Saturated Fats Reduce Risks Of Cardiovascular Disease

[tex]

Believe it or not, this isn't the first research project to reach that conclusion. Apparently we've been mislead on this issue by the medical community for a long, long time. I'm beginning to think that the medical community as a whole, makes a lot of incorrect, (stupid), assumptions, that they shouldn't make, and then they try to palm them off as facts, simply because they've been promoting them for decades.

Here's the gist of the findings:

Compared to those eating the least saturated fat, those eating the most were found to be:

At NO increased risk of death due to heart attack, heart failure or cardiac arrest.

At NO increased risk of death due to subarachnoid haemorrhage.

At REDUCED risk of death due to intraparenchymal haemorrhage (52 per cent reduced risk)

At REDUCED risk of death due to ischaemic stroke (42 per cent reduced risk)

At REDUCED risk of death due to stroke (all types of stroke lumped together) (31 per cent reduced risk)

And, wait for it….

Higher intakes of saturated fat were found to be associated with a REDUCED RISK OF DEATH FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE (18 per cent reduced risk)

http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/09/21/high ... r-disease/

Here's an abstract of the original article:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/4/759

Tex

[Polly]

Interesting, Tex, but the study raises lots questions, doesn't it? I'm sure that the usual Japanese diet is very different from the usual American diet. As one example, Asians eat far more seafood/fish, which may have a major cardiovascular protective effect. Americans also eat more butter and other dairy products. We may be comparing apples and oranges here.

You sound more angry than usual with the medical profession in your post......wow - "misled", "stupid assumptions", "palming them off as facts". There have been numerous studies over many years showing that saturated fats in U.S. diets are harmful to cardiovascular health. Are you saying that these studies were falsified?

There really isn't any conspiracy that I am aware of among docs to keep the truth from people or to perpetuate misconceptions. Nor from the nutritionists or many other scientists who perform these studies. I'm sure we will find in the future that the right diet is a very individual thing - based on a person's genetic makeup, environmental exposures, gut bacterial colonization, etc. But we are not there yet, so any studies of groups of individuals will likely have confusing results.

You know, I am starting to feel a little unwelcome here..............I often feel that you are attacking my profession in a meanspirited way. (And as you know, I am the first to point out flaws among my fellow practitioners and to accept criticism - IF it is constructive).

Love,

Polly

[barbaranoela]

Polly-----I think Tex is just pointing out the various assumptions that --perhaps many of us --befuddle our mind---
I know that I receive medical stuff--and one could argue left and right and U still come up with---so--which is the right way to go!!!

And I think it rather harsh of U to assume that Wayne is attacking your medical profession and all that U have been educated on..

We are here to voice opinions ---not to attack each other--

Barbara

[tex]

Polly,

Well, sadly, your observation that I was a bit, shall we say "accusatory", (because while I felt frustration, I really didn't feel any anger when I wrote that), is justified, because I certainly did use stronger wording than I usually use in such a situation. I guess I am just getting more frustrated as yet another long-standing medical "campaign" begins to unravel.

For decades, the medical community has insisted that virtually everything about food that we take pleasure in, is bad for us. Don't drink alcohol. Don't drink coffee, (or caffeine). Don't eat red meat. Don't eat animal fat. Don't do this, and don't do that. Instead, eat more whole grains. Eat more fiber. But just in the past 10 years or so, they've completely reversed their positions on all of these "don't eat" claims, and I find it difficult to believe that eating whole grains and lots of fiber is as healthy as it is claimed to be. You know, when someone charges us for advice, and we trust them with our lives, it hurts when we find out that they have been wrong about so many things for so long. If they had said, "We think you should be eating this, or as far as we can tell, you shouldn't be eating that", it would be a different situation. But nope, they are always dead certain, and downright emphatic that their recommendations are correct. I'm embarrassed for them, and I'm frustrated that they continue to willfully place themselves in such a dubious position. I guess mostly, I'm just hurt, that they've misled us so many times, and they continue to do so, (as in the non-celiac gluten-sensitivity travesty, for example). Really, there's no excuse for that kind of foolishness, and one of these days, a lot of doctors are going to be eating a lot of crow, because of the NCGS issue.

No, I don't classify all that past research as falsified, I call it misguided, and inappropriate. Most of it now appears to have been research selectively directed to prove an existing, or preconceived policy. As we all know, a good researcher can prove almost anything he or she wants to prove, especially if they have enough money backing them. Too much research is far too "selective", (use the data that supports your goals, and find a reason to be able to exclude the data that are contradictory). And yes, I realize that the research article in question may well be no better, but you have to admit that it takes guts to buck the "powers that be", and publish research that opposes the prevailing consensus of opinion. Someone in that position has to have "bullet proof" results, to even attempt to get away with it.

I don't expect doctors to be perfect, and I realize that they're only human, but I do expect them to temper their advice with reality, as much as possible, and it really bothers me when they argue against the obvious, simply because it hasn't been proven to "scientific standards". The sad truth is, a lot of concepts will never be proven to their scientific satisfaction, because even though it may be true, scientific proof is either impossible, or impractical, so it won't be forthcoming. I expect doctors to be intelligent and mature enough to recognize that, and get over it. OK, so much for my thoughts on this aspect of the medical profession, and I hope that this can serve as a reasonable facsimile for constructive criticism.

I apologize for making you uncomfortable, Polly, because that certainly wasn't my intent, and my comments obviously weren't directed at you. As far as I can tell, you fulfill all my requirements/expectations for the perfect doctor. If we could clone you, I would be a happy camper. I'm kind of surprised that you would question the fact that you are more than welcome here. I have all the respect in the world for you, and frankly I consider your corner of the medical world to be somewhat disconnected from the mainstream stuff that we're discussing here. I suppose part of the problem is connected with the fact that I've always viewed you as a fellow student of microscopic colitis, and a dear friend, rather than exclusively as a doctor, even though I'm always aware of your professional status. I've always valued your knowledge, and your friendship, and trusted your judgment, above all. If it will make you feel any better, please feel free to take as many free shots at farmers and ranchers, and engineers, as you want.

I've given a lot of thought to your statement:

I often feel that you are attacking my profession in a meanspirited way.

Again, I apologize, because I certainly didn't intend for it to come across as meanspirited. I think you know me well enough to recognize that I try to thoroughly research concepts before taking a position on them, but I do have a major problem disguising my true feelings - diplomacy is not my strong suit. In retrospect, I can see how I could have worded that post much more diplomatically. I truly wish that the medical profession wouldn't continue to commit these faux pas, because then I wouldn't be tempted to use such poor discretion.

As far as the validity of the research report in question is concerned, yes the Japanese are more prone to eat diets higher in omega-3 fatty acids, but does that diminish the claims of the authors? The claims made in the research article refer to saturated fatty acids, not polyunsaturated fatty acids. As you know, omega-3 fatty acids are polyunsaturated fatty acids. There are other data, along similar lines, concerning saturated fats. For example:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/502

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstrac ... f_ipsecsha

And, of course, this old research report has been pretty much ignored for over 20 years:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... t=Abstract

Love,
Tex

[Polly]

Apology accepted, dear friend. And, of course I know that you didn't direct any comments to me personally.

I guess I have trouble understanding why new research findings that contradict the old ones seem so upsetting to you.......you seem to almost take them personally. Isn't change (new discoveries) occuring all of the time in every field? Why should medicine be any different? For example, when I was in training, we told moms to put babies to bed on their stomachs. Now we know they must be put down on their backs to help prevent sudden infant death syndrome.

Practicing docs have difficulty keeping up with the new research, let alone trying to digest and make sense of it. You say:

I don't expect doctors to be perfect, and I realize that they're only human, but I do expect them to temper their advice with reality, as much as possible, and it really bothers me when they argue against the obvious, simply because it hasn't been proven to "scientific standards".

Unfortunately, almost every MD would be out of business if they adhered to this thinking. Malpractice lawyers would be thrilled. Successful lawsuits are based on proving the doc did not follow standard protocol and procedures, did not stick to "scientific standards" in the literature. It would hold no water at all for the doc to say "it should be obvious" that my treatment plan was good.
Docs certainly are "intelligent and mature" enough to understand your concern, but the system does not allow them to follow it, unfortunately. They are forced to practice "defensive" medicine.

Additionally, much health care is dictated by the health insurer. If the doc believes that a certain test is needed but the insurer refuses to cover it and the patient cannot afford it out-of-pocket, what does the doc do? This happens far more frequently than most believe, and unfortunately, an untimely disease or death is often the outcome.

I guess I am saying that because of the existing system, docs don't really have all of the discretion in treating their patients that you think (or would like) them to have. It is sad but true. IMHO most docs are primarily altruistic and devoted to helping their patients........ they do not have the time, energy, or interest in "changing the system" to make things better for themselves.

I see a little glimmer of hope for the future. Discussions are ongoing now about rewarding the primary care docs for the actual health outcomes of their patients. IOW, those with the healthiest patients will get the most money. How unique! This kind of a system will perhaps allow the doc more discretion in recommending "obvious" solutions. It should also make them sit up and take notice when patients have tried, for example, a dietary approach, and are getting better! This kind of system would give us MCers a lot more clout, wouldn't it?

Love,

Polly

[tex]

Polly,

The reason why "new" research findings which contradict long-standing policies concern me, is because I have been trained as a scientist. These contradictory findings should never happen in the first place, because theoretically, they are impossible, unless caused by human error. In fact, such discoveries almost never happen in any other branch of science, (except for climatology, of course, and associated interests, because 99% of that stuff is guesswork, anyway, due to being confounded by too many invalid assumptions).

Can you imagine the uproar that would arise in the scientific community, if Newton's second law were found to be invalid? Or the first law of thermodynamics? Or what would happen if someone proved that calculus doesn't work, after all? It will never happen, because the laws of physics and mathematics never change. Newton's laws are just as valid today, as they were the day they were defined, and they will always be valid. And yet, the medical profession expects us to believe that their "laws" should change every few decades or so, and we shouldn't be surprised at this.

IMHO most docs are primarily altruistic and devoted to helping their patients........ they do not have the time, energy, or interest in "changing the system" to make things better for themselves.

I totally agree, and the last part of that statement is at the core of my frustration. There are a lot of doctors in this world who are true gems, and they have my utmost respect and admiration. The problem seems to be that the basic "operating" policies for the overall profession, are determined by a select few, who have gained positions of authority in a "Good-Old-Boys Club", and they are spoiling it for everyone else, by suppressing progress, and by making sure that entities outside the medical profession determine the constraints under which doctors must perform, by abdicating too much authority, (in little bits and pieces), to the political, legal, insurance, and pharmaceutical interests.

I'm sure that most doctors do feel as if they don't have the time, energy, or interest in "changing the system" to make things better for themselves. However, they should definitely find the time, energy, and interest to do just that, because they are the ones in the best position to make waves, and to initiate the changes that need to be made. No one else can do that for them. And more importantly, no one else will do that for them.

Scientists are a unique lot. Almost universally, they just want to be left alone to pursue their research, or to practice medicine, or whatever is their chosen field. Politics, and dealing with administrative and/or legal issues, don't appeal to them at all. Unfortunately, though, that means that someone else decides on the political and legal constraints that doctors have to abide by. Government, the insurance industry, and Big Pharma are eager to grab all the power they can get, and they have already grabbed far too much, IMO. Even some patients are trying to tell doctors how to go about their business, theses days. The handwriting is on the wall, and as long as the medical profession doesn't take the bull by the horns, and wrestle him to the ground, they will continue to have to deal with political, insurance, and pharmaceutical . I truly believe that if they would get organized, and make a well-thought-out, concerted effort to set things right, they would be amazed at the level of support that would be offered by the public. I think the proof of that support is evidenced by the fact that so many patients are taking an active interest in their own care these days. Their voting power makes them a priceless ally, for accomplishing change, because most of them are already mighty upset at the red tape and unnecessary expenses imposed by insurance, Big Pharma, and the government. Trust me, they are desperately searching for a way to accomplish some real health care reform, and the medical profession should take advantage of this possibly once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It's a huge project, and it will take years of hard work to pull it off, but the benefits to the world, and to the medical profession itself, would be priceless. At least that's how I see it.

Love,
Tex

[Polly]

AHA....you said "unless caused by human error"......and herein may lie the problem!

Medicine is not just a science, it is an art, too. Thus, there will always be that human factor that will not be there in the laws of thermodynamics, for example. Any study involving humans depends upon their compliance with an established protocol, their recall, their motivation/truthfulness/level of intelligence/mental state/ perception of expected outcome - etc., etc., etc. Believe me, I wish all of these variables could be controlled for, but it is IMPOSSIBLE. It is what it is. Sigh. There have been many times that I wished I had become a chemist (my college major) so that I could be more certain of expected outcomes.

However, even in "pure" science, there are constantly new findings. For example, how surprised do you think Newton would be with the recent discovery that TIME is affected by gravity?..... that time slows down as you increasingly leave a gravitational field. A clock at the top of a mountain runs more slowly than one on the earth's surface. Another example: A recent issue of Scientific American presented some research showing that it is possible for FUTURE events to be able to change/impact present events. Say what???? I don't pretend to understand it (the research was done at the subatomic level, I believe), but this will open up a whole new paradigm for exploration, just as quantum mechanics did.

I appreciate your thoughts about the need for docs to organize and be heard. But you are right - this isn't really part of their basic personality makeup. Plus, the docs would be wanting to design a system around what's ideal for patient care, not the current system of what's the cheapest way to deliver care.

As usual, it's always fun shooting the breeze with you.

Love,

Polly

[Celie]

What an interesting discussion. It is fun to be a fly on the wall!

Celie

[tex]

Yep, I'm pretty sure that human error is the key, and it's impossible for everyone involved to be totally objective, because like it or not, we all have agendas, and one way or another, that influences our selections, whenever opinion is involved. And yes, that's true for study subjects, and researchers alike.

I haven't read anything on that particular research, (that might enable future events to influence present events ). I suspect that I may be getting too old to wrap my feeble brain around that one.

I'm not so sure that the ideal system of patient care might not be more economical than the "cheapest" way that's currently used. The red tape is so cumbersome, (reams and reams of unnecessary paperwork, and way too many fingers in the pie), that the built-in inefficiency guarantees a lot of waste, and causes the current system to cost far more than it should. If you track down all the itemized expenses, precious little of it actually goes to health care - most of it goes to "other" expenses, and overhead costs, which are grossly inflated by all the unnecessary "requirements". There are far too many companies outside of doctors/nurses/hospitals, who are taking big money out of the system, and that money shouldn't be considered to be a part of health care, because it's actually "rake-off".

The pleasure is mine, dear friend.

Love,
Tex

[tex]

Celie,

This is a one-of-a-kind discussion board, isn't it.

Tex

[wonderwoman]

This is a one-of-a-kind discussion board, isn't it.

Yes, it certainly is one of a kind. None other like it. I enjoy reading everyones discussion. Have learned so much here. I wouldn't change a thing.

[Polly]

Amen to what you just said, Tex. I think about 31% of the current health care dollar goes into paperwork. Isn't that ridiculous in this cyber age? Drives me crazy!!!!!!!!!! And this is the truth - I have to spend at least as much time with paperwork as I do with a patient. What's wrong with this picture?

Hiya Celie and Charlotte.

Love,

Polly

[Gloria]

Ah, another Polly-Tex debate. They sure are interesting because you both always make strong cases. And usually neither of you backs down from your position. In the end, you remain friends and respect your differences of opinion.

Gloria

[Celie]

Indeed this is an interesting board. I am learning a lot. I also love a good, civil debate!

Celie