I think you forgot the link.
Here's something I found. According to the link below, looking at the evidence from large studies, butter isn't that good for cardiovascular health. And also the much mentioned connection of omega-6 with inflammation has no basis in scientific research. I think the guy in question who wrote the article is fairly level-headed and reasonable author and has a neutral and scientific point of view so looking at the available evidence I should maybe reconsider my pro-butter stance. Thoughts?
I think you forgot the link.
His points....and what I think....
Point one: Times have changed and these oils (margarine and such) arent the same as they use to be. OK. Fair point. But this only shows that what we have now isn't quite as bad as what we had then. Not really sure what this proves. Straw man if you ask me as not all probutter argument is based ONLY on these older trials.
Point two: He states an O3 and O6 meta-analysis trial shows reduced cardiovascular risk. Do I have to point out that "meta-analysis" many times just means "we included studies to support our per-conceived notions and excluded data that would refute it". Now I'm not sure the criteria here, but it happens quite frequently, so I'd suggest you check into that. In addition what about all cause mortality? Do I lower my risk of cardiovascular disease by 21% just to increase my risk of cancer by 35% with the extra PUFA?
Point three: The Sydney Heart study has limitations....this randomized study shows increased CVD risk with vegetable oils and margarine. He claims the LA was too high in this study. 15% (in trial) vs like 7% (average American). Seems like a legit concern, however I wonder at its implication. If America was to totally switch from the use of saturated fats to ALL margarine and vegetable oil wouldn't that bring our average up to 15%? Isn't that what people who are recommending vegetable oils and margarine are leading us toward?
Part four: Use of olive oil, margarine, and soy oil alone or in mulifactoral intervention have reduced risk of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality.....wow do I even have to point out how useless that statement is? Toooooo many variables. Multifactoral ones prove nothing, nobody is actually arguing against olive oil, there is no smoking gun in any of these in regards to butter, and we are still stuck only analyzing CVD with no data on all cause mortality!
Ok so I've made it to page 30 out of 47 and to point five. I may come back to this, but probably not. I'm not really seeing anything I didn't know here. I am seeing that this slide pointedly ignores all opposing data though.
This is a good example of how cherry-picking and skewing can lead you to whatever conclusion you like. It is well known that pufas provoke an inflammatory response. Publications - Selected Bibliography
As for omega3 supplements having no effect...probably don't.... which is why you need to eat fish rather than some rancid tablet derived form their long dead corpses. All omega 3 pufas are not created equal.
As for margarine having less trans fats and vegetable oils altered state since the 70s; did he look at the composition of these oils after heating? They are stable at low temps but significantly altered at higher temps found in cooking. I won't be going for some fries at McDonald's until someone comes up with something a little more rigorous than this.
Man seeks to change the foods available in nature to suit his tastes, thereby putting an end to the very essence of life contained in them.
If you don't want it, can I have your butter? Thanks!
I approach the question of butter vs margarine from an ignorant peasant's POV......... if it's something I can make in my own kitchen then I trust that it's okay to eat. I will always distrust a product that has to be produced in a factory. No study is going to change my mind.
Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.
Of the total of 4 randomized controlled trials out there that have substituted saturated fat for vegetable oils; there has been a nonsignificant increased risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction, and an increased risk that has statistical significance for all cause mortality when vegetable oils were substituted for saturated fat sources.
When checking for citations in that link, the sources don't provide correlations between saturated fat and CHD. Multifactorial trials feature uncontrolled non-dietary variables and huge methodological shortcomings. If anything, when checking the facts, there is an inverse relationship between saturated fat intake and CHD.
The Sydney heart trial had no differentiation between specific PUFA. When the PUFA was stratified into n-6 and n-3/n-6, the former nonsignificantly increased the risk of CHD death and the risk of death from all causes to statistical significance. This shows that one was opposing the other.
All in all, this is just the dying breath of 5 decades worth of junk science.
Last edited by Derpamix; 12-16-2013 at 04:36 PM.
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.