Saturated fat & Controversies Online | ft. Dr Brad Stanfield
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- Why does saturated fat appear so controversial on the internet? Does this reflect the science on saturated fat? Do saturated fat recommendations differ from country to country?
Connect with me:
Facebook: / drgilcarvalho
Twitter: / nutritionmades3
Animations: Even Topland @toplandmedia
References:
www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/...
www.lipidjournal.com/article/...
Disclaimer: The contents of this video are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, nor to replace medical care. The information presented herein is accurate and conforms to the available scientific evidence to the best of the author's knowledge as of the time of posting. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions regarding any medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of information contained in Nutrition Made Simple!.
#NutritionMadeSimple #GilCarvalho
0:00 Introduction
0:33 Saturated Fat & science communication
3:19 Controversial topics
7:09 Information sources
8:54 Cultivating Healthy Skepticism
Wow I say, “at the end of the day” a lot haha. Thanks for the clip Gil. This can be an emotional topic, and hopefully the viewers found our conversation useful
Please do more colab with Gil. You two are amazing togather!
Me too! Kind of like "bottom line" And yes helpful!!
I like that phrase
I guess you're an evening person
At the end of the day Is the end of the day. At the end of the day.
It's very hard with all the food cults these days. No matter what you say pointing to the straight facts, someone will challenge it with their personal story.
Well actually 🤓 I ate a salad 🥗 one time and died ☠️ instantly therefore veganism 🤢 defeated!
I think you take in information. Make adjustments and see how you respond since that is what matters.
@@robertleugemors338 I drink a bottle of wine..eat 3lbs of bacon and 5 bags of skittles for dessert.feel fantastic afterwards.therefore this is a healthy dietary plan for me.think I will write a book about how tomatoes and spinach are trying to kill us..or wait ..oh that's been done already?
If they challenge it with their personal story and if they're truthful, then why is that cultish? The doctor always say even if it's science research is never 100% And what are "straight facts" when it comes to food's consequences?
@@TimeIdle Personal anecdotes are unreliable in nutrition. People lose some water weight and they believe they've found the perfect diet. Or they eliminate junk food when going keto and then blame their past problems on broccoli and spinach. Or they start going to the gym when they start a diet an attribute feeling better to the diet rather than the gym. We all have biases. A vegan might want their health outcomes to align with their ethical values; whereas, a keto dieter might want their health outcomes to align with their pleasure in eating BBB&E.
Then people will also praise a diet for the first several months before they have to quit it because it doesn't work. It's kinda the opposite surviorship bias (newbie bias). It's the newbies that are loading up the comment sections with newbie gains (loses) for diets that have little long term succuess.
Really appreciate your commitment to never stop learning and changing your views based on the evidence. Like a lot of people, I know I struggle with gravitating to information that confirms what I already believe or want to believe, and am more resistant to information that contradicts my current beliefs.
Here's some evidence for you.
"Since 2009, 10 meta-analyses of RCTs have been conducted (Table 2).6,8,10,11,22,28,29,44-46 None reported a significant increase in the hard points such as heart disease mortality or total mortality with SFA intake, although 3 found a significant decrease between groups for soft endpoints such as CHD or combined CVD disease events."
the fact that they only mention of 1 of the study speak for itself.
Ref Pubmed ID31841151
Been following you for a few weeks now. Without a doubt, one of the best channels about nutrition and more. Finally a no BS channel to follow! Keep up the great work 😉🙏
Professionals give opinions, that's our job. Those opinions are only as good as the basis used-and subject to change. Really thank you for the well-grounded work you do and how well you do it.
Obviously depends on what the opinions are based on. Should be facts. Many MD’s opinions are outdated and have been refuted by clinical studies so…
Thanks so much for your commitment to reading and evaluating all the evidence as you become aware of it and reporting on it accordingly. So few info channels actually do this, which is really a shame since online sources are how most lay people get their health information. I also appreciate that you are one of the very few online health experts that are NOT trying to sell me something - I take most of what those people say about nutrition with a grain of salt (ha ha).
Thanks. I appreciate your openess and all the background research you do.
Great video.
Can you do one on seed oils?
That to me is the most controversial online topic.
He already has. He says seed oils are good for you.
Watch the video. He didn’t necessarily say they are good, just that they are not as inflammatory as so many people have made them out to be and there was one that improved inflammation markers.
Keep up the good work! If you get people thinking and curious to learn more, you are helping people make more educated decisions about their health.
I have been following your content only for a few weeks but find it extremely useful as well as the confidence these are based on well-founded studies published in peer-reviewed journals. As a 70+ year old and a retired Ph.D. scientist, I can certainly assess any content's authenticity either from my personal background or checking the references. You guys are doing a world of good by presenting such important topics in a very balanced and factual way for those of us who value "FACT BASED content" on topics which are not our area of expertise
Dr Brad makes great content 👍 I’m really happy you did a collab
Love your channel. You take the confusion out of diet and health. It is so common sense. Thank you!
I don't seek nutritional advice. I'm mostly fine with where I am and don't mind not optimizing every bit I can. So I'm not really your intended audience but I like your content.
I watch because I'm interested in science in general. It's especially interesting how different scientific disciplines operate and why.
Thank you for the effort you put into highlighting the value of the scientific method, critical thought, and healthy disagreement. Your content is like a breath of fresh air, and your guidance on basic scientific principles apply to so many other domains besides just nutrition science.
The misinformation is not just coming from random influencers without any credentials. Confusions is mainly fueled by people with a PhD, for example Jessie Inschauspé (biochemist). Someone gifted me her book (The Glucose Revolution), otherwise I would have never read it. Jessie writes (Hack 10), quote: "Good fats are saturated fats (fat from animals, such as butter, ghee and coconut oil) or monounsaturated (from fruit and nuts such as avocados, macademia nuts and olives). " She continues: "Bad fats (which inflame us, harm our heart health, makes us gain visceral fat and increase our insulin resistance) are polyunsaturated fats and trans fats, which are found in processed oils - made from soybean, corn, rapeseed, safflower and rice bran oil - and fried foods and fast foods (the one seed oil that isn't bad is flaxseed oil)." THESE ARE A EXACT QUOTES FROM HER BOOK. What I found interesting is how she mixes facts with fiction in these two sentences, which makes it extra confusing for a reader. As far as I've learnt from your channel (and from other scientists and nutritional guidelines worldwide): Fact: avoid fried foots and fast food. Fiction: avoid plant oils. Fact: monounsaturated fats are health promoting. Fiction: saturated fats should be encouraged to eat MORE of.
Then we have Dr. Gundry, warning for the dangers of fruit and lectins, and Dr. Hyman, who interviews Nina Teicholz about saturated fat and cholesterol and who publishes her misinformation on his channel. She says in the video that Dr. Hyman uploaded to his channel in 2020: "Lowering your LDL cholesterol through diet, in diet studies, has never been shown to lead to any impact on heart disease".
you seem to be doing a great job of parsing truth and myth
yes it's perplexing how many people with some scientific training are so confused. it's usually a lack of clarity on *types* of evidence. I´d venture that the rationale in that book is based on the biochemistry (fine) divorced from the outcome data in humans (huge mistake)
@@NutritionMadeSimple Thanks so much!!! I hope you can debunk more of the misinformation spread by scientifically trained people, because I think they do a lot of harm. I watch every video of your channel.
It's almost criminal how easily and quickly some online health and diet "influencers" spew all kinds of misinformation. Some of it downright dangerous.
People with PHDs can be very blinkered and as Gil says looking at detail in a narrow way
I have a freind with several PHDs who is terrible at creative or lateral thinking I would say I find him unintelligent
Your channel is amazing as always, thanks for sharing your info a logical and non-sensational manner
Saturated fat is highly genetic. I have consumed large amounts of saturated and monounsaturated fat and low amounts of polyunsaturated fat (only in the context of whole foods) in the context of a moderate carb(100g per day) diet. My cholesterol bloodwork is flawless, not just LDL and particle size wise but also in terms of Apo B. Plus all bio-markers for inflammation.
Same. I also use salt on my food and have never developed high blood pressure.
@@loganmedia1142me too, for years. Until I developed high blood pressure...
Its mostly dumb people who use anecdotes to back up why something is or isint harmful. The classic example being: my grandfather ate meat, butter, smoked cigars, drank whisky and he lived to 200 years old. Therefore saturated fat and cigars are harmless.
Dumb people arguments...
I think I met your grandfather when he was 198 yrs , fit and healthy , doesn’t look a yr older than 70 … : )
@@pcho3740 😄😄😄😄😄😄
And he could dead lift 1000 lbs 😂
Or visa versa, God came to me in a vision and told me we should not eat flesh from animals, and we have built a huge trillion dollar company making breakfast foods, and spent a lot of that money jacking up science and getting our people on board with the US government to prove/sway there opinions toward a plant based diet.
I completely agree that whether lots of saturated fat can lead to health issues should not be controversial at all…It’s well settled science…
Curious question - Who is the team that you refer to in your videos that helps you to review studies and put these great videos together?
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
The I^2 of the Cochrane study was 65%, so how much can you really conclude from the meta-analysis if they aren't estimating the same thing?
And there was no reduction in all-cause mortality :
We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or
cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence.
There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality
Hmmm. Not sure about the first claim, but the second claim you made is absolutely false.
@@ucchi9829 Could you explain? Both are directly from the study.
@@ToddHoff yeah the authors are making a fallacy. Look at the point estimates, none of them are 1.00. Look at the CI’s, clearly there’s a reduction in risk on the lower bounds. So, you’re essentially acting as if there is evidence of no effect when it’s clear, there is more evidence for non-zero effects.
If only we had Mendelian randomization that shows 0 heart disease with folks who genetically have crazy low ApoB...
In the Cochrane study conclusion it says the following;
but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality.
How did the authors come up with a 17% increased risk of Cardiovascular Events when their conclusions say otherwise!!
I agree with most everything except when you seemed to say that because multiple governments agree, then what they agree on has to be correct. In grad school it was definitely ingrained in us to not only read scientific studies but also examine details about the studies including methodology, number of participants, whether there is a control group, if the study has been repeated, and who is funding the research to just name a few. It doesn’t matter who is claiming a particular scientific “fact”, but rather if the science is there to prove it again and again.
maybe I wasn't clear in the vid, what I said toward the middle is that we should NOT assume that because there is a consensus it must be right, we still have to be reasonably spketical and do our homework :)
This video was excellent, providing a philosophical discussion on how to interpret science.
Yes I'm anxious to see your next video on saturated fats.
I am on a health quest and understand that there must be some saturated fats in the diet and worry if it's possible to go to low.
Per usual, Dr. Gil is a gem. And I have been one of those misled by bad data and sources. I still have some outstanding questions so I'm not yet sold on veganism, but he's such an asset to the conversation.
Another great video. This is topical because I've been thinking about a previous video where you talked about calorie-for-calorie replacement, and I think that's a key framing like you posited in this conversation. When I formulated my lower-carb diet, I replaced refined carbohydrates and sugars with higher portions of vegetables, beans, meat, and cheese. Some of these are higher in sat fats, but it's not 100%. If you just replaced refined carbohydrates with cheese (not advocating this, it's just a gedankexperiment) - that's usually about 50% protein, 25% unsaturated, 25% saturated fat. So definitely not a calorie-for-calorie replacement. And I think this confusion about possibly improving the diet while also increasing sat fats is confusing for so many, because it's easy to be confused about sat fat being still not very good for you but the diet is otherwise improving so much that the newly added sat fat is less problematic than the old formulation. All depending on the actual execution of course.
One thing I think this topic could benefit from is talking about the different types of saturated fatty acids. Saturated fat isn't just a singular component in nutrtition. What are the effects of stearic acid vs Myristic acid? do they effect the body the same way? what are the saturated fatty acid profiles of a piece of beef vs a brazil nut? does that matter? those are just examples but I think it's important to understand the full scope. Same with oxidized cholesterol vs regular cholesterol as I know you spoke on the topic as well. Anyways, love the channel and the work you're doing.
we covered the stearic acid question in the older saturated fat video linked at the end of this 1. we have one on oxLDL in the pipeline :)
Another great video. I am ver fortunate to find this channel
Always interesting, thank you.
The food we eat is an expression of our values, which is why I think what would otherwise be a pretty straightforward topic can become so emotional. There are many that simply will not believe anything - no matter how overwhelming the evidence - if it contradicts their strongly held cultural or religious beliefs for example. To do so would mean to question their entire belief system and personal identity...
People don't want to hear bad things about their bad habits (a twist on Dr. McDougall's quote). If they're eating lots of animal sat fats, they don't want to hear that that's not such a good thing.
Terrific attitude! We need more people like you.
I have been suffering from law HDL and high triglycerides.Av9iding all saturated fats and other fats even.what to do now?please suggest...
Great video. Would love to see one on your views of the French paradox
we touched on the general question here (toward the end): czcams.com/video/Go5JUuhkTFw/video.html
I've cut down on my animal fats by always mixing meat with rice and beans. I lost 15lbs almost immediately but I have stalled. Still, it is nice to know I've cut down on saturated fat using this method.
Excellent discussion again! The term that caught my attention is, “lay content” because, as a whole, society has become much more suspicious of “expert contact.” The real question is how do lay people, such as myself, make critical decisions on very complex issues. For instance, the article that you referenced is from a very respected publication yet it is filled with weasel words. Weasel words such as, “Suspected contributor”, “tentative conclusions”, “observational studies”, “effects of reducing SFA intake on ASCVD outcomes is limited (with limited being the key word)”, “effects remain uncertain”, and the phrase that tends to be over used the most, “authors view.” It is clear that this is one “experts” (granted - from a prestigious publication) view. I am not asserting that SF is an innocent player in CVD just that it appears to be a very complicated issue and not yet totally resolved as to the full role that SF’s play.
scientists typically write and talk very cautiously. doesn't play well on social media or in the public eye, can come across as insecure or tentative. it's interesting that I didn´t even notice those words and connotation when I go over these trials bc I´m used to this type of verbiage, but when alerted to it, it makes sense and I see what people mean
@@NutritionMadeSimple Thanks Gill! The work you do in communicating the science of nutrition and health is critical! From one lay person to the expert - much appreciated.
I'm watching all of your videos and it's been an education!
Your videos are unbiased and helpful than other doctors and nutritionists on CZcams, i workout 7 days a week for 1 hour, please make a video on workout, how many days a week can we workout? How much rest do we need, thank u..
I think it would be useful if you made a video or video series where you go over how to read a research paper. Many people dont make it past the title or abstract bc they are intimidated by the content. Its also difficult for some of us to access research papers so perhaps you have some tips on how to find them in their entirety. We also hear so much info about conflicts of interest and funding. When you read a paper how do you determine whether these factors could have swayed the findings? How do we know how the study was funded? Thanks for the work you're doing.
You can go on pupmed, that’s academic research, which is not funded by industry, but rather by your tax dollars. They just passed an order this week that all this research will be accessible to the public.
Hey, good news, there is a video on this channel dealing with most of the points you mentioned 😊 Title is: How to do your own research
yes, we made this one: czcams.com/video/kHNsDEkteTk/video.html
Public health college teaches students how to read and interpret studies correctly. Layperson cannot and will get confused/cherry pick data to fullfil their beliefs.
I think it is a very healthy point of view to see people having emotional reactions to content as a good and not a bad thing.
Something I think a lot of people would be interested in you covering is the Mechanism behind how saturated fat raises cholesterol
Nice vid! I think we must be aware that cardiovascular health not equal "health" and for some interventions we should also take a look at different, more general outcomes. Such as all cause mortality, quality of life etc.
At the beginning of 2023 I switched from a low fat/high carb diet to a high fat/low carb diet. That change has led to my losing 30 lbs in just over two months. It also led me to consume more saturated fat and stop taking a statin. Your videos have led me to re-evaluate my re-evalution of my dietary habits. I'm going to keep on with a high fat/low carb diet, because I feel I've unquestionably benefited from it, but will be cutting back a bit on saturated fat and resume taking the statin. The statin, with a CoQ10 supplement.
Saturated fat tolerance is highly genetic. I would recommend getting some high level bloodwork done to tell you if you are having problems with it.
Do your research, but be sure to check out the CoQ10 from Pharmanord (Denmark). They make a convincing case for their product, among them is that theirs is the one used in the majority of research on CoQ10. Why go back on the statins? Is there anything in your blood work that suggests it? Have you seen Gil's videos that mention ApoB? A good one is his fact check on Sten Ekberg's claims about cholesterol.
Thank you for your constant hard work of educating people on how to read studies and attain reliable knowledge! I really appreciate that as there is so much misinformation not only on social media. Unfortunately, I have the impression that not even my doctor knows a lot about any of the stuff I ask him - so when I see those warnings I should always ask my doctor before e. g. taking a supplement I tend to lol: He really has no idea, and he doesn't appreciate me discussing evidence for this or that with him. I guess he's just really busy and a general practitioner, so how would he know about all specialized fields. Sometimes I get the impression that there's no other way to get medical information than via the internet. Good thing doctors like you and Brad are out there to help us out with evidence-based information. ❤
Great discussion!
I agree with your views on science. But not always with your interpretations of the evidence. To be more precise,... results must always be interpreted in the context of the people who participated in the research. For example, when lowering saturated fat shows benefits, we should always look at those results in the context of the diet the participants eat. That seems to be missing in your interpretation of the evidence.
Saturated fat for example. In a study where people overeat, you can clearly see a benefit of lowering saturated fat. But is this true when people do not overeat? I've not seen any saturated fat study where lowering it, in an isocaloric diet, shows benefit.
I hope you agree you can't take a result of a study and assume it will be the same in a completely different dietary context. This is true for pretty much all nutrients. It's why people get confused when 1 year eggs will kill you and the next they are good for you.
Context is everything. Without it, results are meaningless.
You don't know more than nutrition based doctors nor nutritionists/licensed dieticians. Laypeople cherry pick data, half-truths, conspiracies, make strawman arguments and are easily fooled/manipulated by quacks and charlatans like our politicians (Orange Jesus)
Excellent point! How MUCH saturated fat are they eating overall? If someone is obese and eating nothing but huge steaks and bacon all day, that's going to be quite different from someone who is thin and eats a small amount of meat and bacon.
I think the problem is that most dietary studies are following people over years and then asking them after the fact what they ate. It's not ethical to put people on a diet that might be dangerous so that kind of research doesn't exist except anecdotally. That's where you get headlines like "guy eats nothing but bacon for 6 months and never felt better in his life". I think the problem you are describing is the problem of control in dietary research because an individuals diet encompasses a variety of different foods (variables) and behaviors such as overeating and undereating (also variables). You can't control for all variables in any research study but that doesn't mean those studies are necessarily invalid although they may be.
Anecdotal evidence is weak evidence and even good research can't control for all extraneous variables. Scientists know this and basically evaluate research on the strength or weakness of the evidence. Two dozen relatively well designed studies having the same outcome is relatively strong evidence. One small study with questionable methodology is weak evidence and requires further study to come to a reliable conclusion.
In the context of scientific research variables are considered to use your terminology. So scientists already do what you are suggesting they do in your comment.
Great video idea regarding Studies -- explain to the public that many GREAT studies are never peer reviewed and never published to the public. I have personally worked on many many studies for pharmaceutical and food companies that will never be published and all documents are held outside (by third party) of their corporate office just in case of court case. Modern CEO's with good lawyers, don't want to be linked to having knowledge of specific information as they did in the tobacco cases. Therefore the studies are done, people are verbally information, no formal meeting notes allowed, however the studies were done and the findings are still valid to humans even if people reject the findings just because they are not allowed to read the study.
Could you do a video discussing the different types of saturated fat? Are coconut MCTs as bad for you as saturated fats from red meat? My understanding is that there are 10 different types of saturated fats, and am wondering how these break down health wise, because in this video there’s no distinction. Could that be part of the confusion?
Is there a way to sense how our body reacts to different types of foods/supplements, short term or long term. Can we correctly interpret the body reactions, good or bad to a particular individual, if the senses are not strong enough, be enhanced sufficiently for sense making
Each human is different in so many ways, from genetics, to environment, to emotions, etc. not one shoe fits all feet. Plus, many times, unfortunately , a person can find research to support their own hypothesis. It takes careful analysis and discernment. 👍 good job
So I listen to both of you BUT. 60 days before my bloodwork I went to a beef and egg based diet. I was not low enough carbs to be Keto but less than150 grams. All my markers improved dramatically Chol 165 to 166 (no change) HDL 63 to 82, LDL 80 to 73, Trig 80 to 52. I am a 61 year old male and would be interested in anyone with better numbers and what diet they are on. In the end it is about how YOU respond and not the masses. Thanks for your videos.
we have several videos coming up on dietary cholesterol and saturated fat where I ask different leading experts in lipids about individual variability. stay tuned :)
If someone is basing their medical choices primarily on online videos, they have bigger problems than their choices in diet, supplements and lifestyle. Every online video dietitian and MD with credibility will always recommend the same piece of advice: Consult with your primary care physician before undertaking any diet, taking any supplement or engaging in any activity that they should know of in order to provide the best care and guidance to their patients. The National Association of Community Health Centers reported last month that 100 million Americans face barriers to primary care. The shortage of providers is part of the problem. Beyond that, it is remarkable how many Americans with insurance coverage do not have a relationship with a primary care physician or do not visit them at least annually.
Of those viewers who do have regular health screenings by an MD or PA, they should always examine the educational and professional credentials of video producers who make claims that are not within their scope or expertise. This is why I enjoy when Dr. Gil Carvalho fact checks the self-proclaimed experts who abound on social media.
60 days is not conclusive of anything. See how you are 3 years, 5 years, 10 years down the line. That's why the diets that have been around for millennia are well worth looking at. Vegan, macrobiotic, keto, etc. Let's see how healthy their followers are in 10 years. Fruit, vegetables, some PUFAS and some SFA, dairy, fish, chicken, whole carbs. That diet will bring good health for the most people, in the view of a healthy 79 year old male. Best of luck.
I'm still arguing with Ken Berry and other carnivore people over saturated fat. It's like talking to a brick wall.
I'll state it again: the beef, butter, bacon, and egg diet is totally irresponsible.
Thanks to both of you for consistent quality content.🌻
Think portion wise, and fasting/exercising as part of the equation... personally, I use lard and butter often, but not as much as olive and avocado oil. Fwiw I have limits (weekly) on steak, bacon, pork chops, but not eggs...I probably have 2-3 a day often fyi.
They are whack. I always ask them their cholesterol levels 😂🤭
Honestly I feel like debates with most „carnivores“ online are pretty pointless. As said in the video healthy criticism is good, but the vast majority literally doesnt care about the science or about points youre making 😅
Berry is a nutbar who has had multiple legal problems. I'm sure it must do something short-term for people who are obese but long-term it's likely to be a disaster.
@@larryc1616 Try to get an ApoB level out of them. Not gonna happen.
Thank you for being a beacon of truth in this space. So much misinformation out there.
If people only knew what saturated fat means.
It means that the carbon atoms in the lipid chain are saturated, meaning they are more stable which means its hard for you body chemically decompose the molecule. This is not a good thing…
So what if saturated fat takes longer to digest. Should we avoid insoluble fiber because it mostly ends up in feces undigested?
Hi - as an engineer interested in health and wellness I really appreciate your science based approach to nutrition. I’ve watched a video titled “Chemical Farming and the Loss of Human Health” by Dr. Zack Bush and my impression is it provides a scientifically valid explanation for many of the common health issues that plague our society today. I would love to hear your views on and critique of the ideas, theory, and analysis presented there in. Thanks for your great videos and science based analysis of nutritional issues.
Check out Robert Faust PhD (soil science) about fulvic acid (not folic); his CZcams video style takes a little getting used to. The main point is that are soils are seriously depleted of humic substances of which fulvic acid is the most important for human health and nutrition. It's literally "from soil to cell".
Love your approach to skepticism. LP(a) is just one example of many whereby the science studies that have been completed have not caught up with the reality. What percentage of scientific medical papers actually contain information that will be considered fundamentally correct 200 years later? What is that expression in medical school.....50% of what you learn will be considered false before you retire? I suspect that saying was true in the past, but underestimates the percentage now with computers allowing for faster rates of knowledge acquisition.
Thumbs up on this video :)
May I add according to my understanding, the uncooked vegetable or seed oils that have not been exposed to high temperatures (through frying) do not have the levels of omega-6 that people claim they have.
Thus would it be wiser if, instead of going from 0 to 100 (one extreme to the other), we use the cold pressed versions and just don't deep fry in those oils?
I would like to know the thresholds that work for me. I use beef tallow and ghee (Saturated fats) and Nuts (unsaturated ones). Planning on buying an industry standard cholesterol meter. It will be good to know what the sweet spot is for my body.
Is there a reasonable meter that measures one cholesterol / ldl / hdl level on the market ?
@@pcho3740 I have not purchased it yet but cardiocheck appears to be a decent one and has good reviews overall.
I have been wondering about one thing regarding saturated fat. Some people say that it's unhealthy to mix (substantial amounts of) fat and sugar (or carbohydrates), especially when it comes to diabetes. So is there any evidence of this, and could it be that this applies to saturated fats rather than unsaturated ones? I know that there's a difference between ultra processed carbohydrates and whole carbs, but what about type of fats when mixing?
I don't know about diabetes but I do know that foods high in both refined carbs and fat, especially saturated fat tend to be hyper-palatable and can trigger overeating which is probably not great for diabetes.
@@DM-ql6ps Yes, but I'm wondering about intakes where fat is like not over 30% of the calories, and calories overall are at the correct level.
I would say there definitely is evidence of this. Gil is very good at citing the literature and spot on in his analysis of it. My biggest issue with the presentation of this evidence by the medical community is that they fail to recognize that nearly all of their data come from populations who have very high carbohydrate intake (particularly in the form of highly or mildly processed foods). In my opinion, the conclusion that saturated fat increases CHD risk (which appears to be correct given the context) is incomplete at best.
@@DM-ql6ps Look at the longevity of Hong Kong people. They (ok, most) eat white rice (simple carb) daily, along with veggies, meats (maybe not alot) and various fats, including saturated fat, organ parts (ie keto/carnivore), tofu/bean curd (vegan) and sugary legumes sweets. Of course, they walk alot there....but #1 or always in the top 1-5? My point is: it isn't the saturated fat...it's a matter of diet, but a variety of inclusive intakes eg vegan, carnivore, keto, vegetarian etc. The ludicrous constant plant based recommendations, or meat only zealous carnivore are both sickening and tiring😫 Hong Kong folks eat vegan and carnivore/keto growing up as young as 5/6😊
Saturated fat from animal/mammal meat in contrast with saturated fat from plant sources shows more evidence of harm to the cardio-vascular system. Mammal meat appears to promote inflammation because it contains choline that's converted to TMAO, it's usually grilled/cooked hot thus resulting in AGEs, and mammal meat is composed of Neu5Gc which is a source of inflammation.
Looking forward to your saturated fat video!
The issue for me is I’ve always eaten a healthy balanced / med diet. I don’t feel great so I’m Interested in something different. Alternative narratives appeal because the main one isn’t working for me.
Now days, we just go to see a family practice doctors to just order lab test for us. For real. They don’t even read and update their information anymore.
How worried should we be about Glyphosate in our foods?
Pretty worried id say, there are a couple of videos on it over on The Real Truth about Health youtube channel. Especially videos with Stephanie Senneff who knows a lot about Roundup and Glyphosate.
The value is in why you think what you think. If you show you're working out, then it's all good. If your workings out is not thought through or you just say things that are standard recommendations, the people will think you are not adding value.
I personally think there is a lot more to things than what these health centered organisations are telling us.
What about the recent study showing less strokes with increased sat fat?
@@d.bcooper2271 why wouldn’t he?
Can you link?
feel free to paste title
"The Study"? Can you please include a title or link?
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5945551/
Your videos are not long enough! I can’t get enough of these videos 😩
One thing that gets lost in these discussions and even much of the studies and scientific literature is that “saturated fat” is treated as one thing. 4 common types of long chain saturated fats, differentiated by their chain length, namely stearic acid, palmitic acid, myristic acid and lauric acid have all been shown in preliminary research to have substantially different effects from one another on various biomarkers. Palmitic acid has been shown to have vastly different effects on apob versus stearic acid. The same goes for mono and poly. Palmitoleic acid (a monounsaturated fat found in things like macadamia nuts) is different from oleic acid (a monounsaturated fat found in olive oil and avocados). I wish the studies started being a little more granular.
I add little butter to my meals. I have noticed that it helps my ibs and makes my stool well formed. It also helps my dry skin and itching. But my total cholesterol & LDL is high. Not very high. I have started adding psyllium husk daily. I will take my labs again after 6 months. I will monitor my total cholesterol & LDL.
Psyllium is good to keep things going, but beans and especially oat bran apparently lowers cholesterol significantly.
Would you have an idea about organic and inorganic foods? Because,before eating any food we have to know about it very well.Thank you,
what do you mean by inorganic ?
If you refer to organic as not treated with pesticides he stated in another video that it shouldnt really be of concern. Of a much bigger concern should be to incorporate more whole grains, vegetables and fruits in your diet, avoiding too much processed foods, sugar, sodium, saturated fats etc
I think he said it in here czcams.com/video/M-H2KuoR20g/video.html
"Why does saturated fat appear so controversial on the internet?" Because there are all these people who are now in the best shape of their lives, sleep great, mood great, blood markers great, and neither side can believe that what got them there is wrong. Half did it by cutting sfa, half did it by upping sfa. Neither side wants to look at the broader population as a guide, and I see their point.
in reality there's no contradiction (the evidence pertains to long-term risk of excessive SFA for CVD risk), but I think that's entirely accurate, it´s a difficult idea to convey when there is so much personal experience in the mix and these aren't abstract academic issues
I always enjoy your videos. There's so much confusing information out there. As someone with heart disease, I always try to limit saturated fat. But you have keto people saying that carbs are bad, not saturated fat. Vegans say the opposite. No real consensus.
The bottom line is, it doen't so much matter what different groups say, what really matters is what works for your own body. In my 74 years on the planet, I've tried practically every single diet there is: Frutarian, Vegan, Vegeterian, Pescatarian, Omnivore, Keto, and Carnivore. And for me, whole food plant based diet works the best.
I have a request on this topic. My wife fell ill about 6 months ago. I've been feeding myself and I mostly eat things I know how to cook (steak, eggs, meat). I've accidentally become a carnivore, and I have lost a lot of weight and reduced headaches and joint pain.
Probably the main health benefits have been cutting out sugar, refined carbs and losing weight.
My request is about where I am now as a poor cook with little time. I want to somehow start replacing my sources of saturated fat with healthier fats, but my mind is totally boggled about how to execute on this and remain at least sort of low carb. I'd like to see a good video that offers some ideas and guidance on how to accomplish this. I can follow a recipe, and managed to make some broccoli tots last night, but it took over an hour of my time. I'd like some other ideas. There were 3 eggs and cheddar it the broccoli tots recipe but I think it has benefits over a steak. I ate some with chicken thighs and froze the rest. I'm still heavy on the eggs, bacon and steak still. I need to feed my wife as well and she's not really a meat eater.
hi, we have some recent videos with a low carb cardiologist:
czcams.com/video/UFamJhtV4a0/video.html
czcams.com/video/6dCEcsWYL94/video.html
@@NutritionMadeSimple Thanks! I had watched those. I'll try to expand on Ethan's diet. My wife is more complicated because she's pre-diabetic and is recovering from a burst large intestine. I am pretty sure I won't be able to give her nuts and seeds which could limit some options. I was thinking also of replacing some of her fiber with fermented foods since they will likely advise low fiber.
You have a very healthy attitude to criticism. My problem is that I don’t always trust the results of studies - I think a lot of them are conducted with an agenda. I’m not saying that they actually fake the data, but that they are conducted from an angle of bias. My personal approach to nutrition is trying to stay moderate - believing that too much of anything can’t be good for you.
It would have been helpful if either of you had restated the over welming evidence.
in retrospect maybe it would have been a good idea to recap that. We do have a video coming where we hope to overview all of it
Good stuff. I'm beginning to see where you and Dr. Stanfield are coming from re: saturated fat. I might have to change my opinion on the subject yet again. (I'm starting to lose count at this point.)
I like the "Eat an assumption for breakfast" technique. Get up, find a cherished opinion , and ask yourself: "Why do I believe this?" Works for both science and politics.
This chanel is outstanding. Great addition to the existing palet of health- and diet tubers that is full of creeps likie "Dr Berg". There is so much contradictory info out there, that a (scientific) voice of reason is more than welcome.
It is the overall balance and most studies have not adequately controlled for the content and magnitude of the entire diet.
I was trained that PUFAs were good and saturated fats were bad, provided none were rancid.
As a physician, I rely heavily on the time and effort that physician-scientists like Dr. Carvalho put into this research. I have a heart health practice and it would be impossible for me to manage the patients in my practice and read all the appropriate studies he references. The point of healthy skepticism is incredibly important and reading competing articles on the same topic highlights that.
Logically, one should support health at every size, high-saturated fat diets, and may be even antivaxxers, but fight against the extremely-low-fat diet version of vegan diet. As you get older the h.a.e.s. , high-saturated fat, and antivaxxers disappear. This means more resources for the rest of us. However, the very-low-fat diet people tend to live average lifespan, but get sick more than average and they busy the health system.
Hi DrGilCarvalho, can you do a video about CarnivoreMD and his diet including so much meat and TMA/TMAO? Thank you! 🙏🏻
is that the fellow from Joe rogan? we made a 2 part react video couple years ago, search Rogan on the channel page
What ate your thoughts on oxalates?
I think there’s two camps in the keto community, and while both mean well, only one really bothers to look through the science and ensure that the keto lifestyle their suggesting is being done in accordance with what science is suggesting.
For instance, Thomas Delauer has recently made quite a few videos discussing the change to his views on saturated fat. He now only suggest that %20 of your total fat should come from saturated fat, even on a keto diet. Instead, one should focus on monounsaturated fat from fish, olive oil and avocado.
He's saying a ketogenic diet lowers aopB despite eating 3x more sat fats? Thoughts?
What about saturated fats that are low in Omega-6?
I've started to dial back - but I will persist with the things I really like - so changed full fat milk - to low fat for coffee , No spread for peanut butter or avocado on a toasted grain bread - hard cheese instead of butter on say homemade subway or toast ( or oil dressing )- greek yogurt with fruit - not cream for odd dessert - home made kefir on my oats , still have my 90% dark chocolate treat- olive oil instead of butter for few things I prefer to use butter with - or canola if want neutral taste- still keep eating nuts , seeds etc- Just remember exercise is number one life extender, and cutting up crack processed , highly refined junk - plus can ask Doctor for statin - I love healthy food - but also love cheese , dark chocolate , milk in coffee , dark chocolate - There is no guarantee all your good work with pay off - cancer , hit by a car , fall of a bike , dementia etc - Plus I think healthy enough - will get you to 90 plus if luck shines on you - Plus if I play in the waves for 2 hours with my family - that ice cream can be fine- even if filled with sugar , cream and emulsify crap - just get the kids a double scoop - and you a single to bond - plus smaller portions on those special occasions - apple pie and cream etc - ie a slight bump in saturated fat on one day - shouldn't be too dramatic on health - same for better eating - eating great one day a week won't do much - unless delicate stomach- Also plus Psyllium Husk to negate saturated fat at near same time
I ate toms of butter. Lipid panel shor up. Now doing Mediterranean diet. We dont need all that butter.
And this is why I love you!
_"Where there's always agreement, there's no growth. Where there's no challenge, there's no evolution. "_ - Unknown.
I can't help but feel that Gil is speaking more broadly than medicine and nutrition and that he is addressing the fact that so many Americans are prone to believe in conspiracies.
Hopefully you will realise that many reports of conspiracies were not unfounded.
I love porridge with butter. You would never spoil porridge with butter as people say.
Always great to see an intelligent DISCUSSION among people seeking truth/reality. I would just add: IMO one of the major reasons sat fat is SO emotional/controversial is that most SatFat is an ANIMAL Derived Food and most Non-Sat fat food that people commonly consume is PLANT Derived. So, this topic places Palios & OMNIVORS against Hard Core Anti-Animal food VEGANS... And you CAN'T get much more controversial than that....! -StayWell Everyone 😊
Gil, you are more believable than Brad because you do not have a line of supplements. Having said that i think brad is very sincere in that he is doing good by putting out the best supplements for the public.
Doctors, please read this JACC VOL. 76, NO. 7, 2020 Astrup et al.
AUGUST 18, 2020:844 - 5 7
hi Patrick. yes I went over that review back when it came out. inexplicably, it overlooks precisely some of the basic issues discussed in this video like replacement (meaning, depending what you replace the excess saturated fat with, you may or may not see a benefit)
covered in more detail in our older video (but if it's not clear we can cover this again in the future):czcams.com/video/6GM6ObTo30M/video.html
Unlike other YT videos, after watching a NMS video I always have more questions than answers....which is actually a good thing. Also, before heart disease and cancer exploded, what were ppl eating before? Were they eating a lot of saturated fats?
Good question. I believe they are lots of saturated fats!
@@naijaman6639 cancer and heart disease were still present thousands of years ago, but nowhere near today's levels. would interesting to know their diet back then and if it is replicable in today's world
@@Al-vw8qt None of us were around then, so it's hard to say with certainty. However, anecdotally, I have heard older people speak of how their parents fried everything in lard back in the day. They had less processed food, and generally, food wasn't readily available the way it is now. The rate of those conditions was definitely nowhere near what we have today. People are overeating, and most of what they eat is highly inflammatory. Add a sedentary lifestyle to the mix, and you have a recipe for disaster. It's not rocket science.
I don't understand why health is narrowed down to only cardiovascular disease in these videos and doesn't consider the many other aspects of health.
Somehow this is difficult to understand. The linked cochrane study says that there is "little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality ... or cardiovascular mortality ..., both with GRADE moderate‐quality evidence". Does that not imply that there are other things we should worry more about?
the trials weren't powered for mortality. very difficult to get a mortality differential over a few years unless the number of participants is massive or they're pretty old/sick to begin with
@@NutritionMadeSimple Thanks, yes that does make sense. However, should the authors then not have written that? I assume they do understand the difference between not enough evidence that there is an effect and evidence of little or no effect.
@@flemme4580 writing that the difference wasn't significant includes that possibility but it does create massive confusion especially among a lay audience, this is a FAQ... will definitely touch on this in the upcoming video
It is such strange time in history so few thoughts in the middle. Zero fats vs. All Fat, all meat vs. all vegetables, you must do this vs. it will kill you... such extremes on all topics..
Like our politics, there is a right and wrong based on scientific/mathematical facts.
That's human nature. it's extremist. Wants simple solutions to complex problems.
Don't be so sure about the tobacco, I saw a comment on a video once saying tobacco wasn't bad because this person had a relative live into their 90'seho smoked and it was all a conspiracy. There are some real idiots in this world!
glad to hear the struggle to explain anecdote vs risk factor to the public is not just me :)
The pic shows butter and yet no mention of it in the entire vid😂
"not assume the concensus is correct" ok.. so it's there that the flat earters fell off the boat ;). Haha, just kidding. Great interview and another addition to my subs with dr. Stanfield.