Nuts and saturated fats

[Cocapelle]

Read this on MSN, today.

Brazil

One Ounce Equals: 6 nuts, 186 calories, 4 g protein, 19 g total fat

The Bad News: 4 g saturated fat per one-ounce serving

The Good News: Highest amount of selenium of any food; this mineral helps eliminate free radicals that can lead to cancer

Macadamia

One Ounce Equals: 11 nuts, 204 calories, 2 g protein, 21 g total fat

The Bad News: 3 g saturated fat and more calories than any other nut

The Good News: High in thiamine, a type of B vitamin that helps metabolize carbohydrates into energy

Cashews

One Ounce Equals: 18 nuts, 157 calories, 5 g protein, 12 g total fat

The Bad News: 2.5 g saturated fat per one-ounce serving

The Good News: Rich in copper and magnesium, as well as zinc, which is important for a healthy immune system.

[LindaSue]

Why are the saturated fats "bad news"? Saturated fats are good for us.

[Cocapelle]

I don't know, which is why I posted it. Anyone know???

[Nigel]

Acoording to wikipedia: (you can read more if you google it)

"Diets high in saturated fat are correlated with an increased incidence of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease according to a number of studies, both African green monkeys[3] and human.[4][5][6][7] Some studies have suggested that diets high in saturated fat increase the risk of heart disease and stroke. Epidemiological studies have found that those whose diets are high in saturated fatty acids, including lauric, myristic, palmitic, and stearic acid, had a higher prevalence of coronary heart disease.[8][9][10][11] Additionally, controlled experimental studies have found that people consuming high saturated fat diets experience negative cholesterol profile changes.[4][12][13][14] A 2003 meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that diets high in saturated fat negatively affected cholesterol profiles — predictors of a heart attack and other cardiovascular diseases.[15]
Experiments in which subjects were randomly assigned to either a control or Mediterranean diet (which replaces saturated fat with mono and polyunsaturated fat) showed a significantly decreased likelihood of suffering a second heart attack, cardiac death, heart failure or stroke.[16][17]
Epidemiological studies of heart disease have implicated the four major saturated fatty acids to varying degrees. The World Health Organization has determined that there is "convincing" evidence that myristic and palmitic acid intake increases the probability, "possible" risk from lauric acid, and no increased risk at all from stearic acid consumption.[18]
In a study published in 2001, erythrocyte membrane oleic and monounsaturated fatty acid content was positively associated with breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, while no association was shown between saturated fatty acids and breast cancer risk. Enzyme Δ9-desaturase catalyzes the conversion of stearic acid to oleic acid: there is a negative correlation between erythrocyte membrane oleic acid and dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids. Inverse relationship between Saturation Index (ratio of membrane stearic to oleic acid) and breast cancer risk could also be related to hormonal and metabolic factors and to interactions between them, as well as to dietary factors.[19]"

[ljh150]

Ridiculous, saturated fats are healthy, and are only unhealthy when combined with refined starches and sugars. I'm so tired of reading all the same old low fat lies, I wish these people would educate themselves.


Here are links to numerous articles/studies refuting the 'saturated fat is unhealthy' myth:

WAPF: Know Your Fats

[jlatislaw]

If you'd like to read more click on the link:

Saturated Fat - Men's Health

--------
What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?
For decades, Americans have been told that saturated fat clogs arteries and causes heart disease. But there's just one problem: No one's ever proved it.

In the 1960s, a Vanderbilt University scientist named George Mann, M.D., found that Masai men consumed this very diet (supplemented with blood from the cattle they herded). Yet these nomads, who were also very lean, had some of the lowest levels of cholesterol ever measured and were virtually free of heart disease.

Scientists, confused by the finding, argued that the tribe must have certain genetic protections against developing high cholesterol. But when British researchers monitored a group of Masai men who moved to Nairobi and began consuming a more modern diet, they discovered that the men's cholesterol subsequently skyrocketed.

Similar observations were made of the Samburu -- another Kenyan tribe -- as well as the Fulani of Nigeria. While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved.

The first scientific indictment of saturated fat came in 1953. That's the year a physiologist named Ancel Keys, Ph.D., published a highly influential paper titled "Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health." Keys wrote that while the total death rate in the United States was declining, the number of deaths due to heart disease was steadily climbing. And to explain why, he presented a comparison of fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy, and Japan.

The Americans ate the most fat and had the greatest number of deaths from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest deaths from heart disease. The other countries fell neatly in between. The higher the fat intake, according to national diet surveys, the higher the rate of heart disease. And vice versa. Keys called this correlation a "remarkable relationship" and began to publicly hypothesize that consumption of fat- causes heart disease. This became known as the diet-heart hypothesis.

At the time, plenty of scientists were skeptical of Keys's assertions. One such critic was Jacob Yerushalmy, Ph.D., founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley. In a 1957 paper, Yerushalmy pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. And when all 22 were analyzed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared. For example, the death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, even though fat-consumption rates in the two nations were similar.

[Nigel]

Wow!! Looks like wikipedia is a little out of it.

[decodiana]

I found this well worth a read...

http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/20...stood_nutrient

[theislandgirl]

Originally Posted by Nigel

Wow!! Looks like wikipedia is a little out of it.

Wikipedia is quoting the "bad fats" party, which is everybody that hasn't kept up with current research, including a huge volume of medical and research types who haven't bothered to check the assumptions underlying a lot of these studies. Note also that a meta study or two was referred to; a meta study is a study of other studies. It's all stats, stats and damned lies, when the assumptions aren't checked at the door and ALL the macronutrients aren't factored in with the results, just the one...

You do know that Wikipedia is built by "donation", and is NOT equivalent to MedLine or the journals, don't you? Anybody can go in and create or add to entries...




Sheesh.

[Nigel]

Thanks for the heads up on wikipedia. I didn't know anything about it except the darn thing is the first thing that pops up on google most of the time. I never really paid much attention to the site.....live and learn...I also didn't know what a meta study was...I feel educated today.

[theislandgirl]

Any time, Nigel! Love your bulldog, BTW, SUCH a cutie.

[Pork Chop]

Originally Posted by Nigel

Thanks for the heads up on wikipedia. I didn't know anything about it except the darn thing is the first thing that pops up on google most of the time. I never really paid much attention to the site.....live and learn...I also didn't know what a meta study was...I feel educated today.

Take a look at the "talk" page for the saturated fats entry:

Talk:Saturated fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, wikipedia entries are governed by the biggest bully. When dealing with ideological issues (and unfortunately, fats have become ideological) any study that does not confirm their belief will be discarded as being substandard. The only way that page is going to change is if a bunch of people who are proponents of saturated fats join wikipedia and start asserting themselves. Loudly.

If you look up "Atkins Diet" on wikipedia, you'll see much of the same. There just aren't enough low carb proponents contributing on wikipedia.

[ira500]

The standard accepted medical line is that saturated fats are bad, although trans fats are now thought of as the real demon. even so, right or wrong, amny doctors tell you to keep saturated fat intake low, BUT:
Even if you believe that, saturated fats in coconut and macadamias are completely different than the saturated fat in butter. Plus., macadamias are an extremely high source of the monounsaturated fats, the Omega 9 fatty acid, thought of as a good fat, and has much more monounsaturated than saturated.
Fats fill you up, carbs keep you hungry. Fats taste good too.
So even if you do believe that saturated fats are harmful, and I'm not sure myself, saturated fats in nuts and fruit are not the same thing as saturated fat in cheese and shouldn't be thought of the same way.

[fitnfree]

Thanks for the heads up on wikipedia. I didn't know anything about it except the darn thing is the first thing that pops up on google most of the time.

I know! And it's getting annoying, don't you think? Grief, it's hardly a scientific source...

Anyway, now I forgot what I was going to say .. oh yeah sat. fats...heck, for a while it was ALL fats are bad, then sat. fat NOT so bad, but DO NOT EAT TRANS FAT - They're always changing their minds - if they can't figure out what they're talking about, how are we supposed to , right??