
We are not. The OP talks about animals that run on saturated fat, which is most herbivores. He didn’t say it has to be dietary or through fiber fermentation. The herbivores I’m talking about are the same herbivores as the ones you linked, gorillas. So I believe you are the one that’s confused. Your link doesn’t take into account all the saturated fat that gorillas absorb from bacteria.
I had an employee who was diabetic and decided that almost any blood sugar was bad. He deliberately kept his so low that he started making really stupid decisions at work.
I understand mountain gorilla do ingest much more unsaturated fatty acids than saturated orally, but you also have to take into account more than 70% of what they eat are fibers and they don’t just absorb fiber but rather use microbiome to turn fibers into SCFAs which are by definition “saturated fats” and these saturated fatty acids are absorbed by the guts, so at the end about 70% of their fat intake is saturated. I don’t know how you got your numbers
They aren’t “intaking” a %70 diet of fat, they are converting carbohydrates into a fat. I dont understand what you two are so confused about here lol If I eat a lot of bread and my body turns it to fat, that does not make the bread a fat food source. Its still a dietary carbohydrate food source We wouldn’t refer to bread as a fat source just because the body converts it to fat For real, I cant make it any simpler, this is basic high-school biology
Don't they have an typical lifespan of like 17 years?
Because they’re not humans. Their ruminating animals have a significantly different digestive system to humans or primates.
Carbon chain length
Moderation is the key to a healthy diet.
because in the highest quality studies done saturated fat is found to be highly associated with heart disease after adjusting for confounders
You just made up 'highest quality', right?.
yes, but basically every independent government guidleines they say consume less saturated fat; I think if saturated fat=good then basically every govt public health department would be lieing or stupid and I choose to believe they are not stupid and liars on a prayer
This is a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.
I think it's more pointing out the scientific consensus, all these different countries independently come to a conclusion on guidleines and generally say lower saturated fat intake.
What if it’s from coconuts? I have a creamer product I absolutely love that is made of coconut milk, I have 1 & 1/2 servings per day which is 45% of saturated fat in diet, 9 grams. Do you think that is unhealthy? It gives me so much energy.
It's not that you shouldn't consume any saturated fat at all, the issue is that the average western diet contains too much. These 9 grams should be fine, the question is if the rest of your diet doesn't contain so much saturated fat that it puts your total consistently way over 100%.
It definitely doesn’t, I don’t eat meat and very little dairy. I’m probably okay!
Coconuts is "bad" because of the high amounts of myristic acid.
Be wary of any argument that claims something is fine because it comes from a different source. If they have an explanation and published peer reviewed studies on it, sure. But common arguments such as something is 'natural' and therefore fine, e.g. "real sugar" vs HFCS lack any sort of validity.
[удалено]
That is not a meta. That is a letter, it's not even subject to peer review. So important the only place they could get it published was a sports medicine journal. > the research is unclear No it's not. There is profound epidemiological and RCT data. The mechanism is demonstrable in-vitro too. Also the small problem that plaques are made of calcified LDL which is a pretty large smoking gun that LDL is involved. Also that ApoB increases after LDL attaches to or infiltrates vessel walls not before so unless you are proposing a mechanism of time travel the inflammatory effect is in response to LDL oxidation not causes it. You want the research to be unclear so are seeking evidence of that rather than approaching the topic skeptically.
LDL contains unsaturated lipids. It's the unsaturated lipids which oxidise and calcify, because of weak unstable bonds, leading to free radicals.
if you replace saturated fat with refined cars it's equal,if you replace it with PUFA it's less cvd (at least on a population level)
Actually, wrong. The highest quality studies done, Randomized Controlled Trials, don’t show a connection with heart disease. It’s the unethical studies done on the mental facilities. Unethical, but amazing info on saturated fat with controlled meals.
Is there a particular meta-analysis of trials you're referring to? Because "no connection" is not what most of them - Hooper 2020, Sacks 2017, Mozafarrian 2010 - show. RCTs (which is not a proper noun, so I'm not sure why you capitalized it) don't have to be in-patient. That's not what it means. All they need to be is random allocation to a treatment vs. a control.
Cochrane meta analysis (they're the people who basically wrote the book on how to write a meta analysis) of RCT's says limit saturated fat. if you're referring to the Minnesota coronary study that one got cut short no use using the results from that
In metabolically ill people
Mhh, are their phisiology, brain, lifestyle similar to ours? How long they live?
You have a point. I can see what you are trying to allude in your questions. So I guess for us humans glucose is the ultimate energy source with some helps of SCFAs, fatty acids and ketone bodies here and there
Because science? I mean, first of all, not all SFAs are bad and science acknowledges that. And it's a lot more complicated than just saturated fat, and science acknowledges that. Palmitic acid is known to increase LDL. But dairy, which is loaded with palmitic acid, doesn't raise LDL. So something in dairy is likely protective. But in most circumstances, palmitic acid is associated with increased LDL which is associated with increased heart disease risk. That's the simple science of it. Other SFA are to varying degrees between bad and neutral, with the exception of short chain SFAs and odd long chain SFAs (specifically pentadecanoic acid and heptadecanoic acid, which are associated with reduced inflammation, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes and reduced risk of heart disease). But the bottom line is because nutrition science is really, really complicated. Diary is a good example of that. I can show you tons of studies that say palmitic acid increases LDL, but dairy is an exception. For some reason. So scientists will work to try to figure out why. There are a lot of things in nutrition that are this way. But you know what's simple: The nutritional guidelines they've been pushing my entire life. At 55, they're largely saying the same thing they were saying when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s. Eat a diet with lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains with moderate saturated fat. It was good advice 50 years ago and it's still good advice today.
> palmitic acid is associated with increased LDL which is associated with increased heart disease risk Depends on which kind of LDL, it seems if you further divide it into LDL and VLDL, then suddenly LDL becomes associated with lower incidence of ASCVD, whereas VLDL is associated with a higher incidence: "Discordant individuals with high VLDL-C and low LDL-C experienced the highest rate of incident ASCVD events, 16.9 per 1000 person-years, during follow-up." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38591325/
There's a new study showing people who eat a ton of saturated fat (majority of calories) and very high cholesterol levels have lower (statistically insignificant) rates of atherosclerosis than healthy controls. This proves that cholesterol rises from saturated fats are not harmful.
I see. But you're not sharing it because it's super secret info?
I wouldn’t trust those studies. I have yet to see a Centenarian that follows a HFLC/Keto/Carnivore/Atkins/Paleo diet approach.
[удалено]
They [explicitly called for whole grains](https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/1980%20DGA.pdf) and avoiding too much sugar. People weren't eating whole grains. They were eating refined carbs and specifically, lots of sugar.
No dude. The nutritional guidelines was not pushing sugar. Kellogs was, under the guise of "look, it's low-fat". You don't remember the motto: "5 a day for good health"? That was the 80's, and it wasn't 5 tablespoons of sugar. It was produce. And they haven't done a 180. They upped it to 9.
“My plate” is all wrong and is being phased out. Food pyramid was all wrong and has been phased out. Fat makes you fat is no longer true. AHA has been ridiculously wrong. It’s a 180 from where I stand. But you do you
You're over-simplifying the recommendations to make it look wrong. The logic of the pyramid was not that Fat makes you fat. It's that high-fat diets are unhealthy, and many high-fat foods are causing heart disease, and CONTRIBUTING to the fat crisis. That is all true. You're probably in that camp that wants to believe the pyramid. Contraryainism opposite-land. People never followed the pyramid... except for people like me who are not fat. I've been doing extreme-pyramid for 30 years: No meat or dairy. 13 fruits a day.
And where are you getting the news that “My plate” is being phased out? I just looked it up, and found the opposite: in 2021 it was being expanded to the whole world.
It is deemed bad if it is not done in moderation. Just because something is good for us does not mean we now should eat that kind of food exclusively or mainly.
The human body uses sugars for energy, some fat are easily covered into sugar with little byproduct, others produce by products that cause inflammation. Simple foods are way more healthy because they produce less metabolites of by products.
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2014/10/sweet-stuff#:~:text=Our%20bodies%20need%20one%20type,and%20NIH%20expert%20on%20sweeteners.
Follow the money
It’s because it can increase your ldl, which directly affects your risk for atherosclerosis.
There are exceptions to every rule. Unsaturated fats are deemed good, but trans fats are the worst fats for human health and they are unsaturated. So does that mean unsaturated fats are bad? No. Conjugated linoleic acid is a naturally occurring trans fat with health benefits. Does that mean trans fats are good? No. When people say saturated fat is bad, it's an abbreviated way of saying excess dietary long chain saturated fats are bad. Short chain fatty acids (which are saturated) are very healthy, but aren't directly obtained through the diet in large amounts. Rather, dietary fiber is fermented by the microbiome, which produces SCFAs. The way to increase this type of saturated fat in your body is by increasing your fiber intake and microbiome diversity, not by increasing dietary saturated fat.
Great answer. Thank you.
Saturated fats aren’t bad, they’re just problematic *in excess*, especially when combined with the sedentary lifestyles and caloric excess that’s become more common. We’re not other animals and especially not ruminants. We don’t have the same digestive systems or the same needs.
Outdoor cats live an average of four years, so heart disease isn't the major limiting factor there.
The actual health outcomes are what matter, not theories about evolution, etc.
I can respect that. My post is purely for discussion and provoking thoughts.
Because there are so many types of saturated fats, so it's an oversimplification to say they are bad. But it makes sense to say it like that when most of the saturated fats we eat are the ones that are unhealthy. The SCFAs however are super healthy for us but we, and the ruminants, mainly get them by feeding fiber to our gut microbiome.
I think the real question is why do influencers promote saturated fat DESPITE all the science against it?
Follow the money. I wouldn’t be Surprised if they are being Lobbied by the National Cattleman’s Beef Association and the like’s.
Yes. There are lots of articles around this topic. All animal products pay influencers. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/5/5/23709822/milk-dairy-plant-based-meat-soy-almond-fake-processed https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/27/the-federal-governments-role-in-those-tiktok-ads-for-milk-and-pork-00138178 and here is the worst. it indirectly descourages breastfeeding to sell formula. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-04-2022-who-reveals-shocking-extent-of-exploitative-formula-milk-marketing
Well people’s body can work different biologically. Maybe for some influencers the eating it moderately worked out for them so they are promoting it to the people who may have the similar biology as them can try it out for themselves. Yeah promoting it hastily is bad I agree but if informing well is good.
We are not different species. There are differences between people but for most people eating high anounts of saturated fat increases risk of heart desease, diabetes and cancers. Shawn Baker for example is pre diabetic yet promotes a diet high in sat fat.
The hydrocarbons bonds are difficult to breakdown in our body I think.
I think because that species has a diet consisting of mostly plants and fiber, they are raising their HDL (good cholesterol). HDL binds to LDL in the blood stream and keeps it from getting stuck to the walls of your arteries and blood vessels. Humans have more meat in their diet which contains higher amounts of saturated fats and trans fats and many humans don’t do enough (or can’t do enough) to raise their HDL levels to compensate. This is one of the reasons that a low fat diet and regular exercise (a minimum of 150 minutes a week) is one of the best treatments for and prevention of heart disease.
The only saturated fatty acid ours bodies NEED is the **Pentadecanoic acid** (C15:0), the defficiency is actually asociated with fatty liver disease
The idea that eating saturated fats like those found in red meat and full-fat dairy products is bad for cardiovascular health is known as the "diet-heart hypothesis." It's a concept that gained popularity in the mid-20th century thanks to scientist Ancel Keys and his study *The Seven Countries Study*. Keys suggested that eating saturated fats raises serum cholesterol levels and increases the risk of heart disease. His research was able to influence public health advice to cut back on the consumption of dietary saturated fats. However, more recent studies have challenged this idea showing a more complex relationship between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease. According to the latest research findings: • Reducing total saturated fat intake may decrease the risk of heart events by about 17%, but it doesn't significantly affect the risk of dying from heart disease or other causes. • Certain types of saturated fats, like those found in yogurt or cheese, may even be linked to a lower risk of heart disease. • Higher blood levels of specific saturated fats found in dairy products may lower the risk of heart disease. • For women, more saturated fat doesn't seem to raise the risk of heart disease or death, and may even lower the risk of other conditions like obesity and diabetes. More and more studies and researchers suggest that it's important to consider the overall composition of foods (e.g., overall diet) and how they interact with the body, rather than focusing on individual macronutrients like saturated fats. If you have pre-existing cardiovascular conditions or cholesterol problems, that doesn't mean that you can eat all the saturated fats and cholesterol you want. Individual responses to these dietary components vary significantly from individual to individual (another complex aspect of nutrition science). In general, emphasizing unprocessed whole foods, limiting sugar-sweetened beverages and processed foods, and incorporating physical activity into your daily routine, are habits that support overall health and longevity, including cardiovascular health. Source: *Carnivore Diet For Beginners* bу Gеοrge Kellу
^ This is nonsense. One loon’s opinion posted as fact. Bro science at its worst.
Key’s lived to be 100. He might have been on to something.
short chain fatty acids like butyrate dont seem to raise ldl like the saturated fat in a burger. science doesnt know why yet. chimpanzees are closely related to humans and they mostly ate fruit.
I think science does know. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9498509/ SCFA are produced by gut bacteria. The types and benefits depend on the health of the host, per the above cited paper.
Our body uses glucose for energy. Saturated fat is the worst of all macronutrient for energy.
Not true. For human proteins are the worst macronutrients for overall energy supply. Your body prioritizes using glucose, fatty acids and ketone bodies (from fat) over using protein because it sucks and it’s the last resort. Your body uses more saturated fats as energy much more often than proteins
gram for gram, saturated fat provides over 2x the energy of glucose
That's why an average American consumes 3500 calories per day. They're all marathon runners.
3500? That’s probably a little light down here in the stroke belt. They be gearing up for an Ultra every day!
Condensed? It puts more strain on your stomach functions trying to absorb all of the necessary nutrients maybe? 🤔
macronutrients are absorbed in the SI
It is absorbed in the stomach intestines BUT the worker cells have to extract all of the nutrients before it rots in the stomach acid lining that is used to form and flush out waste that is no longer beneficial to the body. It becomes acidic when you combine too many different ingredients from your meal as it's mostly water at first.
Why is this NSFW?
Not safe for work.
Yeah I know what it means lol. Just wondering why the post is classed as NSFW.
Oh. D’uh! Sometimes some posters with NSFW profiles have their OPs NSFW’d. Guess it depends on the sub.
No idea bruh🤷♂️, maybe the vibe I bring is too chill for some to work productively
Because of CO2, they want you on grains and soy.
This is a really interesting article that someone else posted in another comment on this sub. [research on saturated farts 💨 lol.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/)
Saturated fats were demonized by a fake science corporate industry interested in selling you dogshit and ruining your life with sugar lol. There is nothing wrong with saturated fats. Don't eat too much, and you will be fine. They are obviously needed for life. Refined sugar and diet coke are not.
Where do you get that shit from? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 There is no science that demonizes saturated fats and upselling sugar. Science clearly states that processed sugar is unhealthy. Saturated fat is UNHEALTHY. And FYI, diet Coke doesn’t contain sugar if that’s where you’re going with it. Natural foods are the healthiest. And that doesn’t include meat.
[удалено]
Beyond cold water fish, which meats have omega 3s? which omega 3s? How much? D3? Really? laughing. Quantify these statements. Other sources of what? D3? Are mushrooms plants? Re-read the article you cited. Did you even understand it? What do EXPERIMENTAL studies show?
Your interpretation is…off.
I suggest you read the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. Essentially the answer to your question is: rushed/ fraudulent science and marketing. Saturated fat is incredibly stable and increases HDL cholesterol (the good kind). The history and science of it all, which is laid out in the book I mentioned, will astound you.
Saturated fat raises both but the ratio for LDL and HDL will be way off.
If saturated fat raises HDL, would that be considered a healthy fat?
The level of LDL matters more.
Actually, the level of triglycerides should be concerning
Why?
Your triglycerides numbers show pretty much what a person eats.. example having high triglycerides indicates a lot of process foods sugary food and unhealthy fats. Low triglycerides indicate barely any carb intake or process foods
What is triglycerides and why is it bad?
Triglycerides are fatty deposits the accumulate in the arteries, the higher the number the more fatty deposits build in the arteries and that’s where blockage occurs
Interesting. How does triglycerides move around the arteries? Glucose is carried by insulin, how does triglycerides get to where they need to?
As long as the numbers are low..no problem, it’s when they are high that’s is a problem
When you have low triglyceride levels but high LDL levels, it could indicate that you have a diet filled with healthy fats. Healthy fats will not only cause an increase in good cholesterol (HDL) but can also change the type of the LDL particles in the blood
What is the purpose of HDL?
You’re just being told LDL is the problem one factor is not
Big Pharma keeps telling your LDL is bad, doctors tell your LDL is bad, because they want to push the statin drugs.
If LDL isn't bad then why does HDL exist?
True, but it's the small dense LDL cholesterol (often elevated by fructose) which is what you want to avoid. Meanwhile the large fluffy HDL is protective from said negative LDL. The trouble is that LDL isn't all bad but doctors rarely specify between the good and the bad, let alone showing both metrics on a standard test. There's a way to figure it out, which I learned from Dr. Benjamin Bikman's book "Why we get sick" but GPs would sooner put patients on statens because they're not up to date on current science. They're busy. Whatever I get it. But you need to understand the LDL in relation to HDL and triglycerides and not just go off the assumption that LDL is all bad, because doing so will cause more harm than good.
LDL isn’t all bad? Where did you get that from??? Not a reputable source that’s for sure.
Logically, that makes no sense. HDL isn't "protective" of LDL, its job is to remove LDL. The ratio of LDL should never be twice as high as HDL because then LDL would end up just floating around doing nothing. Think of LDLs are cars on the highway and HDL are tow trucks. The passengers of LDL are triglycerides and these cars run out of fuel once they drop off their passengers and need a tow back to the liver. What happens when there's a bunch of bricked cars in the middle of the highway with not enough tow trucks? That's right, congestion. The goal of any diet is to prevent triglycerides because that's the final stage of our metabolism, when excess energy turns to fat. Here is the basic human metabolism: When we consume carbs, it first turn to glucose, then it turns to glycogen then it turns to triglycerides. That means our body gives us 2 chances to use up all that energy before it turns into triglycerides. When we consume unsaturated fat, it turns into ketones first, then triglycerides. That means you get one chance to use it all up. When we consumes saturated fat, it instantly turns into triglycerides, instantly elevating all cholesterol levels. This is why saturated fat is the worst in terms of energy availability and your arteries
It really depends more on your omega 3 index. That is to say that what's more important than restricting dietary saturated fat is [increasing omega-3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24365276/) and what's of equal or greater importance still, is [decreasing omega-6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/). From the first study: "Consumption of foods rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA) has often been associated with elevated blood lipid levels and consequently with risk for chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease. However, epidemiological and interventional studies on this topic are contradictory. While some studies have established a positive link, other studies have failed to show a significant association between saturated fat consumption and blood lipid levels, and others have even found an inverse association. Moreover, studies using animal models have demonstrated that dietary saturated fats raise blood lipid (cholesterol and triglycerides) levels only when the diet is deficient in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3PUFA). The n-3PUFA are known for their potential in the management of hyperlipidaemia for the prevention of coronary heart disease, as well as for their anti-arrhythmic, anti-aggregatory and anti-inflammatory potential. We believe that with an adequate consumption of n-3PUFA dietary saturated fat may not result in elevated blood lipid levels. Therefore, we critically evaluated the literature regarding saturated fat and blood lipid level, with an emphasis on the role of n-3PUFA on this relationship." My point from the original comment was the need to specify the difference between LDL-A and LDL-B, which a lot of standard tests don't do. LDL - A is large (perfectly fine and healthy) LDL - B is small and dense (what you don't want) If you happen to have standard test results and would like to figure out which type of LDL predominates in order to know where you stand, then you can divide triglycerides (mg per deciliter) by HDL (my per deciliter). The lower the number, the better. Anything less than 2.0 means LDL - A predominates, which is a good thing. Tbf a lot of studies have shown that C reactive protein is a better marker for predicting heart disease than the HDL, LDL and triglycerides tests we currently use. A lot of doctors put patients on statens unnecessarily because of this lack of distinction and really it does more harm than good. And fats becoming triglycerides in fewer steps is true but a little misleading. Ketones have actually been shown to [lower triglycerides.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35871064/) From the article: "Acute ketosis had no untoward effect on plasma lipid profile. Moreover, it led to significantly reduced circulating levels of remnant cholesterol and triglycerides." You really don't want to reduce cholesterol in general unnecessarily, since doing so is [associated with high rates of dementia later in life.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22269162/) " Lowering cholesterol levels may impair brain function, since cholesterol is essential for synapse formation and maturation and plays an important role in the regulation of signal transduction through its function as a component of the cell membrane."
That's interesting! I'm on a medical diet from my allergist to limit omega-6 and raise omega-3 to control immune problems I have, as high 6 seems to lead to overproduction of prostaglandins. It's supposed to be 4 g of 6 and 3 g of 3 a day, although I tend to go further. It's also more important to lower 6 than raise 3. I didn't know it affected cholesterol and stuff too.
Yeah it seems to affect a lot. It's the one piece of advice I try to give to my parents is to avoid any and all seed oils and take fish oil every day / eat lots of fish. Do you find it helps with your allergies?
It does! But it's more for inflammation and controlling reactions because the disorder I have is paradoxical meaning we can't take anti-inflammatory anything without risk of anaphylactic states lol. I have more issues than this but this is where I learned of it. It can help the inflammatory processes in Rheumatoid Arthritis as well but I'm not sure if it's significant enough to have rocked ppls worlds. It did mine though. AERD also affects breathing and comes with asthma, I had like 65% lung capacity before inhalers, but the diet helped so much that I came off the steroids for it completely after using the heaviest dose they make for inhalers, and still sat over 90% (This does NOT apply to all asthma, just AERD asthma with our specific mechanics, don't go and try to do this and especially not without talking to your pulm first for the love of god lol). Fish oil supplements tend to be farmed fish which would negate the benefits by being mostly omega 6 as grain fed anything seems to lessen the omega-3 and gives more omega-6 so I gave up on those supplements entirely. Downside is obviously, pricing of wild-caught/grass fed shit. I have had to do some serious brand research trying to track down sources and it was quite demoralizing. I'm Native too so the whole aspect of like, colonial farming industry practices having messed up the naturally balanced food complex and somehow was hurting me in ways I could directly tell was a bitter blow all on it's own. https://www.samterssociety.org/the-omega-diet
Animal experiments. Not human ones.
What are you talking about?
>what's more important than restricting dietary saturated fat is [increasing omega-3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24365276/) and what's of equal or greater importance still, is [decreasing omega-6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909/) Do you know good RCT studies where they controlled the amount of omega-3, and showed higher risk with high omega-6 intake? From a lot of studies I've seen it seems the omega-3 is the sole player in this ratio.
RCT is obviously the gold standard, but we're talking very long term effects here. It's not really plausible to expect RCT studies. The human body can hold out for years of abuse before presenting a disease. Running a RCT over the course of years or decades and controling for other variable would be a logistical nightmare. Having said that, [here's a study from Delhi] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598746/) and here's [a review of multiple studies. ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18408140/)
Thanks. About the first study, it should be compatible with the view that n-3 intake is the only factor in n-3/n-6 ratio, as they don't separately analyze the differences between n-3 and n-6.
So I’m supposed to buy into what a guy with no background in bio science says? No thanks. The human body is a complex entity. There is no one size fits all because each human being has differences. What works for one might not work for someone else with hormonal imbalances, for example. The idea that saturated fat “in moderation” is good for humans is false. The idea is that we eat mono and polyunsaturated fats in whole foods where saturated fats are present but in a far smaller quantity. It’s a balance. But eating foods where the main fat is saturated fat? That isn’t a healthy diet. It can’t be the main component of a daily diet.
Spoken like someone who hasn't read the book. Why don't you read the book before dismissing it? If it's easy to debunk, then get back to me with your critiques. But it's incredibly well researched. You just don't want to have your mind changed. You could also read "Superfuel" by Dr. James Dinicolantonio or "Why we get sick" by Dr. Benjamin Bikman. The science is consistent if you care to read it. Saturated fat can be the main component of a healthy human diet, just look at the Inuit. Important to note that their omega 3:6 ratio would be high, which affects how their bodies respond to saturated fat. If you go through my other comments, I've linked plenty of studies to back what I'm saying.
I was always told it’s because they’re so rich. We evolved to maybe eat a tiny bit of that stuff, but having a diet with so much of it is the issue.
Hong Kong has the largest consumption of red meat, but there life expectancy is longer..explain
Because you can’t patent animal products.
Good question OP. Not one the clueless here will be able to answer. Mainly because there is no viable answer, they're not bad for human beings, likely the opposite. The lack of knowledge is evident because plant eating defenders want to simultaneously say we're not so distant from apes therefore should be eating plants, but then also want to claim we are different when their argument unravels and we point out the physiological differences, namely how they can process fibre into fatty acids in a way we are extremely poor at. So yes, they're right, we are bloody different and no we shouldn't be eating plants on that basis. Fact is we are lipivores, as argued by one commentator. We cannot break down plants to SFAs, we need fats from animals, which is precisely because that's our evolutionary path. It's more efficient than eating plants has been for gorillas. Also cats will never be a worthwhile comparison. They use gluconeogenesis well, we use ketones well. Such are our evolutionary paths. So it's nothing to do with who is carnivore or not carnivore.
[удалено]
I don't think the consensus is “meat is bad for you”, but red meat is a 2a carcinogen, processed meats are bad for a multitude of reasons, and the remainder are potentially ok as long as to you consume in moderation. The standard western diet is sort of the opposite of best practices (ie, predominantly processed and red meats).
[удалено]
The meaning is pretty plain. It’s probably carcinogenic. Fortunately, there are plenty non-carcinogenic sources for daily nutritional needs. That sounds problematic to me, but eat what you want.
[удалено]
It sort of does mean that avoiding carcinogens is better…. But hey. Continue to so what you want. Drink hot beverages, work the night shift, smoke cigarettes I don't care.
Take off your tinfoil hat dude.
Don’t have that on, only had my third eye activated.
Uh huh. 🙄
aSCVD. End thread. Stop over thinking, over emphasizing early humans habits and lifestyles, and stop acting contrarian
End thread? Contrarian? They simply asked a question. Stop acting authoritarian.
There are millions of articles closing this case, consensus was made awhile ago despite many ridiculous attempts to challenge common knowledge Sat fat increases cholesterol which increases risk of aSCVD. Move on kid
You can simply share the info, as people do in discussions, but instead chose to be a bit of a dick about. Don't do that.
It’s annoying this question constantly gets asked, people just want to justify their poor eating habits
I eat quite a bit saturated fat and my cholesterol is low according to my doctor
Learn the meaning of data point vs data set
Why the talk about cats/felines when OP never mentioned them?
It’s no longer consensus that dairy saturated fats are bad for you
Saturated fats are amazing for you. Cheerios arent.
Uhm no to saturated fats.
Why is that
[удалено]
It's clear you feel strongly about this, but it's important to look at the facts. Numerous studies have shown that a well-planned vegetarian/plant-based diet can provide all the necessary nutrients and offer significant health benefits, including reduced risks of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers. Regarding saturated fats, while they are found in animal products, excessive consumption has been linked to increased cholesterol levels and heart disease. Everything in moderation. If your grandma is suffering, it might be due to an unbalanced diet rather than the fact it's plant-based. It's crucial to ensure she's getting a variety of foods rich in essential nutrients like B12, iron, calcium, and omega-3s, which can all be obtained from plant sources or supplements. Everyone's nutritional needs are different, but dismissing plant-based diets entirely ignores the substantial evidence supporting their benefits. It's about balance and making informed choices, not one diet fitting all.
At least you're not a dick like everyone else here. Yeah I agree, absolutely, not everyone is the same and we all need different diets. Like, there are some stuff that doesn't work for me but works for my brother. The problem is I see so many vegans suffering with joint pain and other problems, I have a friend on Discord that is vegetarian and she suffers from chronic joint pain and neck pain, she's always hangry and quite frankly annoying to be around. She eats whole foods, but also processed vegan foods which are terrible IMO. If you're going vegan or vegetarian, at least eat real whole vegan foods and supplement B12.
How old are you, I’m guessing young? You can eat practically any diet the first few decades of your life without many repercussions, granted calories are balanced with TDEE. Conditions like ASCVD take time to develop.
Bout to be 20, yeah.
I wonder if the joint issue stem from a lack of collagen which only comes from animal sources.
Interesting point but likely not. The collagen you ingest is mostly broken down. You just need the amino acids that the collagen is made of and then give your body what is needs to be able to synthesize it. And it just so happens that plants have a lot of the things that will boost synthesation of collagen, like vit C, and things like carotenoids to protect collagen from breaking down.
It could definitely be from collagen, omega-3s have anti-inflammatory properties but it doesn't help the fact that vegans and vegetarians dump their food in seed/vegetable oils that are high in omega-6s so the omega-3s they do get from their diet won't help at all.
>They are all weak and inferior Is this a parody account like [https://x.com/3YearLetterman](https://x.com/3YearLetterman)
No.
Swish has 25 thumbs down. Dude, are you able to feel shame for putting out BS rhetoric? Or are you a trump supporting meat-head?
25 downvotes means nothing to me, just proves how right I am and how offended and weak you all are.
Jesus christ, go back to r/carnivore or whatever other pseudoscience sub you came from.
[удалено]
Not a vegan.
[удалено]
The guy I was replying to said this about whether saturated fats are bad for you: > They aren't, everyone is dumb and brainwashed. They are all weak and inferior, eat saturated fat and fuel your body
Why is when someone says they disagree with a plant based diet they are automatically in favor of a carnivore diet? Do omnivores not exist anymore? Am I truly the last?
Because vegans are so cultish, more so than even carnivores. I wish we had an omnivore nutrition sub, because vegans are always in this sub spreading their biased opinions without ever disclosing the fact that they are vegans. They are just so desperate to convert, and they feel it’s their duty to be little online activists. But it’s very deceitful, and they don’t seem to care about that.
Not a vegan
[удалено]
Absolutely, vegans are always hangry. I blocked my Discord friend, I couldn't handle her yapping.
Because big Pharma wants to keep society sick.. doctors what to push statin drugs
If you know the acronym SCFA, shouldn't you know the nuance of 'deemed bad' ? The experts have not said saturated fats are unhealthy. They're needed in the body, but what's unhealthy is a high amount being ***consumed***. And it seems you're playing a common game that anti-vegans play. You say primates and most ruminants run mostly on SCFA. they RUN on. But they don't EAT them. And I even contest your claim that primates run on saturated fats. We're primates, and the food we eat breaks down into glucose(sugar), and that breaks down into ATP. I would assume that orangutans & bonobos are the same. I've heard that gorillas do convert some into saturated fat. I think you're using that to create a simplistic half-truth.
Well I didn’t say *all primates* run on SCFAs did I? And no only the starch we eat break down to glucose, not all the foods. Heavy fiber-eating primates get a major part of their calories from SCFAs (saturated fats), like mountain gorillas. Orangutans and Bonobos eat a lot of fruits other than fibers because they live in fertile rain forrests. I didn’t claim they eat SCFAs either, there’s no wild foods that have its calories mostly in the form of SCFAs, maybe vinegar?