How to respond to claims about saturated fats causing cvd

[Can]

Peat oftentimes spoke positively about saturated fats, yet the mainstream health sphere still promotes the idea that saturated fats, by raising cholesterol, are among the main causes for cardiovascular disease. I don't buy into that idea, and yet this subject matter is over my head. I asked a person under a Youtube video to provide evidence for his assertion that safas cause cvd, and he says that most of the scientific evidence invariably points to that conclusion. He talks about safas raising AboP and that being a major risk factor for cvd - it's basically the same schtick that keeps being regurgitated, but I just don't have the physiological knowledge to respond to it in details.

How can it be that people on opposite sides of the spectrum draw juxtaposed conclusions out of the same scientific data (saturated fats are a good, non-inflammatory source of energy vs saturated fats are damaging and cause sickness), while all the while claiming that the evidence obviously and overwhelmingly supports their own view? As someone who is not (yet) confident in reading and interpreting scientific studies myself, I have to rely on other people interpreting the data for me, and this makes it somewhat confusing and hard to look through at times.

I know this conversation has been happening for some time, but even on this forum there are conflicting stances on this matter (although most are not dogmatically anti-safa per se, some do have negative things to say about them). I'll post the most important bits of his comments, and would kindly ask for your opinions on the matter.


~~~ His comments: ~~~

"Which study doesn't show the same thing?? "Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel"

It's a statement of experts based on many studies. Read the abstract and you will understand what it means. Probably the most convincing studies that show the cause are the Mendelian randomization studies. Those are people that due to genetic reasons have high LDL (or ApoB) and they have often heart problems much earlier than normal people. So they might have similar heart disease at 20 than a person without that gene defect at 75. [...]

There are different types of saturated fat and the one in chocolate for example doesn't seem to be as bad or at all bad for health(typical chocolate is bad due to the added sugar and extra calories, not because of the type of saturated fat in it). The other types of saturated fat though are not great for health because with the combination of dietary cholesterol they raise the ApoB levels in blood that are at least one of the major factors in heart disease. If one has no cholesterol problems and low ApoB, saturated fat might not be an issue but for someone with high heart disease risk it might be a good idea to try to avoid it. [...]

Besides raising Apob(LDL) in combination with dietary cholesterol there seems to be some evidence that saturated fat could also cause insulin resistance at least in some groups of people and therefore be a risk in diabetes. One study about that for example: "A high-fat, high-saturated fat diet decreases insulin sensitivity without changing intra-abdominal fat in weight-stable overweight and obese adults"."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alternatively, are there resources and people talking about this in more detail? I know that some people respond to these claims of safas causing cvd by saying that they are basically nonsense and based on outdated models of the physiology of cholesterol, but that is somewhat superficial and I don't know anyone getting into the details of WHY it is nonsense. Is there like a person getting into the details of the argument and debunking it thoroughly, that you can recommend? It would help my understanding of the matter.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Similar issues arise with other „peaty“ topics.

Out of respect for Peat we might more accurately talk about „Ray Peat Forum“-knowledge to counter the mainstream, since Haidut and others substantially contributed to data and arguments or formulated coherent hypothesises.

I’ve often felt this Forum could use a section where guides are formulated for arguments with fictive mainstream proponents. Against Pufa. Against Serotonin and so forth… it’s been done many times here, but maybe it could use some simplification and summarizing at one place

 

[Can]

I’ve often felt this Forum could use a section where guides are formulated for arguments with fictive mainstream proponents. Against Pufa. Against Serotonin and so forth… it’s been done many times here, but maybe it could use some simplification and summarizing at one place

I really like that idea. A (fictional) dialogue mentioning all the most-often used talking points. I think we all have heard countless times how damaging pufas can be by Ray Peat and also in many, many different threads on this forum, but all of it is very dispersed. Having most of the (mainstream) talking points and good responses to them collected in one single place would be such an immensely useful tool for someone talking to people using these arguments in an actual conversation.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

I really like that idea. A (fictional) dialogue mentioning all the best and most-often used talking points from both sides. I think we all have heard countless times how damaging pufas can be by Ray Peat and also in many, many different threads on this forum, but all of that is vastly dispersed. Having all the mainstream talking points and good responses to them collected in *one* single place would be such an immensely tool for someone talking to people with differing opinions in an actual conversation. Like a guide, guiding one through the different arguments and their weaknesses or strengths

Exactly.

 

[cremes]

I usually point them to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology which put out a massive review 2+ years ago essentially debunking all of the saturated fat nonsense. It turns out saturated fat is correlated with CVD but not causative. Think of it this way... every time there's a fire in your local town the fire department shows up. They are correlated with fires. Is the fire department causing those fires? Clearly not.

Second, the European Journal of Preventative Cardiology did a similar study this past year. They too found that saturated fat is not to blame.

Feel free to read the abstracts and some of the details from those articles.

The whole reason saturated fat was blamed early on was due to guessing by the early researchers into CVD. Saturated fat as a cause was their hypothesis. It was never actually proven, but a lie repeated often enough becomes fact, right?

Anyway, it will be years yet before the American Heart Association and other big organizations change their recommendations. This information has been out there for years already and the AMA's dietary recommendations are still stuck on stupid.

 

[Elie]

Peat oftentimes spoke positively about saturated fats, yet the mainstream health sphere still promotes the idea that saturated fats, by raising cholesterol, are among the main causes for cardiovascular disease. I don't buy into that idea, and yet this subject matter is over my head. I asked a person under a Youtube video to provide evidence for his assertion that safas cause cvd, and he says that most of the scientific evidence invariably points to that conclusion. He talks about safas raising AboP and that being a major risk factor for cvd - it's basically the same schtick that keeps being regurgitated, but I just don't have the physiological knowledge to respond to it in details.

How can it be that people on opposite sides of the spectrum draw juxtaposed conclusions out of the same scientific data (saturated fats are a good, non-inflammatory source of energy vs saturated fats are damaging and cause sickness), while all the while claiming that the evidence obviously and overwhelmingly supports their own view? As someone who is not (yet) confident in reading and interpreting scientific studies myself, I have to rely on other people interpreting the data for me, and this makes it somewhat confusing and hard to look through at times.

I know this conversation has been happening for some time, but even on this forum there are conflicting stances on this matter (although most are not dogmatically anti-safa per se, some do have negative things to say about them). I'll post the most important bits of his comments, and would kindly ask for your opinions on the matter.


~~~ His comments: ~~~

"Which study doesn't show the same thing?? "Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel"

It's a statement of experts based on many studies. Read the abstract and you will understand what it means. Probably the most convincing studies that show the cause are the Mendelian randomization studies. Those are people that due to genetic reasons have high LDL (or ApoB) and they have often heart problems much earlier than normal people. So they might have similar heart disease at 20 than a person without that gene defect at 75. [...]

There are different types of saturated fat and the one in chocolate for example doesn't seem to be as bad or at all bad for health(typical chocolate is bad due to the added sugar and extra calories, not because of the type of saturated fat in it). The other types of saturated fat though are not great for health because with the combination of dietary cholesterol they raise the ApoB levels in blood that are at least one of the major factors in heart disease. If one has no cholesterol problems and low ApoB, saturated fat might not be an issue but for someone with high heart disease risk it might be a good idea to try to avoid it. [...]

Besides raising Apob(LDL) in combination with dietary cholesterol there seems to be some evidence that saturated fat could also cause insulin resistance at least in some groups of people and therefore be a risk in diabetes. One study about that for example: "A high-fat, high-saturated fat diet decreases insulin sensitivity without changing intra-abdominal fat in weight-stable overweight and obese adults"."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alternatively, are there resources and people talking about this in more detail? I know that some people respond to these claims of safas causing cvd by saying that they are basically nonsense and based on outdated models of the physiology of cholesterol, but that is somewhat superficial and I don't know anyone getting into the details of WHY it is nonsense. Is there like a person getting into the details of the argument and debunking it thoroughly, that you can recommend? It would help my understanding of the matter.

Several studies that tested "saturated" fats also included transfers in that category.
Chris masterjohn P.hD has an old video exploring a number of studies.

 

[GreekDemiGod]

There is strong evidence that higher the LDL, higher the risk of CVD. But since LDL and hypothyroidism are associated...

 

[Apple]

I think it is better to not respond to those claims.
Outside of Peat circle, most people will think you are intentionally trying to kill them or yourself.
Same with salt and sugar.
The idea of hypothyroidism won't ring any bells for the majority and without that your claims will sound ludicrous .
Without adopting Peating ... they won't have any context what this is all about

 

[cremes]

BTW, this isn't necessarily related to saturated fat, but here's another interesting detail. In your favorite search engine, plug in "ldl cholesterol u-shaped graph" and what you will find is that very low LDL or very high LDL are associated with higher mortality. But there's a sweet spot in the middle. I'd have to search again to confirm, but my recollection is that between 200 and 240 ng/dl is that sweet spot. BTW, that might be for total cholesterol and not LDL specifically, but those numbers are all usually closely related.

Interestingly, all-cause mortality rises *faster* at the low end of the cholesterol curve. Low LDL is associated with cancer.

Have fun looking into this. By the end, you won't really be afraid of cholesterol anymore.

 

[Zellig Pliskin]

Peat oftentimes spoke positively about saturated fats, yet the mainstream health sphere still promotes the idea that saturated fats, by raising cholesterol, are among the main causes for cardiovascular disease. I don't buy into that idea, and yet this subject matter is over my head. I asked a person under a Youtube video to provide evidence for his assertion that safas cause cvd, and he says that most of the scientific evidence invariably points to that conclusion. He talks about safas raising AboP and that being a major risk factor for cvd - it's basically the same schtick that keeps being regurgitated, but I just don't have the physiological knowledge to respond to it in details.

How can it be that people on opposite sides of the spectrum draw juxtaposed conclusions out of the same scientific data (saturated fats are a good, non-inflammatory source of energy vs saturated fats are damaging and cause sickness), while all the while claiming that the evidence obviously and overwhelmingly supports their own view? As someone who is not (yet) confident in reading and interpreting scientific studies myself, I have to rely on other people interpreting the data for me, and this makes it somewhat confusing and hard to look through at times.

I know this conversation has been happening for some time, but even on this forum there are conflicting stances on this matter (although most are not dogmatically anti-safa per se, some do have negative things to say about them). I'll post the most important bits of his comments, and would kindly ask for your opinions on the matter.


~~~ His comments: ~~~

"Which study doesn't show the same thing?? "Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel"

It's a statement of experts based on many studies. Read the abstract and you will understand what it means. Probably the most convincing studies that show the cause are the Mendelian randomization studies. Those are people that due to genetic reasons have high LDL (or ApoB) and they have often heart problems much earlier than normal people. So they might have similar heart disease at 20 than a person without that gene defect at 75. [...]

There are different types of saturated fat and the one in chocolate for example doesn't seem to be as bad or at all bad for health(typical chocolate is bad due to the added sugar and extra calories, not because of the type of saturated fat in it). The other types of saturated fat though are not great for health because with the combination of dietary cholesterol they raise the ApoB levels in blood that are at least one of the major factors in heart disease. If one has no cholesterol problems and low ApoB, saturated fat might not be an issue but for someone with high heart disease risk it might be a good idea to try to avoid it. [...]

Besides raising Apob(LDL) in combination with dietary cholesterol there seems to be some evidence that saturated fat could also cause insulin resistance at least in some groups of people and therefore be a risk in diabetes. One study about that for example: "A high-fat, high-saturated fat diet decreases insulin sensitivity without changing intra-abdominal fat in weight-stable overweight and obese adults"."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alternatively, are there resources and people talking about this in more detail? I know that some people respond to these claims of safas causing cvd by saying that they are basically nonsense and based on outdated models of the physiology of cholesterol, but that is somewhat superficial and I don't know anyone getting into the details of WHY it is nonsense. Is there like a person getting into the details of the argument and debunking it thoroughly, that you can recommend? It would help my understanding of the matter.

The best and easiest response is to go on Wikipedia and show them “The French Paradox” and then “The Israeli Paradox”

 

[EustaceBagge]

Similar issues arise with other „peaty“ topics.

Out of respect for Peat we might more accurately talk about „Ray Peat Forum“-knowledge to counter the mainstream, since Haidut and others substantially contributed to data and arguments or formulated coherent hypothesises.

I’ve often felt this Forum could use a section where guides are formulated for arguments with fictive mainstream proponents. Against Pufa. Against Serotonin and so forth… it’s been done many times here, but maybe it could use some simplification and summarizing at one place

That is such a good idea. A sticky or FAQ section.

The best and easiest response is to go on Wikipedia and show them “The French Paradox” and then “The Israeli Paradox”

I saw in a certain vegan video (
View: https://youtu.be/DgwshhRsJPE?t=709
) that claimed the French paradox was a bunk study somehow. It forgets to mention the Israeli paradox but yeah. I made it a point in my life to always expect a counterargument no matter how bad the statement one is trying to protect. It is more a matter of intention really and how many people are vegan because they think it is scientifically good vs moral highground?

 

[Elie]

See if this is helpful:
"For decades the public has been misled to believe that the PUFA seed oils are protective against heart disease and that they promote health. This idea served the commercial food industry and the seed oil companies, who, in the early part of the twentieth century started replacing the traditional animal fats used to cook and fry food with the cheaper-to- manufacture seed oils. Studies that were funded by huge seed oil companieshttps://raypeatforum.com/community/#_edn1 and studies that were poorly done[ii] showed that seed oil based omega six oils were the best thing you could consume for your heart. These studies often claimed to compare the impact on health of saturated fat versus PUFA. Yet the saturated fat sources that many of these studies analyzed often included the undisclosed presence of the highly unhealthy trans fats. When you lump saturated fat and harmful trans fat into a single category labeled “saturated fat”, it is easy to produce harmful effects on cardiovascular health.[iii] On the other hand, other well designed, impartial studies, including large scientific reviews, showed that replacing the combined group of saturated fat and trans fats with omega six PUFA increased the risk of CVD by 13%! Note that even when the harmful trans fats were lumped together with saturated fat, omega six PUFA still fared worse.

This increased risk for CVD was reduced by 22% when the omega six PUFA oils were combined with omega three PUFA oils.[iv]

It is interesting that when in one study the oil / fat content of arterial plaque was examined, most of it consisted of omega six PUFA, which comes predominately from those so called “healthy” seed based “vegetable” oils. Incidentally, only 26% of the fat in the plaque was in the form of saturated fat.[v]

When PUFA provide more than 4% of our caloric daily intake (simply put, when consumed excessively as they have been for many decades now in the West), they promote inflammation and the onset of CVD, as well as diabetes, cancer and other diseases.[vi], [vii], [viii], [ix]"

---

https://raypeatforum.com/community/#_ednref1 Williams S. Harris et al. AHA Science Advisory, “Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease”. Circulation. 2009; 119: 902-907
[ii] Mozaffarian D, Micha R, Wallace S (2010) “Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”. PLoS Med 7(3)
[iii] Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review, Stephan Guyenet, Whole Health Source. Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review Dec 2 2010. Date of retrieval Jan 13, 2013
[iv] Christopher E. Ramsden.” n-6 Fatty acid-specific and mixed polyunsaturate dietary interventions have different effects on CHD risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials”. British Journal of Nutrition (2010), 104, 1586–1600. doi:10.1017/S0007114510004010
[v] Felton, C V, et al, Lancet, 1994, 344:1195
[vi] Stephan Guynet. Eicosanoids and Ischemic Heart Disease, Part II. Whole health Source. May 27 2009. Date of retrieval Dec 31 2012. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.c...ischemic-heart-diseas.html#uds-search-results
[vii] Lands WE, “Biochemistry and physiology of n-3 fatty acids”. FASEB J. 1992 May;6(8):2530-6.
[viii] J. Girard, "Role of free fatty acids in insulin resistance of subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes," Diabetes Metab. 21(2), 79-88,1995
[ix] Halade GV. “High fat diet-induced animal model of age-associated obesity and osteoporosis”. J Nutr Biochem. 2010 Dec;21(12):1162-9

 

[GreekDemiGod]

See if this is helpful:
"For decades the public has been misled to believe that the PUFA seed oils are protective against heart disease and that they promote health. This idea served the commercial food industry and the seed oil companies, who, in the early part of the twentieth century started replacing the traditional animal fats used to cook and fry food with the cheaper-to- manufacture seed oils. Studies that were funded by huge seed oil companiesRay Peat Forum and studies that were poorly done[ii] showed that seed oil based omega six oils were the best thing you could consume for your heart. These studies often claimed to compare the impact on health of saturated fat versus PUFA. Yet the saturated fat sources that many of these studies analyzed often included the undisclosed presence of the highly unhealthy trans fats. When you lump saturated fat and harmful trans fat into a single category labeled “saturated fat”, it is easy to produce harmful effects on cardiovascular health.[iii] On the other hand, other well designed, impartial studies, including large scientific reviews, showed that replacing the combined group of saturated fat and trans fats with omega six PUFA increased the risk of CVD by 13%! Note that even when the harmful trans fats were lumped together with saturated fat, omega six PUFA still fared worse.

This increased risk for CVD was reduced by 22% when the omega six PUFA oils were combined with omega three PUFA oils.[iv]

It is interesting that when in one study the oil / fat content of arterial plaque was examined, most of it consisted of omega six PUFA, which comes predominately from those so called “healthy” seed based “vegetable” oils. Incidentally, only 26% of the fat in the plaque was in the form of saturated fat.[v]

When PUFA provide more than 4% of our caloric daily intake (simply put, when consumed excessively as they have been for many decades now in the West), they promote inflammation and the onset of CVD, as well as diabetes, cancer and other diseases.[vi], [vii], [viii], [ix]"

---

Ray Peat Forum Williams S. Harris et al. AHA Science Advisory, “Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease”. Circulation. 2009; 119: 902-907
[ii] Mozaffarian D, Micha R, Wallace S (2010) “Effects on Coronary Heart Disease of Increasing Polyunsaturated Fat in Place of Saturated Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”. PLoS Med 7(3)
[iii] Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review, Stephan Guyenet, Whole Health Source. Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review Dec 2 2010. Date of retrieval Jan 13, 2013
[iv] Christopher E. Ramsden.” n-6 Fatty acid-specific and mixed polyunsaturate dietary interventions have different effects on CHD risk: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials”. British Journal of Nutrition (2010), 104, 1586–1600. doi:10.1017/S0007114510004010
[v] Felton, C V, et al, Lancet, 1994, 344:1195
[vi] Stephan Guynet. Eicosanoids and Ischemic Heart Disease, Part II. Whole health Source. May 27 2009. Date of retrieval Dec 31 2012. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.c...ischemic-heart-diseas.html#uds-search-results
[vii] Lands WE, “Biochemistry and physiology of n-3 fatty acids”. FASEB J. 1992 May;6(8):2530-6.
[viii] J. Girard, "Role of free fatty acids in insulin resistance of subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes," Diabetes Metab. 21(2), 79-88,1995
[ix] Halade GV. “High fat diet-induced animal model of age-associated obesity and osteoporosis”. J Nutr Biochem. 2010 Dec;21(12):1162-9

What are you even talking about, it's not just "studies", it's several meta-analysis papers, mendelian randomization, highest level of clinical evidence showing that LDL is bad.

 

[haidut]

Peat oftentimes spoke positively about saturated fats, yet the mainstream health sphere still promotes the idea that saturated fats, by raising cholesterol, are among the main causes for cardiovascular disease. I don't buy into that idea, and yet this subject matter is over my head. I asked a person under a Youtube video to provide evidence for his assertion that safas cause cvd, and he says that most of the scientific evidence invariably points to that conclusion. He talks about safas raising AboP and that being a major risk factor for cvd - it's basically the same schtick that keeps being regurgitated, but I just don't have the physiological knowledge to respond to it in details.

How can it be that people on opposite sides of the spectrum draw juxtaposed conclusions out of the same scientific data (saturated fats are a good, non-inflammatory source of energy vs saturated fats are damaging and cause sickness), while all the while claiming that the evidence obviously and overwhelmingly supports their own view? As someone who is not (yet) confident in reading and interpreting scientific studies myself, I have to rely on other people interpreting the data for me, and this makes it somewhat confusing and hard to look through at times.

I know this conversation has been happening for some time, but even on this forum there are conflicting stances on this matter (although most are not dogmatically anti-safa per se, some do have negative things to say about them). I'll post the most important bits of his comments, and would kindly ask for your opinions on the matter.


~~~ His comments: ~~~

"Which study doesn't show the same thing?? "Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel"

It's a statement of experts based on many studies. Read the abstract and you will understand what it means. Probably the most convincing studies that show the cause are the Mendelian randomization studies. Those are people that due to genetic reasons have high LDL (or ApoB) and they have often heart problems much earlier than normal people. So they might have similar heart disease at 20 than a person without that gene defect at 75. [...]

There are different types of saturated fat and the one in chocolate for example doesn't seem to be as bad or at all bad for health(typical chocolate is bad due to the added sugar and extra calories, not because of the type of saturated fat in it). The other types of saturated fat though are not great for health because with the combination of dietary cholesterol they raise the ApoB levels in blood that are at least one of the major factors in heart disease. If one has no cholesterol problems and low ApoB, saturated fat might not be an issue but for someone with high heart disease risk it might be a good idea to try to avoid it. [...]

Besides raising Apob(LDL) in combination with dietary cholesterol there seems to be some evidence that saturated fat could also cause insulin resistance at least in some groups of people and therefore be a risk in diabetes. One study about that for example: "A high-fat, high-saturated fat diet decreases insulin sensitivity without changing intra-abdominal fat in weight-stable overweight and obese adults"."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alternatively, are there resources and people talking about this in more detail? I know that some people respond to these claims of safas causing cvd by saying that they are basically nonsense and based on outdated models of the physiology of cholesterol, but that is somewhat superficial and I don't know anyone getting into the details of WHY it is nonsense. Is there like a person getting into the details of the argument and debunking it thoroughly, that you can recommend? It would help my understanding of the matter.

There is no need to create a separate Wiki for responding to arguments SFA is bad. This can clutter the forum as there are countless "arguments" mainstream medicine can try to raise to get you to do the legwork trying to prove something to them, when they should be the ones trying to prove their point to you. They can ask for evidence on saturated fat and topics such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune conditions, arthritis, infertility, aging, infection disease, and so on and so on. There is no limit on that number of arguments they can raise and creating a separate Wiki on all such topics is pointless, a gargantuan task, and creates unneeded complexity on the forum. Remember the saying "most people will only agree with you if they already agree with you" - i.e. most hardcore opponents of saturated fats will NOT be swayed by your arguments, no matter how relevant and how well they are backed by evidence, and are most likely simply trying to waste your time and/or demoralize you.
So, what you can do is use the forum "tag" system to get a list of threads on saturated fat and just copy the links that are relevant to topic - in this case CVD. There are probably hundreds of such threads/studies on this topic alone. The titles of most threads suggest what the thread is about.

sfa

raypeatforum.com

You can also look at the tag on "cvd" and get the studies there that mention saturated fats.

cvd

raypeatforum.com

 

[EustaceBagge]

There is no need to create a separate Wiki for responding to arguments SFA is bad. This can clutter the forum as there are countless "arguments" mainstream medicine can try to raise to get you to do the legwork trying to prove something to them, when they should be the ones trying to prove their point to you. They can ask for evidence on saturated fat and topics such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune conditions, arthritis, infertility, aging, infection disease, and so on and so on. There is no limit on that number of arguments they can raise and creating a separate Wiki on all such topics is pointless, a gargantuan task, and creates unneeded complexity on the forum. Remember the saying "most people will only agree with you if they already agree with you" - i.e. most hardcore opponents of saturated fats will NOT be swayed by your arguments, no matter how relevant and how well they are backed by evidence, and are most likely simply trying to waste your time and/or demoralize you.
So, what you can do is use the forum "tag" system to get a list of threads on saturated fat and just copy the links that are relevant to topic - in this case CVD. There are probably hundreds of such threads/studies on this topic alone. The titles of most threads suggest what the thread is about.

sfa

raypeatforum.com

You can also look at the tag on "cvd" and get the studies there that mention saturated fats.

cvd

raypeatforum.com

I agree. Most people will not believe that seed oils are the ones causing harm. Especially the vegan crowd.

I just wonder how long it will take for mainstream science to accept this fact... If I go to a doctor today they will still tell me saturated fats and cholesterol are bad and omega 3's are good.

 

[Mito]

Saturated fats: do they cause heart disease? — The Nutrition Coalition

www.nutritioncoalition.us

 

[schmolch]

Everything cold - both animals and plants - has more unsaturated fats.
Everything warm - both animals and plants - has more saturated fats.

For the same consistency at different temperatures the mixture of saturated to unsaturated needs to be adjusted.
A cold fish has more unsaturated fats or otherwise he'd be stiff.

But most of the time i'll just curse.

 

[Elie]

Everything cold - both animals and plants - has more unsaturated fats.
Everything warm - both animals and plants - has more saturated fats.

For the same consistency at different temperatures the mixture of saturated to unsaturated needs to be adjusted.
A cold fish has more unsaturated fats or otherwise he'd be stiff.

But most of the time i'll just curse.

Good one. One of my favorite explanations. It's simple to understand.

 

[GreekDemiGod]

This is really interesting. Must be a reason he is successful on the diet, he is part of the few lucky ones with low LDL on Carnivore diet.


View: https://twitter.com/sbakermd/status/1606458681625055232?s=46&t=06UXAvWf1VAboU0EitXo9A

 

[Apple]

This is really interesting. Must be a reason he is successful on the diet, he is part of the few lucky ones with low LDL on Carnivore diet.


View: https://twitter.com/sbakermd/status/1606458681625055232?s=46&t=06UXAvWf1VAboU0EitXo9A

Really?
What Does Shawn Baker Eat? On an episode of Biohackers Lab Shawn Baker reported that he eats about two kilos of meat per day. “Meat” for Dr. Baker means mostly red meat like steak and lamb, supplemented with pork, eggs, seafood, poultry, full fat dairy, and organ meats.