The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. ... In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Butter and cream twice as effective as statin


Relative risk reduction by 49%!

Conjugated linoleic acid in adipose tissue and risk of myocardial infarction


Results: Adipose tissue 9c,11t-CLA was associated with a lower risk of MI in basic and multivariate models. Compared with the lowest quintile, odds ratios and 95% CIs were 0.80 (0.61, 1.04) for the second, 0.86 (0.64, 1.14) for the third, 0.62 (0.46, 0.84) for the fourth, and 0.51 (0.36, 0.71) for the fifth quintiles (P for trend <0.0001). Dairy intake was not associated with risk of MI, despite a strong risk associated with saturated fat intake [*].

*) The last sentence is a bul..t of course.  There is no extra cardiac risk associated with saturated fat as many other studies such as this  this or this have shown.

(JC - thanks for the link)


Dr. B G said...

Beautiful post! That BUTTER looks so GOOD yum :)

LeenaS said...

Actually, Ann Baylin has studied this way all sorts of fats, and her comment on SFA is valid. Tissue SFA (which they measured) may come from industrial fats (with very low nutritient content) and/or liver-made fat (poured out in diet with too much fructose, starches and LA), combined with the nutritious natural SFA sources. And, because of the first two factors, tissue SFA often does correlate with heart problems.

So, CLA is a great marker differentiating between healthy and poor SFA sources. Maybe too good, since just about not other research groups tests it?

Btw, this same Baylin group analysed tissue trans fats a few years ago, and found then that the problem was overwhelmingly in the industrial TFA (elaidic acid) and not in the natural dairy transfats. Not surprisingly that study was not much hyped, either.

With regards,

Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi LeenaS,

Interesting. The fact that the industrial elaic transfat is harmful while natural dairy transfat (small percentage of butter fat) is not, is almost never spoken of.

It may be true that the tissue(*) SFA may or may not be an indication of a risk depending on the original source of it. However, I am wary of scientists publishing the half-truths. If something is sometimes associated with harm, sometimes with health and it is called body fat or cholesterol then they state the first half of the truth (harm). If that is about vegetables and fruit then they always speak the second half of the truth (health). Both half-truths are de-facto full lies.


*) Tissue SFA contents may be ambivalent but not dietary. Dietary SFA seems to be unequivocally healthy. I never came across a reputable study showing otherwise, except the one when they massively overfed human subjects.

LeenaS said...

Yep. There is lots of good, relevant data gathered, but one has to dig deep into it to find the real facts through all the half-truths.

Butterfat is not the only good fat on earth, but here it is the only decent fat freely available for normal customers. Furthermore, it is available in quite good quality, while all the other decent fats (lard, tallow, marrow bones) are next to impossible to find and even fatty meats are surprisingly scarce in normal supermarkets.

So, butter reigns here.

Stan (Heretic) said...

Butter is very good and we use a lot of it, but we also use cocout oil bought cheaply from Chineese supermarkets in Toronto, and we render our own pork lard out of pork bellies that we buy at a very good price (~2$/kg) from the local butcher (nobody else wants it!).

Also, it turns out that nuts are very healthy, partially because of very high fat contents. Many new studies have been published recently. Nuts are staging a massive dietary come back. Poor Dr. Ornish and McDougall... See the first 5 posts today by JC on the webmd. Several interesting links.

mark said...

Hey Stan.

"Compared with the lowest quintile, odds ratios and 95% CIs were 0.80 (0.61, 1.04) for the second, 0.86 (0.64, 1.14) for the third, 0.62 (0.46, 0.84) for the fourth, and 0.51 (0.36, 0.71) for the fifth quintiles (P for trend <0.0001)"

Doesn't this put a hole in the thinking that you either go high carb low fat or high fat low carb? What I'm referring to is the different glucose metabolism stuff JK has talked about.

The more CLA in the tissue, the better, regardless of carb intake. So there's no sweet spot and every progressive increase in CLA and dairy fat is just excellent.


Stan (Heretic) said...

Hi Mark,

It does seem to put a slight hole in that theory! If you look at "Tuoli" article it suggest the same think: that consuming natural starchy carbohydrates, even with 46% fat may be perhaps not as harmful as postulated by Kwasniewski. However, I would still advise caution. Kwasniewski has a knack of being right. We do not really know in what circumstances eating 35% carbs with 46% fat is not harmful and when it is. It may turn out that both mayy be true! We do not know whether carbs and fat are consumed by the same people! You may have a situation as with Masai when young warriors must consume exclusively dairy and blood while women and elderly may eat whatever they choose. There may be part of the populations in any of those studies that ate mostly fat and other that ate low fat high carb.

Secondly, any given individual may consume carbs either totally separately (for example day by day) or together in one meal. The effect could be (and probably is) totally different, see for example this hypothesis