Harvard PUFA Sat Fat Study

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by forterpride, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. forterpride

    forterpride Member

    Jun 7, 2013
    Hello friends. I have been preaching to my father lately about the importance of reducing PUFA intake...and he emailed me this study which I am dumbfounded by. How do I respond to him when he just smiles and tells me Ray Peat is radical? If someone could tell me in laments terms how to debunk these findings, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks guys!.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 211831.htm
  2. jaguar43

    jaguar43 Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    in the study citations 21 and 23 actually promote decreasing pufa for CHD.
  3. j.

    j. Guest

    The thing about convincing is hard. The strategy I use is telling people what I do if somebody asks, and mention the PUFA studies in rats accelerating their metabolism. And that that, added to my experiences with reducing PUFA, are enough for me to believe I should avoid PUFA.
  4. MrMoose63

    MrMoose63 Member

    Sep 15, 2012
    In my opinion meta analysis studies are BS. Within statistical parameters (confidence intervals) you can generally make the data fit what ever you want. Also it seems like many of these studies are correlating CHD with cholesterol levels when cholesterol levels may be a better indicator for hypothyroidism.
  5. Mittir

    Mittir Member

    Feb 20, 2013
    I read some of the stuff Harvard's Mozaffarian group been writing on fat and heart disease.
    I totally agree with what MrMooose said about meta-analysis. If they make any mistake they can always
    blame it on others. They ( Harvard and American Heart Association) are recommending not only PUFA but also omega-6 . There is good amount of evidence that omega 6 is inflammatory. But they are saying that it is wrong to say omega 6 is inflammatory. Because derivative of omega-6 can be anti-inflammatory too.They are right about it. But they are not providing any data on to how much of the omega-6 converts to anti-inflammatory path. Then they are saying that production of arachidonic acid is tightly controlled and it does not matter how much omega-6 we eat. But i have read tons of studies that shows excess omega-6 increases inflammatory marker. They also do not buy the ratio of omega6- omega 3 affecting inflammation. If someone goes by brand name of Harvard it is hard to disprove them. They claim only a handful of scientists are claiming omega 6 is inflammatory. I am in total shock.
    According to Ray Peat excess estrogen and serotonin promotes inflammatory pathway for omega-6
    Chris Masterjohn has written a good review of Harvard study showing their flaws.
    http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmast ... -old-days/

    Here is another study from 97 ,they did a review on same subject and found that low saturated fat diet does not promote heart health. They also criticized studies that claimed PUFA helps with heart disease.

    http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/con ... 8.full.pdf

    You can check omega-6 page on wikipedia, it got some good info on omega 6 promoting lots of other diseases.
    Most anti-inflammatory medicine blocks breakdown products of omega-6. Also check wiki page on pufa ratio and
    oxidation of PUFA.
    It is easier to convince someone to follow a very low fat diet with olive oil. This will minimize the exposure to PUFA.
    There is too much 'evidence" against animal fat to convince someone unless they are willing to spend a good amount of time reading scientific studies.
  6. Asimov

    Asimov Member

    Jan 19, 2013
    It's impossible to refute the study without looking at the methods.

    I mean, it was probably a lazy meta-analysis funded by someone from the grape seed oil industries. I always giggle when people think studies are irrefutable, profound science. I've spoken to many doctors who have told me, verbatim

    "If you conduct a study that doesn't come up with the result the backer wants, you'll never be paid to conduct another study by anyone for the rest of your career"

    Scientific jouranals and science daily specifically should be thought of more as a paid press release than actual objective analysis of data.
  7. Beebop

    Beebop Member

    Jan 27, 2013
    It's hard for people to get their heads around, that PUFA = bad. I think one of the things that turned people off SAFA was the idea that hard animal fats, solid at room temperature are clogging up arteries. I'm sure people develop a squeamish mental image of the evil hard fat inside their body, (even though of course at body temps all Sat fats are liquid, and beautifully stable.)

    I like Peat's stories about the farmers that tried to fatten pigs with coconut oil and made them leaner. Then used anti-thyroid drugs to make them fat (and ill/toxic), and later found that corn oil had the same effect.

    I tell people I care about: "coconut oil is amazing, protects your thyroid, and raises your metabolism, so it can help you lose weight". You can also explain how it's safer to fry with because it doesn't go rancid. Then I buy them some coconut oil.

    Just some thoughts, not related to your study issue. Good luck!

    p.s. for a good read on how scientific studies are manipulated read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre. Could be one for your dad.
  8. Gabriel

    Gabriel Member

    May 7, 2013
    That metaanalysis is one of the worst on the field. stick to the work by christopher ramsden instead.