Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

4

2

Preface: I have happily eaten Paleo for 2 months and plan to continue doing so... However...

There are 8 "modern" studies from 2008 to 2010 listed on the Wikipedia article titled Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy. Two of the studies (25%) show insignificant effects or no link between saturated fat (SFA) in the diet and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the remaining six studies (75%) show a reduced rate of CVD or mortality from lowering SFA in the diet. Are the two studies that support the Paleo approach considered "good science", and the remaining six that don't support Paleo considered "bad science"?

I understand that there are infinitely many reasons or motivations for any particular study to be bad (confounding variables, poor sampling, politics, funding, etc), but is this a case where all the opposing studies do suffer from such problems and the supporting studies do not?

edited Apr 28 2011 at 2:12

asked Apr 28 2011 at 0:17

BaleoNub
859●3●11

The Quilt · Accepted Answer · 2011-04-28 00:42:06Z UTC

7

All sat fat studies are confounded with PUFA's wheat and carbs.....therefore they are worthless studies. Next.

answered Apr 28 2011 at 0:42

The Quilt
27.4k●1●13●82

Carbs specifically wheat is a bigger risk to cardiac tissue. Eat wheat everyday for on straight week then draw your ultra sensitive crp. Then stop all wheat for two weeks and recheck it. You'll never eat it again. It also caves your vitamin d levels and that impairs your ability activate T cell immunity – The Quilt Apr 28 2011 at 0:44

1

I was going to type a response to this question, but I saw yours and I had absolutely nothing to add. Studies are designed to represent the "average" person, and the average person has so many toxic components in the diet that it's easy to tie SFA intake to overall damage. What has a lot of SFAs? Meat. Toss it on a sandwich, and you have a gluten-filled vein-bomb ready to harden as soon as your immune system can rally. But no one blames good old bread. It was the roast beef in the sandwich! Perform the same studies, focus on fructose intake and allow any fat intake, then see what happens – becker Apr 28 2011 at 1:08

1

Not that it would change the world, but Dr. K, would you consider writing up a cited statement on that Wiki article with this same claim? Just a sentence or two? The discussion tab on that Wiki page is also interesting. – BaleoNub Apr 28 2011 at 2:17

Ned Kock · Answer 2 · 2011-04-28 00:31:19Z UTC

2

Good link.

ANYONE here who thinks this is a settled issue might re-examine their own motives and beliefs.

answered Apr 28 2011 at 0:31

Ned Kock
21●2

	Is it settled no.......but the data is horribly studied. Therefore worthless – The Quilt Apr 28 2011 at 0:45
	I don't think it'll be too much of a stretch for anyone in this community to re-examine our motives and beliefs. Our motives are, well, to re-examine constantly so that we feel secure in our beliefs. These types of studies are old news, and they often have iffy designs with a bias that precludes carbohydrates from scrutiny and instead focuses purely on SFAs. I read through some of those abstracts, and it wasn't clear in any how they replaced the SFAs in the diet, just that they "did" replace them. Foods are more complicated than SFAs, so we can't infer more without knowing their methods. – becker Apr 28 2011 at 1:14
	I am a reader of Ned's work and would guess that he might have something more specific in mind when he writes this answer. Maybe he would want to expand as a way of joining the discussion? I for one would be interested. – Paul Apr 28 2011 at 4:29

What say the Paleo community about recent research showing reduced CVD risk from lower SFA?

2 Answers