I'll go ahead and say this now so I can avoid answering the same question over and over: This is a look at the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, not the 7 Countries Study. I haven't looked at the 7 Countries Study. This is an analysis of this study and the conclusions do not extend beyond this study. If you still feel Dr. Keys is a liar and a fraud, that's fine - I'm only here to point out some major issues with this singular, influential study so you can hear something other than the one sided explanations offered by some popular contrarians. Thanks for watching.
Ancel Keys did also the 7 countries study en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study Also with a lot of mistakes in it. But the worst mistake is the cherry picking of the countries: He left out France that had a great amount of people who ate butter (saturated fat) and lived as long as the Italians who use olive oil (mono unsaturated fat). Besides: please never say that the majority of scientists are correct because science is not democratic! If so we would still believe the earth is the center of our solar system.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist "There was also criticism before the study began: Yerushalmy and Hilleboe pointed out that Keys had selected for the study the countries that would give him the results he wanted, while leaving out data from sixteen countries that would not" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis
@@WilBremersI'd like to hear Nic's take on the French paradox. Still, officially the discrepancy between the French data and the rest has been explained by the fact French doctors underreported cases of heart disease. Once that is accounted for France falls back in line, they die from chd as much as they should. Dr Greger did a video about this a few years ago. Look it up.
We know what we should be eating. The only place this is debated is weird internet circles. Diets with large amounts of minimally processed plants in great variety. No difference between a vegan diet and a diet with a little meat. Limited saturated fat. That's basically it.
We believe what we are told over and over and over by big corporations with money to burn on propaganda. If you want to be healthy remove as much as you can the processed foods (seed oils and things made with pure sugar and bleached refined flour are prime examples) and food-like products from your life. These things didn't really exist until the industrial age. Oh, and try to avoid eating things that have been sprayed with pesticides and herbicides.
If you can get up out of your hospital bed to go to the smoking area, you probably have a better prognosis. And the very elderly tend to thin out before they die. Having a higher BMI is associated with better outcomes.
There are many confounders. High BMI appears healthy in the elderly because a proportion of those who are quickly losing weight do so because they have cancer or are so unwell they don't want to eat. Some others because they are losing muscle and becoming frail. This doesn't mean that losing body fat through dietary changes will harm the elderly, it just means that there are terrible diseases that can cause their weight to drop. Health science is so chock full of confounders that it is a wonder anyone knows anything about anything.
Actually there is a correlation between smoking and PUFAs. Take PUFAs out of the diet and health issues from smoking seem to go away. This has been studied in native populations that smoke but don't eat processed foods. My take... PUFAs are poison and more is worse.
When industry experiments to find uses for every resource, it is not far fetched to consider the possibility of a paid outcome. Byproducts become products and require a Market. If it can be built, chemically induced or grown, it is a value to Business, Economy, and people. Seed oils have been used for fuel, lubrication, etc... for a long time. To create a Market in the Human Diet is incredibly lucrative. Suddenly, a byproduct of Cotton production becomes a money maker. It is correct to be skeptical about anyones studies. Everyone has a price.
As soon as you described the study design, red flags were waving all over the place for me. Control what 10,000 mental hospital patients eat? Sure. What could be easier? Having worked in such hospitals during that time period, i can say without a doubt that the hospitals generally provided poor-quality, poorly cooked meals which patients supplemented by buying supplies at local shops. Most patients were not locked in so they could easily acquire food from other sources. They often went home on 'leave', and visitors brought them chocolates. Oh - and almost all of them smoked like chimneys.
I recall that series of dumb questions by lawyers when one young lawyer asked the doctor on the stand if the victim was deceased at the time of the autopsy. The doctor replied, "Well he certainly was by the time I'd finished with him."
Before discovery of the buried data, the study was often cited (by AHA for example) as supporting risk of saturated fat. Critics pointed out some of the issues (attrition, for example). And the many failures to show risk are well-known. In this business, you have to assume that research is honest unless you find examples like this. One of the researchers admitted that they buried the data because it was “disappointing.” The real question you are raising is why they didn’t bury the whole study. Nutritional epidemiology, in any case, has given us virtually no testable information.
Great sleuthing. the design of the trial was ground-breaking (massive scale, and inpatients meant full dietary control). tragically, the results became a monumental mess due to both the attrition you mentioned (nation wide policies changed and patients were discharged) and the trans fats issue the authors couldn't have anticipated without a crystal ball :) follow up was projected to exceed 3 years but averaged 13months in the end... many subjects also stayed at the hospital temporarily, sometimes leaving and coming back later, making results uninterpretable at the end of the day science hinges on reproducibility. 15 trials have addressed this question of saturated fats and CVD, and the full picture tells a very different story from just Minnesota & Sydney in a vacuum :)
@@ThingsYoudontwanttohear the short answer is that modern guidelines and understanding don´t depend on it since we have much stronger evidence that has accrued in the meantime
@@Nicksonian Gil chooses what and who he wants to believe. The countries in Europe with highest satfat consumption have the lowest chd. France Switzerland and Spain. This finding is consistent down the years.
Bankers do this to me ALL the time too. I DON'T SPEAK 'BANKER". All I hear in this is FAT and all I know is every Chef on this planet defines that as FLAVOUR! Poly-fat, Low-fat, High-fat, tri-fat, non-fat, saturated-fat, unsaturated-fat, non-unsaturated-fat, vaseline, and how many others are there? WTF....just tell me to eat butter and olive oil. DONE! As of now, I have NO clue up or down, side to side, front to back. I am sick and tired of having to read the ingredients on labels, it should be.....if it's good for you, it's in there..... if not take it out! Any company putting bad stuff in food, put the CEO in jail TODAY! F......
Good explanations - heard whispers about this study for awhile. One observation - to the best of my knowledge no one was analyzing trans fat issues until 30 years after this study and Harvard guys doing epidemiology noticed it.
I was going to make the same comment. The shelving ove the data couldnt have had to do with trans fat as that wasnt even thought about at the time. I think if you look around your local walmart the evidence for saturated fat being benign and pufa/high carb being unhealthy is self evident though. No new Keyes data necessary.
Scientists began suspecting that trans fats might have adverse health effects as early as the 1950s and 1960s. During this time, researchers began to notice correlations between fat consumption and heart disease rates. However, it wasn't clear at this point that trans fats were specifically problematic. Keys, A., Anderson, J.T., & Grande, F. (1956). Serum cholesterol response to changes in dietary lipids. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 5(2), 175-181. :
@@Primetime_dadsAll transfats are unsaturated, usually polyunsaturated. Polyunsaturated fats are a problem in themselves; they easily oxidize and form dangerous compounds like 4-HNE. If you take the oil out of seed and put it in a bottle it will kind of keep under protective atmosphere and with antioxidants but as soon as you open it it will start to degrade. Double bonds don't rotate freely. This means they can get "stuck" in two rotations that are called cis and trans. Cis bonds are on the same side and trans bonds are on the opposite sides; the cis-bond bends the molecule and the transbonds straighten it. Takes heat to get over the energy barrier from cis to trans. There is an energy distribution of individual molecules even if they are at a constant temperature; the temperature is just determined by the average energy; the tail end of that distribution will have enough energy to flip bonds from cis to trans. This is insignificant at room temperature, but unless you're making a mayonaise you're heating the oil and this means you *will* make transfats right in your frying pan. If you're getting your PUFAs from a bottle and cooking with them instead of eating raw seeds or nuts or eating fish it inherently means dangerous lipid peroxidation products and trans fats. If you eat large amounts of PUFAs they will accumulate in your fatty tissues and the lipid peroxidation that occurs quickly in your frying pan will continue slowly inside your body and make the same kinds of toxic substances. It will likely not be possible to disentangle what harm is caused by PUFAs inherently from what harm is caused by linoleic acid specifically and what harm is caused by how they are used. Nearly every processed food is cheap starch (e.g. corn), sugar (e.g. HFCS) and seed oils and most of them are heated or stored long enough to oxidize signficantly. If you want to study the effect of linoleic acid in the diet without the effects of processing you'd need to look at something like an uncontacted tribe that eats nuts in a jungle somewhere and even then you'll need a control group of a similar tribe that doesn't eat nuts and control for whatever else they eat instead. That's just never going to happen.
Many years ago Dr. Lindsay Jack Kirkham proposed that the decline in coronary heart disease from the early part of the 19th century to the later part was highly correlated with the introduction of antibiotic use in modern meat processing. His hypothesis was that heart disease is caused by some sort of infection and that the low doses of antibiotics we consume from meat combats that infectious process. So along with the other confounding factors, we must consider that animal fats vs. plant based fats is not a simple comparison as these fats and the foods associated with them are not pure.
Interesting as usual, but concerning the absolution you gave to Keys and his sidekicks I'll add some comments and ask some questions. You said that 83% of the participants were lost throughout. There were 10000 participants to this double-blind RCT so even if 83% of them couldn't make it to the end of the trial it's still a reasonable number of 1700 participants and a gold-standard double-blind RCT. And may I remind you Keys himself published some (chosen) results of his study so that he estimated he still had a sufficient number of participants! So your explanation he didn't try to hide a part of the results, and, because of the 83% missing participants, he was right to not publish the results about a lower death rate in the saturated fat group is quite irrelevant. You said that the numbers doesn't add up and you suppose that's the retrieving process which failed to read the raw data from the 9 inches bands. Do you have any clue to say that? Can't we emit the hypothesis that it was rather the numbers given by Keys in his initial study which are to blame? Anyway as you mentioned it the discrepancies are not huge so that we can estimate the raw data are quite accurate. What do you mean by "they inadvertently created foods with trans fats"? But that is exactly what happens when you cook with oils rich in PUFAs rather than with fats rich in SFAs and that's precisely a reason why we shouldn't use seed oils. I understand it may be a problem when it's in a study trying to compare PUFAs and SFAs but in fine isn't the primary goal to prevent people to use the wrong type of fats? And if they cook with an oil rich in PUFAs or buy prepared foods made with seed oils rich in PUFAs as most of the people do won't they be at risk? So if the study proves that replacing SFAs by PUFAs in foods is probably not a so great idea just acknowledge that rather than saying it was the trans fats and not the PUFAs. Of course it would be great to re-do the study while avoiding produce inadvertently trans fats but I guess it would be difficult at least for the double-blind character.
Even if the amount of participants left over is high, the study is still subject to attrition bias. You are assuming that it's perfectly okay because there are still enough people left over to conduct it but that is literally not how it works. Also, you are misunderstanding the trans fat problem.
But here’s a question for you. If the results had in fact supported their “saturated fat -> higher mortality” hypothesis, then do you think they would’ve published the results? I think they would have
Would like more details on the trans-fat problem with the study you discovered. Was only the intervention group getting these trans-fats? From what foods? Quantities?
If you replace butter and lard with partially hydrogenated oils and fry oils at high temperature you have increased their trans fats in the intervention group..
Margarine is today made from mixing fully hydrogenated fats with fats and oils. Fully hydrogenated oils are pure saturated fat and cannot be transfats. Today most transfats are created by heating oils to high temperature. Unsaturated fats contain a carbon-carbon double bond which will not rotate freely; this results in it having a cis and trans orientation. Providing enough heat it can overcome the energy barrier and flip. Vegetable oil sitting at high temperature for an extended time is a bad idea.
9 track tapes were still around long after hard drives, at least into the 90s, they were used to backup and move data around on many minicomputer systems back then.. eventually replaced by 8mm and 4mm
Maybe old "Helsinki businessmen study" based on Keys? Its results was against hypothese. The intervention group mortality was four time more than control group. It wasn't buried.
Too bad Keys didn't "bury" his shoddy 7 countries study. That one was definitely a pile of rubbish. Instead, he touted it for years and used it to browbeat everyone else's research, including Yudkin's. Keys was the worst. :(
Why the trans fats issue, the attrition and so on were problematic for the (let's call) pro-saturated fat thesis and not for the polyunsaturated one? What made the data safer for the latter?
Those who published the study I guess. Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying, but yourself said to believe that Keyes and his collegue didn't published the data because it was shady science. This data was part of the same study right? I'm just asking, why the data was not all discarded then?
Oh, I gotcha. They published the results for the first year of the study, if I remember correctly, because the dropout rate was still low at that point. However, the data was focused on cholesterol and other biomedical metrics, not mortality, because the study hadn't run long enough to see a difference between the groups at that point (you can even see that at 3:04 of this video). By the time enough time had past, they had lost a massive amount of participants, so they didn't publish the remaining data. To be honest, I don't know their intentions, so I'm assuming here, but it makes excellent sense, especially considering no journal would have accepted data with that horrid of a dropout rate.
Interesting history: the first behavioral guidelines to prevent CVD was not “don’t smoke” but “don’t eat saturated fats” by the American College of Cardiology in 1961. Then in 1964, The Surgeon General, not ACC, issued the first warning about smoking. The ACC viewed Sat Fats as more toxic than smoking. Really? A substance, that is made by all mammals, was considered so much more toxic than smoking that it deserved to be warned against before tobacco? Hmm.. So..the ACC was able to conclude that a part of a natural human diet was so toxic as to lead to CVD..before they realized smoking - an actual toxin?
That's not actually what the study said, you're either misinterpreting it or intentionally misrepresenting it to fit your narrative and pre-conceived biases. And Just because saturated fat is in all mammals doesn't mean it isn't unhealthy. Formaldehyde is also in the blood of all mammals yet we know it is a toxin and a carcinogen, this is flawed reasoning.
@@tessaPMpro I appreciate your response. Unfortunately, I’m unclear what study I’m misrepresenting, mis-interpreted, or have my pre-conceived bias. My comment is a historical one - an accurate historical comment. Please check google and dates. I’d appreciate a response to tell me which study I’m misrepresenting.
@@tessaPMproSaturated fat is the main energy source in most mammals. Herbivores turn fiber into short chain saturated fatty acids like butyrate in their rumen or cecum and carnivores turn dietary saturated fat into short chain saturated fat betahydroxybutyrate in their livers. Omnivores do a bit of both. Humans can get a small amount from fiber, dairy fat or from dietary saturated fat in the liver if intake of simple carbohydrates is low.
Hi Nick. LDL dropped in the PUFA group despite the higher trans fats (which raise LDL). Is that right? Would we expect that if the trans fats were significantly higher?
That's a great question and a fantastic point, Paul. We actually don't know the effect on LDL - we only have numbers on total cholesterol. Trans fats increase LDL and reduce HDL. So, we don't know what proportion makes up the total. That said, trans fats have many other effects in the body other than LDL and HDL - they have direct negative effects, as well.
Great video The Thing that raised my eyebrows is that these were taken on participants in a long-term hospital stays so they must be significantly ill so these results might not apply to a typical healthy population
That was also a criticism of the study that was brought up, but I didn't mention it, because I don't think it's as critical as some of the others. Sharp eye, D. :)
When I heard about the correlation between the widespread use of processed vege oils and diabetes/obesity I switched from vege oils over to butter. I lost belly fat and feel better. Low fat is better than poly/trans/mono fats of any kind, but I stay extra far from processed vege oils....
@@natevanderw Beef dripping (tallow) or lard are better for high temperature cooking as they are more stable at those temperatures. Butter is a tastier ingredient, but can also be used at lower temperature cooking.
In my quest for the truth of all that is, was, and ever shall be I like to ask myself one particular question: Is this true, or is it only true in certain conditions? Most everything in the realm of biology falls into the latter category. In this particular case, these folks were residents in these places for a reason. And that reason is NOT because they were perfectly normal, healthy, functioning, and/or well-adapted to society. In fact, we still dont have answers for the majority of those issues. So my take would be that yes, I am very open to the possibility that certain factors that may have been deemed harmful on the surface, such as smoking or obesity or certain types of cholesterol, may indeed also be beneficial to an organism as a whole under certain conditions. We've simply not identified the different conditions that may benefit and examined the factors involved.
Since the subjects are mostly in mental hospitals, this means the ones that had cigarettes and more fat have been actually taken better care as wealthier , thus better nutrition.
@@carlosgaspar8447there is even evidence that shows smoking protects against airbourne viruses. Also several studies on nicotin benefits from nicotin gum and other non smoke nicotin products.
What about all the countries (like France, etc.) that data was excluded from in the 7 country paper that showed mortality and percent saturated fat were correlated? I don't think Keys is someone you can trust.
That was nothing to do with the 7 countries study. You should read Keys' papers instead of believing the lies told by people selling/promoting unhealthy fad diets. You could even go to the 7 countries website if you wanted to fact check claims made about that study.
It was clear that despite all the money invested in this study, they were not going to publish data properly. It was because of findings and not because of flaws, I'm pretty sure of it. But the quality of study is important. On the other hand nowadays you cannot do such study because of ethical reasons. That makes it quite important.
Just my personal preference; I don't prefer the information graphics to be shaking or wobbling back and forth (even slowly). Maybe have a little fat molecule wobbling in the corner while the graphs are still just so the video isn't a still shot the whole time?
I've heard about this study from people trying to convince me that there is no problem with a high saturated fat diet. I'm glad to hear about some of the details that they forgot to include
I have a different take, in what you are basing your answer upon what?? First. Saturated fats goods . Vaping nicotine is far better than/then smoking a real nicotine cigarette 🚬. Second. You did not listen to the video as the whatever can't lie to you on propaganda stuff. Take care. Bye 👋😎😊
So when the media convinced you that saturated fat is bad based on the same low quality studies you didnt question that, but now you question the people who call out this nonsense?
@@magyararon6918 I never said the media convinced me of anything. I never mentioned any other studies. I didn't ask any questions; I made a statement that I'll stand by. I'm glad that Nic has added additional context to this study
Excellent analysis! Thank you! Watching content like this allows me to get away from the conspiracy mindset and realize that context matters. What is not said is as important as what is said. If the doctors had only published the reasons for discarding the study, life would have been simple. They did not realize the controversy that may be caused by not explaining. They may also not have realized that so many non medical people would know so much about health due to data availability on the internet. Thank you!
If shoddy data was a reason for Ancel Keys to not publish a study, then he would never have published any study as all the data he did use was shoddy. He only published his shoddy studies when the data could be manipulated to support the erroneous theory he was pushing. Ignoring his poor track record probably means the analysis is erroneous too.
It’s really not a bad study though. Thinking it’s a bad study because it doesn’t have the results you want doesn’t actually make it a bad study lmao. The fact that the animal fat group was healthier despite smoking more should be a sign lmao
Regarding the confounder of the trans fats - were these trans fats created by the cooking / processing of the polyunsaturated fats? If yes, this is still valid information which should be known and in my opinion should have been published.
Not sure, but likely no. Partially hydrogenated margarines were sold as heart healthy at oeast into the 90’s. They probably used oil+margarine; there are things unsaturated fats aren’t suitable for.
@@soylentgreenb "Partially hydrogenated margarines were sold as heart healthy," yes, so people following the guidelines were encouraged to eat less healthy foods.
What about the burying of the Sydney Heart Study around the same time and recovered by Ramsden. No association with Keys and Franz? Same "SatFat isn't bad" results. PS. My understanding is that the "missing data" was found in the Franz family home basement. That sounds like deliberate burying to me. Had the study shown positive results, even with the confounders, it would have been published, in my opinion.
Год назад
What about newer research on saturated fat. Do you have any vídeos on that, please?
after listening to an expose of the data, I would suggest both the latest study as well as the first study by Keys should both be tossed out. I don't buy that only the resurrected study had confounding variables that were not properly accounted for and I believe the data for both was very likely insufficiently elucidated and thus inconclusive to arrive at the assessments made.
So, after watching that video, the main takeaway seemed to be that there are studies suggesting that smoking might actually lower mortality rates, even though we know it's quite the opposite. Because of this, the argument was made that it's alright for scientists to keep certain data on saturated fat away from the public, assuming they have a better understanding of what's good for us. Personally, I find it hard to believe that there are any reputable studies out there supporting the idea that smoking is a healthy choice. I did some digging, and I couldn't find any solid information to back that up. If you've got any proof to support these claims, I'd be really interested to see it. Now, as for the relationship between longevity and being overweight, it's not really a big surprise that many studies point to a BMI of 25 as the sweet spot for living longer, even though it's technically considered "overweight."
@@Physionic I totally understand your point, and it's clear that you're not suggesting smoking is a healthy choice. Your argument is that, despite the widely recognized fact that smoking is an unhealthy habit, there are a few studies out there with a different perspective. It's essential to consider the broader body of research and maintain a similar stance regarding saturated fat - acknowledging that while some studies might have been kept under wraps, it might not necessarily indicate anything sinister, but rather a well-intentioned approach, much like in the case of smoking. However, I do take issue with the conclusion that there exists a study showing that smoking can actually lead to a longer life. Even if such a study were to exist, I remain skeptical about the idea that it should be concealed from the public. I'd be very interested if you could provide more information about studies showing smoking leads to a longer life.
@@Metarig Oh, I normally wouldn't mind engaging this kind of discussion, but A) Too busy today, B) Physionic backed me up out of nowhere and C) and after reading your response to him, I'm inclined to think your takeaway was actually undelivered by UberEats; i.e. I think it would be too much work to get you to understand what you're misunderstanding and/or arguing for. But, hey, maybe we're wrong. Cheers.
Most likely this wasn’t an accident, but through partial hydrogenation. Partially hydrogenated margerines were considered healthier than butter by many until the 90’s.
I would agree with the hypothesis that Ansel Keys threw out the study because of poor science if he didn't have a track record of doing poor science himself. The 7 Countries Study is a perfect example as he deleted more than 2/3rds of his original data set/
@@oliverbradley2593 i repeat the question. How did you know he cherry-picked the countries to be included in the study. Or better still, how do you know there was data from other countries that were left out.
There's an interesting point that maybe you don't know, but you will now. AFAIK the male patients who lived longest in Framingham were 25% heavier than their "ideal" weight.
Inhaling dense smoke 20 times a day is a recent experiment on humanity that mainly American doctors promoted. Consuming a high carb diet is a 13.000 year experiment that has been proven to produce shorter skeletons with increased damage due to malnutrition according to side by side anthropological studies of skeletons of for example American Indians where one tribe, for example Apaches, only consumed meat and the other mainly maize. Refined sugars and transfats is a very recent dietary experiment with horrible outcomes for the test subjects but increased revenues for the medical industrial complex. Public health is supposed to proactively protect populations from these experiments by testing the products before they are released to the market in the same way that new jet engines are tested before passengers find out if they are reliable mid Pacific. An ever increasing sick span is the result of the laissez faire attitude in public health towards vested interests experimental foods that would never be allowed in other consumer goods industries. A negative trend in scientific outcomes proves that a hypothesis is wrong followed by an independent peer review of the data. That failed again as recently as the local US opioid crisis. Hence the general distrust of the credibility of modern medicine research..
I would question this study based on my understanding that most mental illnesses have a corresponding nutritional deficit or overload associated with them.
I enjoy your information, however I do have a couple of questions not related to your video if you don't mind. 1. Do you do your own video editing? And 2. If yes, which software do you use?
For sure if you looked very hard at most studies you would find them loaded with anomalies, as they all seem to have some particular motivation or outcome in mind.
Nick, I'm confused. Beinortas, T et al don't mention trans-fats at all in their letter, so is your mention of trans-fats being present in the intervention group based on your own appraisal of the study? You make it sound like its an argument they make, but I can't see that written anywhere.
Ancel Keyes has a huge history of manipulating data to get different, probably preferred outcome. At the very least, everything what he did should be put into extra scrutiny -- at all levels.
I think you've sufficiently proven that this study was inconclusive. So this means we should still remain agnostic on saturated fat being a primary driver of atherosclerosis. Once again, this isn't the position of health professionals who seem to miss the elephant in the room. Metabolic disease has steadily increased as a percentage of the population regardless of the removal of saturated fat from nearly everything. There is a very clear link to the most prevalent metabolic disease, type-2 diabetes and heart disease, evidenced by over 66% of all type-2 diabetics dying from cardiovascular events. We need to take a more clear eyed view of this problem. I look forward to a review of the 7 countries study as it, along with the McGovern report, is the basis for the current medical consensus despite plenty of real world outcomes to prove there must be more dangerous and consequential culprit. What this study may prove is that the introduction of seed oils may be more apt to also introduce trans fats, which we know can't be metabolized by our body, thus leading to an increase in disease. That last part is a theory and should be taken as such.
In my opinion, saturated fat is not necessarily bad, but unsaturated fat is not always healthy either. To me, grass fed butter is healthy, which I have been taking a lot of in the last 5 years, but unsaturated trans fat is extremely unhealthy which I tried my best to avoid. And also the daily intake proportion between omega 3 and omega 6 intake is important too. Another factor is sugar/carbs intake too, lots of good fat and little carbs is healthy, but lots of good fat with lots of bad carbs is very unhealthy. My 2 cents. 🧐
Your first sentence is spot on and you already pointed out trans fats. However the healthy saturated fats are not (mainly) found in butter but e.g. in cocoa (stearic acid). For butter it really does not matter if its from grass fed cows or not, there are studies on this, but I'd recommend a video from 'Lifting vegan logic', just search for his name and butter and see for yourself.
@@toxx1220 Totally important for me in the case of grass fed beef, I am super sensitive to the steroid in beef, especially US beef, I get very bad acne right away but not with grass fed beef, so I'd stick to N Zealand beef mostly. Cocoa may have satiated fat, but it's in very small amount, I can easily eat a quarter block of butter for my dinner no problem! 😝
Butter is associated with a slight increase in mortality. Not exactly comforting. Cheese and Yogurt are associated with a decrease in mortality. So I 'll follow those correlations with respect to Saturated Fat. If I am going out to eat, I'll eat butter though. Unsaturated Fats in the form of nuts and seeds and extra virgin olive oil are probably healthier than butter if you believe the correlations in studies. The fact that they are high in polyphenols probably helps.
For example, each 1% increase in total energy intake from yogurt or cheese was linked to a 7% and 2% lower risk of heart disease, respectively. Conversely, increased intake of red meat and butter were associated with a 7% and 2% higher risk of heart disease, respectively. Steur M, et al. Dietary fatty acids, macronutrient substitutions, food sources and incidence of coronary heart disease: Findings from the EPIC-CVD case-cohort study across nine European countries.Trusted Source Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021.
So neither sat fat or linoleic were great. No surprise since linoleic is pro-inflammatory. It’s misleading to equate linoleic with poly fats as a category, especially when the n 3s are anti inflammatory.
because people continue to eat saturated fats and cholesterol and the artery damage from animal based food goes beyond that. BTW, Ancel Keys followed his own dietary advice and lived to be 100 yrs old. Where are all the 100 y/o carnivores???
@@buckmurdock2500My 86 yo mother has been on carnivore diet for almost 18 months. Her 5-decade long constipation disappeared two weeks after she started such diet, her high blood pressure which she was told by her doctor to be genetic and would never be under controlled without medications also has been normal, her fatty liver also recovered, her heart is very strong, and her memory, compensation both improved tremendously, her 3 physicals done within last year also showed no abnormalities, she's physically stronger, her insomnia disappeared, and her doctor told her she had a body of a person in the 70's. She had tried to introduce some leafy vegetables back into her diet few months ago, then she immediately to suffer from constipation. Stopped the veggies, and constipation gradually disappeared again in a month and since then hasn't returned. I've been eating primarily animal fat and meat since the discovery of type 2 diabetes two years ago. A1C has been below 5.8 since, from 10.3, nerve pain gone, vision regained, cracked skin healed, energy level always up, all without having to take any medication, nor insulin for one day. Not bad for being in the 50s.Have a tomatoe size of half of an apple however, and blood sugar shoots up. Although I do have two cups of coffee daily with heavy cream and pure sucralose. Interesting, is it not?
Since my 86 yo mother started eating primarily meat and animal fat over 15 months ago, her: Once told to be genetic high blood pressure 50 years ago by her doctor has been normal. Her constipation, which lasted more than 5 decades disappeared two weeks after she started such diet. She no long has insomnia. Her memory greatly improves. Her heart is strong. Her fatty liver also recovered. She is physically stronger. And the 3 physicals (all of them with MRI, as well as MRA, and full blood panels)she had within the last year showed no abnormalities but improvements , as well as stabilities. She tried to introduce some leafy greens back to her diet few months ago and the constipation came back to haunt her immediately. Stopped the greens and it gradually disappeared again within a month and hasn't since returned. I found out my A1C was 10.3 almost two year ago. Immediately cut bread, starchy food, rice, and anything with high glycemic numbers out of my diet. Though still was consuming vegetables with less meat and animal fat. For about 10 months the weight came down, and so did the A1c, but it just wouldn't go below 8.0. My visceral fat also remained above 10. Then I started to eat mainly animal fat, as well as steaks, in less than 3 months my A1c came down to 6.8. And today it is at 5.7, and has been below 5.8 ever since. My cracked scaly skin recovered. My vision restored (though not completely). I no longer have nerve pain, nor painful muscle convulsion. My brain fog disappeared. Blood pressure has been normal. Visceral fat normal at 8. Joint pain disappeared (though it'd come back immediately if I had some greens). I do have two cups of coffee with heavy cream, and pure sucralose without maltodextrin daily. Perhaps that's the reason why my A1c always stays between 5.3 to 5.8 and wouldn't come down further. Heavy cream may also be the reason why my visceral fat went up a little from 6 to 8. Eating a tomato size of a baseball would raise my blood sugar over 136. But the highest blood sugar number I had after consuming a piece of ribeye steak was 128. Oh, last year after my mother's PCP evaluated one of her physicals, she was told to have a body 10 years younger than 86. As for me, I have never taken any diabetic medication, nor insulin since my type-2 diabetes diagnosis two year ago. Isn't this interesting? As about Ancel Keys to have lived 100 years. Well, Jeanne Calment was 122 years and 164-days old when she passed away. She had smoked for 90 plus years, drank alcohol, ate lots of sugar, as well as red meat. Longevity is meaningless if one can not engage in activities as he, or she desires. At age 90, in his interview took place on April 23rd, 1994, Ancel Keys looked rather feeble. @@buckmurdock2500
I don’t know why this isn’t blindingly obvious. We have a Gall Bladder that is specifically designed to breakdown Fat. It would take a fool to not assume that this fat comes from animals which of course are majority saturated fats.
I didnt understand the part of the trans fat. Who ate more trans fat? The ones in the polyunsaturated fats groups? And why is that? And why shouldnt we expect to consume more trans fat if we eat more polyunsaturated fats?
It’s now well established that polyunsaturated fats are correlated with most of if not all disease states because of their estrogenic effects and interference with the thyroid and metabolism . The body prefers glucose and saturated fats for energy and stores polyunsaturated fats in the tissues . Under times of stress these pufas are liberated into the blood stream causing a host issues from diabetes to cancers.
@@wintertime331 to answer properly one needs to go through all clinical trials that covered this subject, which requires a few days to do. Gil Carvalho covered this subject at length on his channel. Having said that, it is the OP above who made the original claim, so you should ask him to provide the literature that supports it.
@@Sobchak2well your the one with the rebuttal, I explained quite simply the same processes that could take many paragraphs etc as well . Can you sum up any advantages to pufa in the diet ?
Nic (or is it Nick?), Do you think researchers who decide against publishing should publish an explanation? I can see why they don't. With a flawed methodology or change in circumstances, the data is utterly meaningless so there literally is nothing to publish. The thing never happened. On the other hand, a failure of this magnitude might be useful to know about in real time to help other researchers. If an important confounding variable comes to light, tell the world. For example, I have stopped worrying about phlogiston since speaking to Tony Lavoisier. But I digress. Put differently, if he learn more from our failures than our success, then why do journals only publish the successes? What does Big Publication have against us learning?
Nic. That’s a great question, Dan. I think it would be an excellent resource to have and I also think it would encourage more negative findings to be published. I’d love that. Great idea.
@@Physionic It's more or less the dreaded "file drawer effect" as identified by Robert Rosenthal. 20 researchers do the same experiment all using significance at the .05 level. 19 get null results. One gets "significant" results. Guess which one gets published. 19 end up in the file drawer.
Teicholz plagiarized the entire book. She even plagiarized mistakes made by the author she was plagiarizing. She is paid by one benefactor. Her job is to create nutrition confusion. Period. She is not a doctor, researcher or scientist. She is a journalist and a lousy one at that.
@buckmurdock2500 ok, who is the author she plagiarized and who is the benefactor that paid her? She never claimed to be anything other than an investigative journalist.
Interesting and thank you, although I switched to natural fats years ago, and have better health, I have a less demonstrative opinion of Keys. Although Keys should have simply looked elsewhere for truth if he found his current path going nowhere.
While we have the ability to choose that now, our US Dietary guidelines are based on Keys’ research and lack of full evidence. Thankfully other research has proved saturated fats are protective.
He didn’t live into his 90s and had a serious health issue. For one his calcium intake was far too high. Many recent studies show it’s not needed in high doses (~500 mg max). Too many follow without doing any self research of original data.
Ultimately we are all going to die and whatever the weak link is it will get you. Ray Peat always encouraged self experimentation to tweak and customize your approach.@@jmc8076
Or PUFA consumption is even worse than smoking and being overweight. And the intervention lowered cholestherol, isn't trans fats suposed to increase yor LDL levels!?
@@Physionic that was the first thing that came to mind when you said they were all in hospitals and psych wards. And it's not really unheard of for doctors and hospitals to be doing these kinds of experiments on patients, especially in long term care and/or psych wards.
What is your opinion on the liquid and spray HGH products online? Asking for a 71 year old who is losing muscle mass on a daily basis. Thanks for your analysis on all things health related!
Can you explain why saturated fats raises LDL? What are the mechanisms? I read that lower levels of Insulin and glucagon lowers activity of LDL receptors in the liver, keeping LDL in the blood. If this is true the effects of diet are just momentarily, when you higher those levels you will lower LDL in time
I can tell you that and you should check out the work of Dave Feldman, he has a youtube channel and has done a lot of research on this subject. Basically cholesterol transtports fat around the body because it's not soluble in water, ie blood. So the more fat you consume the more cholesterol you are likely to produce to deal with it. You shouldn't be afraid of ldl cholesterol. Cholestrol is incredibly essential to so many things. In fact, cholesterol also reduces the likelihood of viral and bacterial infection just to top it off. Also, just in case you didn't know, your heart runs on saturated fat and it is muscle failure caused by when it runs on glycogen (aka sugar) in times of stress or increased demand. At the moment raised triglycerides (fat floating in your blood stream) are linked with a higher risk of CVD. Feldman shows that you can reduce your ldl by eating a high carb diet but at the expense of an increase in insulin insensitivity and high triglycerides.
Another idea for higher LDL advanced by Paul Mason is that very low carb diets have an absence of plant sterols. He supposes that vegan diets have high levels of plant sterols which "artificially" lower LDL from their natural levels
Hi, I have some more interesting material for investigation. 1 - GR-7, 2- Nurosym. 3- The sups Bryan Johnson takes on blueprint. Because we trust you. :)
Pork fat (as most of the animal fats) content is half mono-unsaturated fat (with a lot of oleic acid also found in olive oil). You could also use tallow. In my region where we raise ducks and gees to make foie gras (literally fatty liver) we can use duck or goose fat too. But I generally use tallow or lamb fat from grass fed animals to avoid to have too much omegas 6 in my fat.
![These Molecules Reversed Aging by... YEARS! [TRIIM Study Explained - Study 216]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rVoxfABoHh4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why your Low Carb Diet is hurting your Heart, and How to Improve it. [11 Studies]](/img/1.gif)
I'll go ahead and say this now so I can avoid answering the same question over and over: This is a look at the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, not the 7 Countries Study. I haven't looked at the 7 Countries Study. This is an analysis of this study and the conclusions do not extend beyond this study. If you still feel Dr. Keys is a liar and a fraud, that's fine - I'm only here to point out some major issues with this singular, influential study so you can hear something other than the one sided explanations offered by some popular contrarians. Thanks for watching.
Now do the Women's Health Initiative Study😄
Ancel Keys did also the 7 countries study en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study Also with a lot of mistakes in it. But the worst mistake is the cherry picking of the countries: He left out France that had a great amount of people who ate butter (saturated fat) and lived as long as the Italians who use olive oil (mono unsaturated fat).
Besides: please never say that the majority of scientists are correct because science is not democratic! If so we would still believe the earth is the center of our solar system.
@@WilBremersThe seven countries study.... is that the one with 20 countries?
@@TheCompleteGuitarist "There was also criticism before the study began: Yerushalmy and Hilleboe pointed out that Keys had selected for the study the countries that would give him the results he wanted, while leaving out data from sixteen countries that would not" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis
@@WilBremersI'd like to hear Nic's take on the French paradox. Still, officially the discrepancy between the French data and the rest has been explained by the fact French doctors underreported cases of heart disease. Once that is accounted for France falls back in line, they die from chd as much as they should. Dr Greger did a video about this a few years ago. Look it up.
I find it strange how humans have existed for who knows how long and yet still cant figure out what they should and shouldn't be eating.
We keep forgetting and rebuilding both knowledge and civilization " there is nothing new under the sun "
@@MauFlo-ym4fz Ignorance is bliss.
We know what we should be eating. The only place this is debated is weird internet circles. Diets with large amounts of minimally processed plants in great variety. No difference between a vegan diet and a diet with a little meat. Limited saturated fat. That's basically it.
We believe what we are told over and over and over by big corporations with money to burn on propaganda. If you want to be healthy remove as much as you can the processed foods (seed oils and things made with pure sugar and bleached refined flour are prime examples) and food-like products from your life. These things didn't really exist until the industrial age. Oh, and try to avoid eating things that have been sprayed with pesticides and herbicides.
@@Schwainermitai Cool. Prove it.
If you can get up out of your hospital bed to go to the smoking area, you probably have a better prognosis. And the very elderly tend to thin out before they die. Having a higher BMI is associated with better outcomes.
BMI OF 20 TO 27 ARE GREAT AFTER VERY BAD UNDER WELL MUST BE VEGS AND THEY RAREY MAKE IT PASS 70
simply calculating bmi in isolation is stupid, it should be combined with body fat percentage
@@dr-rexmangrca113english mf do you speak it!
There are many confounders. High BMI appears healthy in the elderly because a proportion of those who are quickly losing weight do so because they have cancer or are so unwell they don't want to eat. Some others because they are losing muscle and becoming frail. This doesn't mean that losing body fat through dietary changes will harm the elderly, it just means that there are terrible diseases that can cause their weight to drop. Health science is so chock full of confounders that it is a wonder anyone knows anything about anything.
Actually there is a correlation between smoking and PUFAs. Take PUFAs out of the diet and health issues from smoking seem to go away. This has been studied in native populations that smoke but don't eat processed foods. My take... PUFAs are poison and more is worse.
When industry experiments to find uses for every resource, it is not far fetched to consider the possibility of a paid outcome. Byproducts become products and require a Market. If it can be built, chemically induced or grown, it is a value to Business, Economy, and people. Seed oils have been used for fuel, lubrication, etc... for a long time. To create a Market in the Human Diet is incredibly lucrative. Suddenly, a byproduct of Cotton production becomes a money maker. It is correct to be skeptical about anyones studies. Everyone has a price.
As soon as you described the study design, red flags were waving all over the place for me. Control what 10,000 mental hospital patients eat? Sure. What could be easier? Having worked in such hospitals during that time period, i can say without a doubt that the hospitals generally provided poor-quality, poorly cooked meals which patients supplemented by buying supplies at local shops. Most patients were not locked in so they could easily acquire food from other sources. They often went home on 'leave', and visitors brought them chocolates. Oh - and almost all of them smoked like chimneys.
I recall that series of dumb questions by lawyers when one young lawyer asked the doctor on the stand if the victim was deceased at the time of the autopsy. The doctor replied, "Well he certainly was by the time I'd finished with him."
It's always good to make sure.
"His brain was in a jar on my desk, but his body could be practicing law somewhere."
🤣
🤣@@isaacthek
Before discovery of the buried data, the study was often cited (by AHA for example) as supporting risk of saturated fat. Critics pointed out some of the issues (attrition, for example). And the many failures to show risk are well-known. In this business, you have to assume that research is honest unless you find examples like this. One of the researchers admitted that they buried the data because it was “disappointing.” The real question you are raising is why they didn’t bury the whole study. Nutritional epidemiology, in any case, has given us virtually no testable information.
Great sleuthing. the design of the trial was ground-breaking (massive scale, and inpatients meant full dietary control). tragically, the results became a monumental mess due to both the attrition you mentioned (nation wide policies changed and patients were discharged) and the trans fats issue the authors couldn't have anticipated without a crystal ball :)
follow up was projected to exceed 3 years but averaged 13months in the end...
many subjects also stayed at the hospital temporarily, sometimes leaving and coming back later, making results uninterpretable
at the end of the day science hinges on reproducibility. 15 trials have addressed this question of saturated fats and CVD, and the full picture tells a very different story from just Minnesota & Sydney in a vacuum :)
Thanks, Gil, and I appreciate the added details. :)
Would you be willing to leave a similar comment about the 7 country study, please?
Too many people are confused about that study as well.
Wishful thinking, Gil.
@@ThingsYoudontwanttohear the short answer is that modern guidelines and understanding don´t depend on it since we have much stronger evidence that has accrued in the meantime
@@Nicksonian Gil chooses what and who he wants to believe. The countries in Europe with highest satfat consumption have the lowest chd. France Switzerland and Spain. This finding is consistent down the years.
Bankers do this to me ALL the time too. I DON'T SPEAK 'BANKER". All I hear in this is FAT and all I know is every Chef on this planet defines that as FLAVOUR! Poly-fat, Low-fat, High-fat, tri-fat, non-fat, saturated-fat, unsaturated-fat, non-unsaturated-fat, vaseline, and how many others are there? WTF....just tell me to eat butter and olive oil. DONE! As of now, I have NO clue up or down, side to side, front to back. I am sick and tired of having to read the ingredients on labels, it should be.....if it's good for you, it's in there..... if not take it out! Any company putting bad stuff in food, put the CEO in jail TODAY! F......
Agreed it is very annoying
Common sense always told me that the good old EGGS in the morning, steak in the afternoon was healthy.
Time to fix my over 20 yrs of not smoking.
Haha!
Does meth count?
@@TheIntJugglerif it's a social activity for you, you're probably good to go
@@ytuser0110see u in the alley later!
Good explanations - heard whispers about this study for awhile. One observation - to the best of my knowledge no one was analyzing trans fat issues until 30 years after this study and Harvard guys doing epidemiology noticed it.
I was going to make the same comment. The shelving ove the data couldnt have had to do with trans fat as that wasnt even thought about at the time. I think if you look around your local walmart the evidence for saturated fat being benign and pufa/high carb being unhealthy is self evident though. No new Keyes data necessary.
Scientists began suspecting that trans fats might have adverse health effects as early as the 1950s and 1960s. During this time, researchers began to notice correlations between fat consumption and heart disease rates. However, it wasn't clear at this point that trans fats were specifically problematic.
Keys, A., Anderson, J.T., & Grande, F. (1956). Serum cholesterol response to changes in dietary lipids. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 5(2), 175-181. :
That’s a solutely correct. Partially hydrogenated margarines were sold as heart healthy until at least the 90’s.
I’m lost yall, are yall saying it was possible the trans fat instead of the poly?
@@Primetime_dadsAll transfats are unsaturated, usually polyunsaturated. Polyunsaturated fats are a problem in themselves; they easily oxidize and form dangerous compounds like 4-HNE. If you take the oil out of seed and put it in a bottle it will kind of keep under protective atmosphere and with antioxidants but as soon as you open it it will start to degrade.
Double bonds don't rotate freely. This means they can get "stuck" in two rotations that are called cis and trans. Cis bonds are on the same side and trans bonds are on the opposite sides; the cis-bond bends the molecule and the transbonds straighten it. Takes heat to get over the energy barrier from cis to trans. There is an energy distribution of individual molecules even if they are at a constant temperature; the temperature is just determined by the average energy; the tail end of that distribution will have enough energy to flip bonds from cis to trans. This is insignificant at room temperature, but unless you're making a mayonaise you're heating the oil and this means you *will* make transfats right in your frying pan.
If you're getting your PUFAs from a bottle and cooking with them instead of eating raw seeds or nuts or eating fish it inherently means dangerous lipid peroxidation products and trans fats. If you eat large amounts of PUFAs they will accumulate in your fatty tissues and the lipid peroxidation that occurs quickly in your frying pan will continue slowly inside your body and make the same kinds of toxic substances. It will likely not be possible to disentangle what harm is caused by PUFAs inherently from what harm is caused by linoleic acid specifically and what harm is caused by how they are used. Nearly every processed food is cheap starch (e.g. corn), sugar (e.g. HFCS) and seed oils and most of them are heated or stored long enough to oxidize signficantly. If you want to study the effect of linoleic acid in the diet without the effects of processing you'd need to look at something like an uncontacted tribe that eats nuts in a jungle somewhere and even then you'll need a control group of a similar tribe that doesn't eat nuts and control for whatever else they eat instead. That's just never going to happen.
Ah the old coputer tapes.
When I first went to college, we were still using punch cards for input of computer programs.
Many years ago Dr. Lindsay Jack Kirkham proposed that the decline in coronary heart disease from the early part of the 19th century to the later part was highly correlated with the introduction of antibiotic use in modern meat processing. His hypothesis was that heart disease is caused by some sort of infection and that the low doses of antibiotics we consume from meat combats that infectious process. So along with the other confounding factors, we must consider that animal fats vs. plant based fats is not a simple comparison as these fats and the foods associated with them are not pure.
Thank you for being scientifically honest!
Interesting as usual, but concerning the absolution you gave to Keys and his sidekicks I'll add some comments and ask some questions.
You said that 83% of the participants were lost throughout. There were 10000 participants to this double-blind RCT so even if 83% of them couldn't make it to the end of the trial it's still a reasonable number of 1700 participants and a gold-standard double-blind RCT. And may I remind you Keys himself published some (chosen) results of his study so that he estimated he still had a sufficient number of participants! So your explanation he didn't try to hide a part of the results, and, because of the 83% missing participants, he was right to not publish the results about a lower death rate in the saturated fat group is quite irrelevant.
You said that the numbers doesn't add up and you suppose that's the retrieving process which failed to read the raw data from the 9 inches bands. Do you have any clue to say that? Can't we emit the hypothesis that it was rather the numbers given by Keys in his initial study which are to blame? Anyway as you mentioned it the discrepancies are not huge so that we can estimate the raw data are quite accurate.
What do you mean by "they inadvertently created foods with trans fats"?
But that is exactly what happens when you cook with oils rich in PUFAs rather than with fats rich in SFAs and that's precisely a reason why we shouldn't use seed oils.
I understand it may be a problem when it's in a study trying to compare PUFAs and SFAs but in fine isn't the primary goal to prevent people to use the wrong type of fats? And if they cook with an oil rich in PUFAs or buy prepared foods made with seed oils rich in PUFAs as most of the people do won't they be at risk? So if the study proves that replacing SFAs by PUFAs in foods is probably not a so great idea just acknowledge that rather than saying it was the trans fats and not the PUFAs. Of course it would be great to re-do the study while avoiding produce inadvertently trans fats but I guess it would be difficult at least for the double-blind character.
THIS.
all of this - thanks
Even if the amount of participants left over is high, the study is still subject to attrition bias. You are assuming that it's perfectly okay because there are still enough people left over to conduct it but that is literally not how it works. Also, you are misunderstanding the trans fat problem.
A good and detailed analysis of this study/experiment. Thanks for posting this, got me thinking which I am always a big fan of. Thanks again
Thank you, Mike. We need more like you.
But here’s a question for you. If the results had in fact supported their “saturated fat -> higher mortality” hypothesis, then do you think they would’ve published the results? I think they would have
Would like more details on the trans-fat problem with the study you discovered. Was only the intervention group getting these trans-fats? From what foods? Quantities?
Margerine. In those days, full of trans-fats, but those are banned now.
@@megavegan5791 As I understand it, trans-fats are still present in margerine, and other processed foods, but have to be kept below a limit
If you replace butter and lard with partially hydrogenated oils and fry oils at high temperature you have increased their trans fats in the intervention group..
Margarine is today made from mixing fully hydrogenated fats with fats and oils. Fully hydrogenated oils are pure saturated fat and cannot be transfats. Today most transfats are created by heating oils to high temperature. Unsaturated fats contain a carbon-carbon double bond which will not rotate freely; this results in it having a cis and trans orientation. Providing enough heat it can overcome the energy barrier and flip. Vegetable oil sitting at high temperature for an extended time is a bad idea.
I'm confused.
Did the authors themselves explain the non-publishing?
9 track tapes were still around long after hard drives, at least into the 90s, they were used to backup and move data around on many minicomputer systems back then.. eventually replaced by 8mm and 4mm
This is the best video on this topic I have ever seen. Thank you for publishing it!
Obviously, sharing a pipe in seasonal ceremonies should not cause significant harm to health.
Maybe old "Helsinki businessmen study" based on Keys? Its results was against hypothese. The intervention group mortality was four time more than control group. It wasn't buried.
Back when I was in the navy and worked on computers that weighed more than I did…we just called it magnetic tape or occasionally mag tape…
Too bad Keys didn't "bury" his shoddy 7 countries study. That one was definitely a pile of rubbish. Instead, he touted it for years and used it to browbeat everyone else's research, including Yudkin's.
Keys was the worst. :(
In the 1970s we had an 8 track player in our car. An eight (8) track player. The tapes broke or tangled a lot. LOL.
There are studies from the early 2000s that show mild obesity or overweight is healthier than normal or low BMI.
Nothing more than big fat lies
BMI is worthless, it rates Arnold Swarzenegger at the peak of his career as "an obese male".
Thanks much Nick, ,amazing as usual, how deep you dive into the subject and clarify issues. Thanks for your hard work.
Why the trans fats issue, the attrition and so on were problematic for the (let's call) pro-saturated fat thesis and not for the polyunsaturated one? What made the data safer for the latter?
Who said it was?
Those who published the study I guess. Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying, but yourself said to believe that Keyes and his collegue didn't published the data because it was shady science. This data was part of the same study right? I'm just asking, why the data was not all discarded then?
My man, but the way denzel washington says it @@Blastomorpha
Oh, I gotcha. They published the results for the first year of the study, if I remember correctly, because the dropout rate was still low at that point. However, the data was focused on cholesterol and other biomedical metrics, not mortality, because the study hadn't run long enough to see a difference between the groups at that point (you can even see that at 3:04 of this video). By the time enough time had past, they had lost a massive amount of participants, so they didn't publish the remaining data. To be honest, I don't know their intentions, so I'm assuming here, but it makes excellent sense, especially considering no journal would have accepted data with that horrid of a dropout rate.
Interesting history: the first behavioral guidelines to prevent CVD was not “don’t smoke” but “don’t eat saturated fats” by the American College of Cardiology in 1961. Then in 1964, The Surgeon General, not ACC, issued the first warning about smoking.
The ACC viewed Sat Fats as more toxic than smoking. Really? A substance, that is made by all mammals, was considered so much more toxic than smoking that it deserved to be warned against before tobacco? Hmm..
So..the ACC was able to conclude that a part of a natural human diet was so toxic as to lead to CVD..before they realized smoking - an actual toxin?
That's not actually what the study said, you're either misinterpreting it or intentionally misrepresenting it to fit your narrative and pre-conceived biases. And Just because saturated fat is in all mammals doesn't mean it isn't unhealthy. Formaldehyde is also in the blood of all mammals yet we know it is a toxin and a carcinogen, this is flawed reasoning.
@@tessaPMpro I appreciate your response. Unfortunately, I’m unclear what study I’m misrepresenting, mis-interpreted, or have my pre-conceived bias. My comment is a historical one - an accurate historical comment. Please check google and dates. I’d appreciate a response to tell me which study I’m misrepresenting.
@@robtruax7640 the study you mentioned in your original comment, what else do you think I would be referring to?
@@tessaPMproSaturated fat is the main energy source in most mammals. Herbivores turn fiber into short chain saturated fatty acids like butyrate in their rumen or cecum and carnivores turn dietary saturated fat into short chain saturated fat betahydroxybutyrate in their livers. Omnivores do a bit of both. Humans can get a small amount from fiber, dairy fat or from dietary saturated fat in the liver if intake of simple carbohydrates is low.
@@tessaPMproI re-read my original statement. I didn’t mention any studies. I mentioned guidelines. So, please tell me what study I’m misrepresenting?
Made me feel old looking at that 9 track tape and knowing exactly what it was, having retrieved data from one during my PhD program...
We're not old, just very, very experienced.
😆@@NoahPadi-ij3rf
Old? I worked on the machines that utilized these tapes!
Hi Nick. LDL dropped in the PUFA group despite the higher trans fats (which raise LDL). Is that right? Would we expect that if the trans fats were significantly higher?
That's a great question and a fantastic point, Paul. We actually don't know the effect on LDL - we only have numbers on total cholesterol. Trans fats increase LDL and reduce HDL. So, we don't know what proportion makes up the total. That said, trans fats have many other effects in the body other than LDL and HDL - they have direct negative effects, as well.
@@alaindelon5398did you just say quackery
Keep up the good work.
Great video The Thing that raised my eyebrows is that these were taken on participants in a long-term hospital stays so they must be significantly ill so these results might not apply to a typical healthy population
That was also a criticism of the study that was brought up, but I didn't mention it, because I don't think it's as critical as some of the others. Sharp eye, D. :)
When I heard about the correlation between the widespread use of processed vege oils and diabetes/obesity I switched from vege oils over to butter. I lost belly fat and feel better.
Low fat is better than poly/trans/mono fats of any kind, but I stay extra far from processed vege oils....
Butter for cooking with high temperatures, olive oil for everything else, is what I do.
@@natevanderw Beef dripping (tallow) or lard are better for high temperature cooking as they are more stable at those temperatures. Butter is a tastier ingredient, but can also be used at lower temperature cooking.
@@natevanderw Consider coconut oil for pan frying, as well.
@@paulcampbell840Lamb fat when I was growing up. Tastes divine. ❤
In my quest for the truth of all that is, was, and ever shall be I like to ask myself one particular question:
Is this true, or is it only true in certain conditions?
Most everything in the realm of biology falls into the latter category.
In this particular case, these folks were residents in these places for a reason.
And that reason is NOT because they were perfectly normal, healthy, functioning, and/or well-adapted to society.
In fact, we still dont have answers for the majority of those issues.
So my take would be that yes, I am very open to the possibility that certain factors that may have been deemed harmful on the surface, such as smoking or obesity or certain types of cholesterol, may indeed also be beneficial to an organism as a whole under certain conditions.
We've simply not identified the different conditions that may benefit and examined the factors involved.
Since the subjects are mostly in mental hospitals, this means the ones that had cigarettes and more fat have been actually taken better care as wealthier , thus better nutrition.
doesn't smoking sometimes relieve an asthma attack?
@@carlosgaspar8447there is even evidence that shows smoking protects against airbourne viruses.
Also several studies on nicotin benefits from nicotin gum and other non smoke nicotin products.
@@rfbead321 Doesn't mean he didn't understand. He was just making a point. (albeit a weak one)
Your point is completely Absurd
@@thedude5342 yeah?
google wealth bias in nutrition research
What about all the countries (like France, etc.) that data was excluded from in the 7 country paper that showed mortality and percent saturated fat were correlated? I don't think Keys is someone you can trust.
See pinned comment
If you honestly believe this, you've been duped.
That was nothing to do with the 7 countries study. You should read Keys' papers instead of believing the lies told by people selling/promoting unhealthy fad diets. You could even go to the 7 countries website if you wanted to fact check claims made about that study.
It was clear that despite all the money invested in this study, they were not going to publish data properly. It was because of findings and not because of flaws, I'm pretty sure of it. But the quality of study is important. On the other hand nowadays you cannot do such study because of ethical reasons. That makes it quite important.
Just my personal preference; I don't prefer the information graphics to be shaking or wobbling back and forth (even slowly). Maybe have a little fat molecule wobbling in the corner while the graphs are still just so the video isn't a still shot the whole time?
Thanks for the feedback.
Thank you for this video!
I've heard about this study from people trying to convince me that there is no problem with a high saturated fat diet. I'm glad to hear about some of the details that they forgot to include
I have a different take, in what you are basing your answer upon what?? First. Saturated fats goods . Vaping nicotine is far better than/then smoking a real nicotine cigarette 🚬. Second. You did not listen to the video as the whatever can't lie to you on propaganda stuff. Take care. Bye 👋😎😊
LIKE BEING VERY FAT AND SMOKING 2 PACK A DAY ... MY MD DID ... HE DIED AT 55 ... I WAS ROLLING N THE FLOOR WHEN I WAS TOLD
So when the media convinced you that saturated fat is bad based on the same low quality studies you didnt question that, but now you question the people who call out this nonsense?
@@magyararon6918 I never said the media convinced me of anything. I never mentioned any other studies. I didn't ask any questions; I made a statement that I'll stand by. I'm glad that Nic has added additional context to this study
Excellent analysis! Thank you! Watching content like this allows me to get away from the conspiracy mindset and realize that context matters. What is not said is as important as what is said. If the doctors had only published the reasons for discarding the study, life would have been simple. They did not realize the controversy that may be caused by not explaining. They may also not have realized that so many non medical people would know so much about health due to data availability on the internet. Thank you!
If shoddy data was a reason for Ancel Keys to not publish a study, then he would never have published any study as all the data he did use was shoddy. He only published his shoddy studies when the data could be manipulated to support the erroneous theory he was pushing. Ignoring his poor track record probably means the analysis is erroneous too.
It’s really not a bad study though. Thinking it’s a bad study because it doesn’t have the results you want doesn’t actually make it a bad study lmao. The fact that the animal fat group was healthier despite smoking more should be a sign lmao
Medical people told you to take an experimental jab.
Thanks for the laugh about the magnetic computer tape.
Why is there a question mark there? He tried to walk back a lot of his lies late in his life when he could feel the hellfire flickering at his heels.
Regarding the confounder of the trans fats - were these trans fats created by the cooking / processing of the polyunsaturated fats? If yes, this is still valid information which should be known and in my opinion should have been published.
Not sure, but likely no. Partially hydrogenated margarines were sold as heart healthy at oeast into the 90’s. They probably used oil+margarine; there are things unsaturated fats aren’t suitable for.
@@soylentgreenb "Partially hydrogenated margarines were sold as heart healthy," yes, so people following the guidelines were encouraged to eat less healthy foods.
What about the burying of the Sydney Heart Study around the same time and recovered by Ramsden. No association with Keys and Franz? Same "SatFat isn't bad" results.
PS. My understanding is that the "missing data" was found in the Franz family home basement. That sounds like deliberate burying to me. Had the study shown positive results, even with the confounders, it would have been published, in my opinion.
What about newer research on saturated fat. Do you have any vídeos on that, please?
Awesome explanation! Thank you!
What an analyses, definitely your best video jet. No hasty conclusions, just focussing on the facts. Great video
Facts are; a half century of "research" an not ONE randomized trial to show deleterious effects of SAFA.
Thank you for the points you made.
love these thought provoking videos. thanks for sharing!
after listening to an expose of the data, I would suggest both the latest study as well as the first study by Keys should both be tossed out. I don't buy that only the resurrected study had confounding variables that were not properly accounted for and I believe the data for both was very likely insufficiently elucidated and thus inconclusive to arrive at the assessments made.
Brilliant work 👏 fantastic video 📹
So, after watching that video, the main takeaway seemed to be that there are studies suggesting that smoking might actually lower mortality rates, even though we know it's quite the opposite. Because of this, the argument was made that it's alright for scientists to keep certain data on saturated fat away from the public, assuming they have a better understanding of what's good for us. Personally, I find it hard to believe that there are any reputable studies out there supporting the idea that smoking is a healthy choice. I did some digging, and I couldn't find any solid information to back that up. If you've got any proof to support these claims, I'd be really interested to see it.
Now, as for the relationship between longevity and being overweight, it's not really a big surprise that many studies point to a BMI of 25 as the sweet spot for living longer, even though it's technically considered "overweight."
You didn't get the main or the minor takeaways. I think you just got takeaways.
Watch the video again - I think you're confusing the message. None of that was my point.
@@Physionic I totally understand your point, and it's clear that you're not suggesting smoking is a healthy choice. Your argument is that, despite the widely recognized fact that smoking is an unhealthy habit, there are a few studies out there with a different perspective. It's essential to consider the broader body of research and maintain a similar stance regarding saturated fat - acknowledging that while some studies might have been kept under wraps, it might not necessarily indicate anything sinister, but rather a well-intentioned approach, much like in the case of smoking.
However, I do take issue with the conclusion that there exists a study showing that smoking can actually lead to a longer life. Even if such a study were to exist, I remain skeptical about the idea that it should be concealed from the public. I'd be very interested if you could provide more information about studies showing smoking leads to a longer life.
@@darkpatches OK, break it down for me.
@@Metarig Oh, I normally wouldn't mind engaging this kind of discussion, but A) Too busy today, B) Physionic backed me up out of nowhere and C) and after reading your response to him, I'm inclined to think your takeaway was actually undelivered by UberEats; i.e. I think it would be too much work to get you to understand what you're misunderstanding and/or arguing for. But, hey, maybe we're wrong. Cheers.
The oversight and peer review for studies back then was crap, and most nutri studies of the time are worthless.
They still are worthless.
thank you for explaining this, as this study gets a lot of bad press
To me the biggest piont is the poly unsaturated fats turned into transfats, causing the problems with the control group.
Most likely this wasn’t an accident, but through partial hydrogenation. Partially hydrogenated margerines were considered healthier than butter by many until the 90’s.
@@soylentgreenbbut it can also happen by reusing oil in restaurant/commercial services
I would agree with the hypothesis that Ansel Keys threw out the study because of poor science if he didn't have a track record of doing poor science himself. The 7 Countries Study is a perfect example as he deleted more than 2/3rds of his original data set/
How do you know he did that?
@@alaindelon5398 it is a very precise question: how do you know?
@Sobchak2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study - the first line under section "Debate since 2000"
@@oliverbradley2593 i repeat the question. How did you know he cherry-picked the countries to be included in the study. Or better still, how do you know there was data from other countries that were left out.
There's an interesting point that maybe you don't know, but you will now. AFAIK the male patients who lived longest in Framingham were 25% heavier than their "ideal" weight.
Inhaling dense smoke 20 times a day is a recent experiment on humanity that mainly American doctors promoted.
Consuming a high carb diet is a 13.000 year experiment that has been proven to produce shorter skeletons with increased damage due to malnutrition according to side by side anthropological studies of skeletons of for example American Indians where one tribe, for example Apaches, only consumed meat and the other mainly maize.
Refined sugars and transfats is a very recent dietary experiment with horrible outcomes for the test subjects but increased revenues for the medical industrial complex.
Public health is supposed to proactively protect populations from these experiments by testing the products before they are released to the market in the same way that new jet engines are tested before passengers find out if they are reliable mid Pacific.
An ever increasing sick span is the result of the laissez faire attitude in public health towards vested interests experimental foods that would never be allowed in other consumer goods industries.
A negative trend in scientific outcomes proves that a hypothesis is wrong followed by an independent peer review of the data.
That failed again as recently as the local US opioid crisis.
Hence the general distrust of the credibility of modern medicine research..
I would question this study based on my understanding that most mental illnesses have a corresponding nutritional deficit or overload associated with them.
No they don't.
thank you.
Very interesting. Thanks.
Bloody hell - and there I was already hopefully eying the butter. Ah well, thanks for the giggles, anyway
I enjoy your information, however I do have a couple of questions not related to your video if you don't mind. 1. Do you do your own video editing? And 2. If yes, which software do you use?
I used to, but I don't edit most of them anymore. I used (and the current editing is done on) Premiere Pro.
Thanks. @@Physionic
For sure if you looked very hard at most studies you would find them loaded with anomalies, as they all seem to have some particular motivation or outcome in mind.
Nick, I'm confused. Beinortas, T et al don't mention trans-fats at all in their letter, so is your mention of trans-fats being present in the intervention group based on your own appraisal of the study? You make it sound like its an argument they make, but I can't see that written anywhere.
Ancel Keyes has a huge history of manipulating data to get different, probably preferred outcome.
At the very least, everything what he did should be put into extra scrutiny -- at all levels.
where is this history documented and located?
I think you've sufficiently proven that this study was inconclusive. So this means we should still remain agnostic on saturated fat being a primary driver of atherosclerosis.
Once again, this isn't the position of health professionals who seem to miss the elephant in the room. Metabolic disease has steadily increased as a percentage of the population regardless of the removal of saturated fat from nearly everything. There is a very clear link to the most prevalent metabolic disease, type-2 diabetes and heart disease, evidenced by over 66% of all type-2 diabetics dying from cardiovascular events.
We need to take a more clear eyed view of this problem. I look forward to a review of the 7 countries study as it, along with the McGovern report, is the basis for the current medical consensus despite plenty of real world outcomes to prove there must be more dangerous and consequential culprit.
What this study may prove is that the introduction of seed oils may be more apt to also introduce trans fats, which we know can't be metabolized by our body, thus leading to an increase in disease. That last part is a theory and should be taken as such.
Excellent!
Thank you always interesting
In my opinion, saturated fat is not necessarily bad, but unsaturated fat is not always healthy either. To me, grass fed butter is healthy, which I have been taking a lot of in the last 5 years, but unsaturated trans fat is extremely unhealthy which I tried my best to avoid. And also the daily intake proportion between omega 3 and omega 6 intake is important too. Another factor is sugar/carbs intake too, lots of good fat and little carbs is healthy, but lots of good fat with lots of bad carbs is very unhealthy. My 2 cents. 🧐
Your first sentence is spot on and you already pointed out trans fats. However the healthy saturated fats are not (mainly) found in butter but e.g. in cocoa (stearic acid).
For butter it really does not matter if its from grass fed cows or not, there are studies on this, but I'd recommend a video from 'Lifting vegan logic', just search for his name and butter and see for yourself.
@@toxx1220 Totally important for me in the case of grass fed beef, I am super sensitive to the steroid in beef, especially US beef, I get very bad acne right away but not with grass fed beef, so I'd stick to N Zealand beef mostly. Cocoa may have satiated fat, but it's in very small amount, I can easily eat a quarter block of butter for my dinner no problem! 😝
@@ClassicJukeboxBand BS.
Butter is associated with a slight increase in mortality. Not exactly comforting. Cheese and Yogurt are associated with a decrease in mortality. So I 'll follow those correlations with respect to Saturated Fat. If I am going out to eat, I'll eat butter though. Unsaturated Fats in the form of nuts and seeds and extra virgin olive oil are probably healthier than butter if you believe the correlations in studies. The fact that they are high in polyphenols probably helps.
For example, each 1% increase in total energy intake from yogurt or cheese was linked to a 7% and 2% lower risk of heart disease, respectively. Conversely, increased intake of red meat and butter were associated with a 7% and 2% higher risk of heart disease, respectively.
Steur M, et al. Dietary fatty acids, macronutrient substitutions, food sources and incidence of coronary heart disease: Findings from the EPIC-CVD case-cohort study across nine European countries.Trusted Source Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021.
thanks for the mythology Ancel !!!!
So neither sat fat or linoleic were great. No surprise since linoleic is pro-inflammatory. It’s misleading to equate linoleic with poly fats as a category, especially when the n 3s are anti inflammatory.
Great analysis thank you and I agree wholeheartedly !!
Why have the numbers of patients with heart diseases been on the rise since keys' "study?"
because people continue to eat saturated fats and cholesterol and the artery damage from animal based food goes beyond that.
BTW, Ancel Keys followed his own dietary advice and lived to be 100 yrs old. Where are all the 100 y/o carnivores???
@@buckmurdock2500My 86 yo mother has been on carnivore diet for almost 18 months. Her 5-decade long constipation disappeared two weeks after she started such diet, her high blood pressure which she was told by her doctor to be genetic and would never be under controlled without medications also has been normal, her fatty liver also recovered, her heart is very strong, and her memory, compensation both improved tremendously, her 3 physicals done within last year also showed no abnormalities, she's physically stronger, her insomnia disappeared, and her doctor told her she had a body of a person in the 70's.
She had tried to introduce some leafy vegetables back into her diet few months ago, then she immediately to suffer from constipation. Stopped the veggies, and constipation gradually disappeared again in a month and since then hasn't returned.
I've been eating primarily animal fat and meat since the discovery of type 2 diabetes two years ago. A1C has been below 5.8 since, from 10.3, nerve pain gone, vision regained, cracked skin healed, energy level always up, all without having to take any medication, nor insulin for one day. Not bad for being in the 50s.Have a tomatoe size of half of an apple however, and blood sugar shoots up.
Although I do have two cups of coffee daily with heavy cream and pure sucralose.
Interesting, is it not?
Since my 86 yo mother started eating primarily meat and animal fat over 15 months ago, her:
Once told to be genetic high blood pressure 50 years ago by her doctor has been normal. Her constipation, which lasted more than 5 decades disappeared two weeks after she started such diet. She no long has insomnia. Her memory greatly improves. Her heart is strong. Her fatty liver also recovered. She is physically stronger. And the 3 physicals (all of them with MRI, as well as MRA, and full blood panels)she had within the last year showed no abnormalities but improvements , as well as stabilities. She tried to introduce some leafy greens back to her diet few months ago and the constipation came back to haunt her immediately. Stopped the greens and it gradually disappeared again within a month and hasn't since returned.
I found out my A1C was 10.3 almost two year ago. Immediately cut bread, starchy food, rice, and anything with high glycemic numbers out of my diet. Though still was consuming vegetables with less meat and animal fat. For about 10 months the weight came down, and so did the A1c, but it just wouldn't go below 8.0. My visceral fat also remained above 10.
Then I started to eat mainly animal fat, as well as steaks, in less than 3 months my A1c came down to 6.8. And today it is at 5.7, and has been below 5.8 ever since.
My cracked scaly skin recovered. My vision restored (though not completely). I no longer have nerve pain, nor painful muscle convulsion. My brain fog disappeared. Blood pressure has been normal. Visceral fat normal at 8. Joint pain disappeared (though it'd come back immediately if I had some greens).
I do have two cups of coffee with heavy cream, and pure sucralose without maltodextrin daily. Perhaps that's the reason why my A1c always stays between 5.3 to 5.8 and wouldn't come down further. Heavy cream may also be the reason why my visceral fat went up a little from 6 to 8.
Eating a tomato size of a baseball would raise my blood sugar over 136. But the highest blood sugar number I had after consuming a piece of ribeye steak was 128.
Oh, last year after my mother's PCP evaluated one of her physicals, she was told to have a body 10 years younger than 86.
As for me, I have never taken any diabetic medication, nor insulin since my type-2 diabetes diagnosis two year ago.
Isn't this interesting?
As about Ancel Keys to have lived 100 years. Well, Jeanne Calment was 122 years and 164-days old when she passed away. She had smoked for 90 plus years, drank alcohol, ate lots of sugar, as well as red meat.
Longevity is meaningless if one can not engage in activities as he, or she desires. At age 90, in his interview took place on April 23rd, 1994, Ancel Keys looked rather feeble.
@@buckmurdock2500
How are you supposed to intake saturated fat in a natural way?
Eating steak, duh!
I don’t know why this isn’t blindingly obvious. We have a Gall Bladder that is specifically designed to breakdown Fat. It would take a fool to not assume that this fat comes from animals which of course are majority saturated fats.
I know why $
I didnt understand the part of the trans fat.
Who ate more trans fat? The ones in the polyunsaturated fats groups? And why is that? And why shouldnt we expect to consume more trans fat if we eat more polyunsaturated fats?
It’s now well established that polyunsaturated fats are correlated with most of if not all disease states because of their estrogenic effects and interference with the thyroid and metabolism .
The body prefers glucose and saturated fats for energy and stores polyunsaturated fats in the tissues .
Under times of stress these pufas are liberated into the blood stream causing a host issues from diabetes to cancers.
What about MUFAs?
It is not well-established at all.
@@Sobchak2care to elaborate? Or are you happy with your one dimensional statement?
@@wintertime331 to answer properly one needs to go through all clinical trials that covered this subject, which requires a few days to do. Gil Carvalho covered this subject at length on his channel.
Having said that, it is the OP above who made the original claim, so you should ask him to provide the literature that supports it.
@@Sobchak2well your the one with the rebuttal, I explained quite simply the same processes that could take many paragraphs etc as well .
Can you sum up any advantages to pufa in the diet ?
No waaaaay. Scientist never lie about their data? Just follow the science bro, trust me bro
Only follow science when it says meat bad.
Thank you Sir.....
There is a very high pitched sound playing in the right audio channel of this video btw
That's just the screeching of all the charlatan diet gurus on social media replying before the halfway point of the video.
Nic (or is it Nick?), Do you think researchers who decide against publishing should publish an explanation? I can see why they don't. With a flawed methodology or change in circumstances, the data is utterly meaningless so there literally is nothing to publish. The thing never happened. On the other hand, a failure of this magnitude might be useful to know about in real time to help other researchers. If an important confounding variable comes to light, tell the world. For example, I have stopped worrying about phlogiston since speaking to Tony Lavoisier. But I digress. Put differently, if he learn more from our failures than our success, then why do journals only publish the successes? What does Big Publication have against us learning?
Nic. That’s a great question, Dan. I think it would be an excellent resource to have and I also think it would encourage more negative findings to be published. I’d love that. Great idea.
@@Physionic It's more or less the dreaded "file drawer effect" as identified by Robert Rosenthal. 20 researchers do the same experiment all using significance at the .05 level. 19 get null results. One gets "significant" results. Guess which one gets published. 19 end up in the file drawer.
I think it should be published in a public junk file. since unpublished studies are often uninteresting and flawed like most other papers
I would recommend reading The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. It is eye opening.
I've read the scientific reviews she's published - a lot of incorrectly represented data.
Teicholz plagiarized the entire book. She even plagiarized mistakes made by the author she was plagiarizing. She is paid by one benefactor. Her job is to create nutrition confusion. Period. She is not a doctor, researcher or scientist. She is a journalist and a lousy one at that.
@buckmurdock2500 ok, who is the author she plagiarized and who is the benefactor that paid her? She never claimed to be anything other than an investigative journalist.
Wow... Just wow...
Interesting and thank you, although I switched to natural fats years ago, and have better health, I have a less demonstrative opinion of Keys. Although Keys should have simply looked elsewhere for truth if he found his current path going nowhere.
While we have the ability to choose that now, our US Dietary guidelines are based on Keys’ research and lack of full evidence. Thankfully other research has proved saturated fats are protective.
HI ! Would you be able to analyse Ray Peat diet in short video? I am sure it would have great traffic as it has many followers which behave like sect
He didn’t live into his 90s and had a serious health issue. For one his calcium intake was far too high. Many recent studies show it’s not needed in high doses (~500 mg max). Too many follow without doing any self research of original data.
Ultimately we are all going to die and whatever the weak link is it will get you. Ray Peat always encouraged self experimentation to tweak and customize your approach.@@jmc8076
Read Ioannidis 2005, "Why most published research results are false".
Note the words most and fslse.
So... you are saying I should pick up smoking?
Or PUFA consumption is even worse than smoking and being overweight. And the intervention lowered cholestherol, isn't trans fats suposed to increase yor LDL levels!?
one of the questions that came to my mind was were they willing participants?
A great question, I honestly don't know.
@@Physionic that was the first thing that came to mind when you said they were all in hospitals and psych wards. And it's not really unheard of for doctors and hospitals to be doing these kinds of experiments on patients, especially in long term care and/or psych wards.
What is your opinion on the liquid and spray HGH products online? Asking for a 71 year old who is losing muscle mass on a daily basis. Thanks for your analysis on all things health related!
mild exercise and hf diet helps
Get LGD 4033.
Google it.
I'm 59. I give it a thumbs up.
Can you explain why saturated fats raises LDL? What are the mechanisms? I read that lower levels of Insulin and glucagon lowers activity of LDL receptors in the liver, keeping LDL in the blood. If this is true the effects of diet are just momentarily, when you higher those levels you will lower LDL in time
I can tell you that and you should check out the work of Dave Feldman, he has a youtube channel and has done a lot of research on this subject.
Basically cholesterol transtports fat around the body because it's not soluble in water, ie blood. So the more fat you consume the more cholesterol you are likely to produce to deal with it. You shouldn't be afraid of ldl cholesterol. Cholestrol is incredibly essential to so many things. In fact, cholesterol also reduces the likelihood of viral and bacterial infection just to top it off. Also, just in case you didn't know, your heart runs on saturated fat and it is muscle failure caused by when it runs on glycogen (aka sugar) in times of stress or increased demand.
At the moment raised triglycerides (fat floating in your blood stream) are linked with a higher risk of CVD.
Feldman shows that you can reduce your ldl by eating a high carb diet but at the expense of an increase in insulin insensitivity and high triglycerides.
Sure, I plan on a video on that.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist Dave is going to release his data soon but he did recently hint that high LDL isn't a problem.
@@Physionicplease do!
Another idea for higher LDL advanced by Paul Mason is that very low carb diets have an absence of plant sterols. He supposes that vegan diets have high levels of plant sterols which "artificially" lower LDL from their natural levels
Hi, I have some more interesting material for investigation. 1 - GR-7, 2- Nurosym. 3- The sups Bryan Johnson takes on blueprint. Because we trust you. :)
In Mad Men one of the older guys has a heart attack and is drinking butter because his doctor told him to. At the time I think everyone eye rolled.
Better than the transfat margerine of the time....
In my house we always use Sat Fats to Cook. Pork fat. Olive oil Just to seasoning salads.
Pork fat (as most of the animal fats) content is half mono-unsaturated fat (with a lot of oleic acid also found in olive oil). You could also use tallow. In my region where we raise ducks and gees to make foie gras (literally fatty liver) we can use duck or goose fat too. But I generally use tallow or lamb fat from grass fed animals to avoid to have too much omegas 6 in my fat.