When I read the article in The Atlantic, I hoped someone would rebut it. There was no comment section under The Atlantic article, but if there had been, I wanted to ask: "Since we evolved for millions of years eating animals, please explain why saturated fat is bad for us?"
I'm happy that "vegetable oils" are now being called "seed oils". Most people who don't take the time to analyze food sources and nutrition think it is derived from vegetables, and vegetables are good for you, so... Great research, Gary: thank you!
An AHA/ASA article, "Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050—Prevalence of Risk Factors and Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association," (2024) by Karen E. Joynt Maddox, et al, has a chart showing the decline in projected cholesterol, and a projected increase in diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. They project that by 2050, hypertension will affect 60% from 50% today. Then in another chart, it shows total cardiovascular disease raising from about 11% to 15% of the population. In the concluding section they recognize that the reduction of cholesterol and the increases in obesity might be due to the overall reduction in fat consumption and the increase in sugar consumption. Thought you might be interested.
GaryE: what I don’t understand is how this very reasonable forecast stands, but directly contradicts the current medical dogma of the diet heart hypothesis. Isn’t there a massive level of cognitive dissonance going on??? If not, why not?
Around 1970, the US medical powers that be, decided that the unproven lipid hypothesis as cause of cardiovascular disease should be standard treatment over and against the sugar hypothesis. So, the focus has been to lower dietary saturated fats and cholesterol, as well as, using cholesterol lowering drugs. This has been the practice for more than 50 years now. The lipid hypothesis remains a hypothesis--un proven. There is no cognitive dissonance, just a bad judgment. I personally rejected the lipid hypothesis when I turned 65, with high cholesterol and and arthritis in both hips and lower back--thought to be a candidate for hip replacement. Now at 81, with a diet high in saturated fat I am "healthy as a horse" and play competitive pickleball with people 10 to 15 years younger--and still have my natural hips. But then, I'm told that I'm simply an anomaly. Maybe, maybe not.
Not an anomaly. I started eating high fat (low carb) several years ago under Dr Westman at Duke. My cholesterol is much improved, especially the HDL. After decades of doctors telling me “it is virtually impossible to improve your HDL’
translation:we don’t have a pill for that. my joints are much better, tho I have arthritis. I walk several miles most days and love my Pilates classes. I will turn 79 next week. I think there is corruption at the bottom of it, rather than bad judgment. 50 years.
Concerning arthritis, I started eating fermented vegetables to help reduce inflammation and bone broth to help heal the arthritis. When I was 65 I was walking with a cane because of arthritis in both hips and lower back. It took about 5 years to walk without pain, but now at age 81 I'm playing competitive pickleball about 4 hours per week. I also found that supplementing copper through the skin helps with collagen production.
Bravo Gary! I've eaten the opposite of the Dietary Guidelines for decades and my CAC is zero, BMI <25 and HbA1c 5.4% - pretty sure I'd be another fat Type 2 if I'd eaten their way. It's nice to know someone knows why!
I'm sure Tayag will take this criticism under consideration. 🙄 No, she's there to parrot the shallow conclusions of the "experts."
Anti seed oil crowd is definitely growing, and it's a good thing. It is a modern experiment that is correlated with health disaster. But I love how Gary and Nina stick to the root: all the bad guidelines and subsequent poor health outcomes stem from the myth that saturated fat is bad for you. RFK doesn't believe that, which is a great thing.
But I'm not holding my breath that the entrenched government apparatus will allow any of the conventional wisdom to change. The guidelines and status quo will stay the same. They're in too deep.
Enormously helpful article, Gary, as usual, and a helpful reminder of all the entertaining reading your books have given me. Despite the clarity of your writing, sometimes the sheer volume of this stuff makes things so complicated, I can restore my skeptical-but-not-cynical decision to eat tallow instead of seed oils only by remembering that our species drove megafauna to extinction by seeking meat to keep us alive. This is a version of the Handler "vast nutritional experiment" argument you cite, I think. Does this megafauna argument make sense, or is it more like closing one's eyes to escape monsters in the dark?
Re megafauna argument, yes, it does as does the simple observation that we evolved eating meat. But the counterargument would be not that much and a different kind of meat. There's a quasi-legitimate counterargument to everything in these controversies. When I was in college I took a systems engineering class my senior year. The professor used to end virtually every class (as I recall) by saying "you pays your money, you takes your chances." I think those are words to live by.
I just wish your writing had more bulldog, ie bite. I appreciate the need for civility. However, I have ADHD of the inattentive kind, and It would be helpful in keeping my attention if you got to your points more directly. They are all excellent points! And clearly organized and well presented. It’s ok if Taytag feels uncomfortable — or even shamed — by your expose. Isn’t that the point?
I'm on the fence about the bite. Having been on the receiving end, I prefer more civil discussions. I suppose she will feel uncomfortable one way or the other--or at least I hope so--but I can't say that if I were in her position, I'd have done any better or differently. I hope so, but...
Thank you for your reply. I appreciated the civility! Your recent note about Nina’s admirable takedown of the new guidelines had some language I’d encourage more of: “inexcusably bad science”. Was that the phrase? Admitting dejection at the thought of wading through so much junk. I liked your tone. Either way you don’t let them off the hook for a minute.
I understand a desire to see the short summary; I have a hard time tracking as well, and often need to re-read paragraphs and slow down multiple times. That being said, I think his presentation style is important. It may take longer to track, but there's ultimately a much better path laid out in my opinion compared to many other articles. Gary also does an incredible job of getting points out that I have a hard time conveying, such as why we should question the status quo. His remarks about a plethora of logic being derived from those assumptions (I'm paraphrasing) is spot on.
So grateful for Mr. Taubes' independent, science-based health reporting. Heeding his dietary wisdom is likely why, at age 64, I have a CAC of 0,”frustratingly perfect" labs (say the docs), and no need for pharmaceuticals.
My biggest takeaway from this article: Seek out and heed the INDEPENDENT researchers and journalists, because the corporate stronghold on information will be the death of us all.
Bravo Gary to continue the effort of trying to make complex points in reporting about science. A bit depressing however that somebody like Kennedy could be the one making a correct point (I am not sure for the the right reasons) whilst people you might expect would pay some attention to logic and a minimum of control of the correctness of what they affirm are falling back to the adoration of authoritative arguments one thought science would consider with caution ... since Galileo... where the hell has reason gone ? A salut from little Switzerland and Zurich last year
Hi Jean-Pierre, Thanks for the kind words. I worry more that it's the erosion of standards in the relevant sciences that are the problem. As I wrote in the epilog of GCBC, it's like these people are pretending to be scientists but have no idea what it takes to establish reliable knowledge, or they just don't care. Then the journalists write up what they do because, well, it's news and they're the "experts". Crazy.
I’ve seen Kennedy comment positively about Nina Teicholz’s work on Twitter. I have the impression he has personally read her book - but of course I may be wrong about that. Anyway, it would not surprise me at all if he knows more about the subject than Taytag (the author of The Atlantic article).
Kennedy may be a bit of a loon at times, but he is clearly a well-read and highly intelligent loon. 😀
Excerpt from Gary's article: "As I have written, I also find the evidence that seed oils are a major cause of chronic disease in America less than compelling. I remain skeptical. But I think I know enough not to defend it on the basis that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated was, and still is an unequivocally good idea. All benefit, no harm. (We should be so lucky.)
Excerpts from a 2024 article by Kristina Jackson, William Harris, Martha Belury, Penny Kris-Etherton & Philip Calder entitled "Beneficial effects of linoleic acid on cardiometabolic health'.
"Here, we outline the recent evidence supporting the hypothesis that higher intakes of LA are associated with improvements in relevant biomarkers and with lower risk for developing cardiometabolic diseases, and we address some of the most common concerns about higher LA intakes and levels."
"Dietary LA is overwhelmingly the greatest contributor to the body’s pool of n-6 PUFAs followed by dietary arachidonic acid (ARA). ARA blood levels are primarily affected by ARA intake, but endogenous metabolism and intake of EPA and DHA are also known to have an effect."
Note that blood levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (particularly arachidonic acid) constitute a moving target. Here is what matters: "Because AA competes with EPA and DHA as well as with LA, ALA and oleic acid for incorporation in membrane lipids at the same positions, all these fatty acids are important for controlling the AA concentration in membrane lipids, which in turn determines how much AA can be liberated and become available for prostaglandin biosynthesis following phospholipase activation. Thus, the best strategy for dampening prostanoid overproduction in disease situations would be to reduce the intake of AA, or reduce the intake of AA at the same time as the total intake of competing fatty acids (including oleic acid) is enhanced, rather than enhancing intakes of EPA and DHA only." (web search - Anna Haug Individual Variation)
A 2013 article by Australian researchers begins, "Endocannabinoids and their G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) are a current research focus in the area of obesity due to the system's role in food intake and glucose and lipid metabolism. Importantly, overweight and obese individuals often have higher circulating levels of the arachidonic acid-derived endocannabinoids anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) and an altered pattern of receptor expression. Consequently, this leads to an increase in orexigenic stimuli, changes in fatty acid synthesis, insulin sensitivity, and glucose utilisation, with preferential energy storage in adipose tissue."
The remainder of that narrative contains two mistakes. Can anyone spot them? "As endocannabinoids are products of dietary fats, modification of dietary intake may modulate their levels, with eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid based endocannabinoids being able to displace arachidonic acid from cell membranes, reducing AEA and 2-AG production. Similarly, oleoyl ethanolamide, a product of oleic acid, induces satiety, decreases circulating fatty acid concentrations, increases the capacity for β -oxidation, and is capable of inhibiting the action of AEA and 2-AG in adipose tissue. Thus, understanding how dietary fats alter endocannabinoid system activity is a pertinent area of research due to public health messages promoting a shift towards plant-derived fats, which are rich sources of AEA and 2-AG precursor fatty acids, possibly encouraging excessive energy intake and weight gain. " (web search - Fatty Acid Modulation of the Endocannabinoid System)
Excerpt from a 2022 article entitled, 'Effects of Arachidonic Acid and Its Metabolites on Functional Beta-Cell Mass': Arachidonic acid (AA) is a polyunsaturated 20-carbon fatty acid present in phospholipids in the plasma membrane...Alterations in AA release or AA concentrations have been shown to affect insulin secretion from the pancreatic beta cell, leading to interest in the role of AA and its metabolites in the regulation of beta-cell function and maintenance of beta-cell mass. In this review, we discuss the metabolism of AA by COX, LOX, and CYP, the roles of these enzymes and their metabolites in beta-cell mass and function, and the possibility of targeting these pathways as novel therapies for treating diabetes." (web search - Bosma Effects of Arachidonic Acid)
Excellent discussion. I often talk to patients about the role of protecting the status quo. Professional reputations are on the line here. After you supported a tenant in medicine as a law (actually a hypothesis.) It is difficult for a person or organization to admit they were wrong in any way. It's only a natural response to circle the wagons and dig in!
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. Over time we may slay the dragon.
I'm basically apolitical, but RFK, Jr might be the agent to upset the apple cart and start the process to rebuild a scientifically based approach.
He may be. What worries me, though, is that he might also upset apple carts that deserve more respect. There's a safety-efficacy issue with every intervention. The more wide-ranging the interventions--in this case, the apple cart upsetting--the more likely that harm will be done. I don't know how to avoid it, though. So... fingers crossed.
When I read the article in The Atlantic, I hoped someone would rebut it. There was no comment section under The Atlantic article, but if there had been, I wanted to ask: "Since we evolved for millions of years eating animals, please explain why saturated fat is bad for us?"
I'm happy that "vegetable oils" are now being called "seed oils". Most people who don't take the time to analyze food sources and nutrition think it is derived from vegetables, and vegetables are good for you, so... Great research, Gary: thank you!
An AHA/ASA article, "Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050—Prevalence of Risk Factors and Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association," (2024) by Karen E. Joynt Maddox, et al, has a chart showing the decline in projected cholesterol, and a projected increase in diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. They project that by 2050, hypertension will affect 60% from 50% today. Then in another chart, it shows total cardiovascular disease raising from about 11% to 15% of the population. In the concluding section they recognize that the reduction of cholesterol and the increases in obesity might be due to the overall reduction in fat consumption and the increase in sugar consumption. Thought you might be interested.
I am, thanks. I hadn't seen that.
GaryE: what I don’t understand is how this very reasonable forecast stands, but directly contradicts the current medical dogma of the diet heart hypothesis. Isn’t there a massive level of cognitive dissonance going on??? If not, why not?
Around 1970, the US medical powers that be, decided that the unproven lipid hypothesis as cause of cardiovascular disease should be standard treatment over and against the sugar hypothesis. So, the focus has been to lower dietary saturated fats and cholesterol, as well as, using cholesterol lowering drugs. This has been the practice for more than 50 years now. The lipid hypothesis remains a hypothesis--un proven. There is no cognitive dissonance, just a bad judgment. I personally rejected the lipid hypothesis when I turned 65, with high cholesterol and and arthritis in both hips and lower back--thought to be a candidate for hip replacement. Now at 81, with a diet high in saturated fat I am "healthy as a horse" and play competitive pickleball with people 10 to 15 years younger--and still have my natural hips. But then, I'm told that I'm simply an anomaly. Maybe, maybe not.
Not an anomaly. I started eating high fat (low carb) several years ago under Dr Westman at Duke. My cholesterol is much improved, especially the HDL. After decades of doctors telling me “it is virtually impossible to improve your HDL’
translation:we don’t have a pill for that. my joints are much better, tho I have arthritis. I walk several miles most days and love my Pilates classes. I will turn 79 next week. I think there is corruption at the bottom of it, rather than bad judgment. 50 years.
Concerning arthritis, I started eating fermented vegetables to help reduce inflammation and bone broth to help heal the arthritis. When I was 65 I was walking with a cane because of arthritis in both hips and lower back. It took about 5 years to walk without pain, but now at age 81 I'm playing competitive pickleball about 4 hours per week. I also found that supplementing copper through the skin helps with collagen production.
Bravo Gary! I've eaten the opposite of the Dietary Guidelines for decades and my CAC is zero, BMI <25 and HbA1c 5.4% - pretty sure I'd be another fat Type 2 if I'd eaten their way. It's nice to know someone knows why!
Thanks for another excellent post, Gary. A voice of reason in the field of nutrition.
Turkey fried in tallow....OMG, I need to get some of that!!!
I'm sure Tayag will take this criticism under consideration. 🙄 No, she's there to parrot the shallow conclusions of the "experts."
Anti seed oil crowd is definitely growing, and it's a good thing. It is a modern experiment that is correlated with health disaster. But I love how Gary and Nina stick to the root: all the bad guidelines and subsequent poor health outcomes stem from the myth that saturated fat is bad for you. RFK doesn't believe that, which is a great thing.
But I'm not holding my breath that the entrenched government apparatus will allow any of the conventional wisdom to change. The guidelines and status quo will stay the same. They're in too deep.
Holding one's breath here is definitely no longer an option. But stranger things have happened.
Enormously helpful article, Gary, as usual, and a helpful reminder of all the entertaining reading your books have given me. Despite the clarity of your writing, sometimes the sheer volume of this stuff makes things so complicated, I can restore my skeptical-but-not-cynical decision to eat tallow instead of seed oils only by remembering that our species drove megafauna to extinction by seeking meat to keep us alive. This is a version of the Handler "vast nutritional experiment" argument you cite, I think. Does this megafauna argument make sense, or is it more like closing one's eyes to escape monsters in the dark?
Re megafauna argument, yes, it does as does the simple observation that we evolved eating meat. But the counterargument would be not that much and a different kind of meat. There's a quasi-legitimate counterargument to everything in these controversies. When I was in college I took a systems engineering class my senior year. The professor used to end virtually every class (as I recall) by saying "you pays your money, you takes your chances." I think those are words to live by.
I just wish your writing had more bulldog, ie bite. I appreciate the need for civility. However, I have ADHD of the inattentive kind, and It would be helpful in keeping my attention if you got to your points more directly. They are all excellent points! And clearly organized and well presented. It’s ok if Taytag feels uncomfortable — or even shamed — by your expose. Isn’t that the point?
I'm on the fence about the bite. Having been on the receiving end, I prefer more civil discussions. I suppose she will feel uncomfortable one way or the other--or at least I hope so--but I can't say that if I were in her position, I'd have done any better or differently. I hope so, but...
Thank you for your reply. I appreciated the civility! Your recent note about Nina’s admirable takedown of the new guidelines had some language I’d encourage more of: “inexcusably bad science”. Was that the phrase? Admitting dejection at the thought of wading through so much junk. I liked your tone. Either way you don’t let them off the hook for a minute.
I understand a desire to see the short summary; I have a hard time tracking as well, and often need to re-read paragraphs and slow down multiple times. That being said, I think his presentation style is important. It may take longer to track, but there's ultimately a much better path laid out in my opinion compared to many other articles. Gary also does an incredible job of getting points out that I have a hard time conveying, such as why we should question the status quo. His remarks about a plethora of logic being derived from those assumptions (I'm paraphrasing) is spot on.
Well said
By nature I tend to have a bit too much bite, my prophetic nature--and you know what they do to prophets.
So grateful for Mr. Taubes' independent, science-based health reporting. Heeding his dietary wisdom is likely why, at age 64, I have a CAC of 0,”frustratingly perfect" labs (say the docs), and no need for pharmaceuticals.
My biggest takeaway from this article: Seek out and heed the INDEPENDENT researchers and journalists, because the corporate stronghold on information will be the death of us all.
Keep in mind, though, that even the independent researchers and journalists often get it wrong. Independence does not guarantee critical thinking.
Bravo Gary to continue the effort of trying to make complex points in reporting about science. A bit depressing however that somebody like Kennedy could be the one making a correct point (I am not sure for the the right reasons) whilst people you might expect would pay some attention to logic and a minimum of control of the correctness of what they affirm are falling back to the adoration of authoritative arguments one thought science would consider with caution ... since Galileo... where the hell has reason gone ? A salut from little Switzerland and Zurich last year
Hi Jean-Pierre, Thanks for the kind words. I worry more that it's the erosion of standards in the relevant sciences that are the problem. As I wrote in the epilog of GCBC, it's like these people are pretending to be scientists but have no idea what it takes to establish reliable knowledge, or they just don't care. Then the journalists write up what they do because, well, it's news and they're the "experts". Crazy.
I’ve seen Kennedy comment positively about Nina Teicholz’s work on Twitter. I have the impression he has personally read her book - but of course I may be wrong about that. Anyway, it would not surprise me at all if he knows more about the subject than Taytag (the author of The Atlantic article).
Kennedy may be a bit of a loon at times, but he is clearly a well-read and highly intelligent loon. 😀
TLDR: she was wrong.
"it’s the solid fats in our diets—saturated fats—that cause heart disease, and they do so by raising LDL cholesterol"
Only got this far. Stopped reading after ensuring that this is still your belief, Gary.
Damn, this is solid.
Excerpt from Gary's article: "As I have written, I also find the evidence that seed oils are a major cause of chronic disease in America less than compelling. I remain skeptical. But I think I know enough not to defend it on the basis that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated was, and still is an unequivocally good idea. All benefit, no harm. (We should be so lucky.)
Excerpts from a 2024 article by Kristina Jackson, William Harris, Martha Belury, Penny Kris-Etherton & Philip Calder entitled "Beneficial effects of linoleic acid on cardiometabolic health'.
"Here, we outline the recent evidence supporting the hypothesis that higher intakes of LA are associated with improvements in relevant biomarkers and with lower risk for developing cardiometabolic diseases, and we address some of the most common concerns about higher LA intakes and levels."
"Dietary LA is overwhelmingly the greatest contributor to the body’s pool of n-6 PUFAs followed by dietary arachidonic acid (ARA). ARA blood levels are primarily affected by ARA intake, but endogenous metabolism and intake of EPA and DHA are also known to have an effect."
Note that blood levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (particularly arachidonic acid) constitute a moving target. Here is what matters: "Because AA competes with EPA and DHA as well as with LA, ALA and oleic acid for incorporation in membrane lipids at the same positions, all these fatty acids are important for controlling the AA concentration in membrane lipids, which in turn determines how much AA can be liberated and become available for prostaglandin biosynthesis following phospholipase activation. Thus, the best strategy for dampening prostanoid overproduction in disease situations would be to reduce the intake of AA, or reduce the intake of AA at the same time as the total intake of competing fatty acids (including oleic acid) is enhanced, rather than enhancing intakes of EPA and DHA only." (web search - Anna Haug Individual Variation)
A 2013 article by Australian researchers begins, "Endocannabinoids and their G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) are a current research focus in the area of obesity due to the system's role in food intake and glucose and lipid metabolism. Importantly, overweight and obese individuals often have higher circulating levels of the arachidonic acid-derived endocannabinoids anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoyl glycerol (2-AG) and an altered pattern of receptor expression. Consequently, this leads to an increase in orexigenic stimuli, changes in fatty acid synthesis, insulin sensitivity, and glucose utilisation, with preferential energy storage in adipose tissue."
The remainder of that narrative contains two mistakes. Can anyone spot them? "As endocannabinoids are products of dietary fats, modification of dietary intake may modulate their levels, with eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid based endocannabinoids being able to displace arachidonic acid from cell membranes, reducing AEA and 2-AG production. Similarly, oleoyl ethanolamide, a product of oleic acid, induces satiety, decreases circulating fatty acid concentrations, increases the capacity for β -oxidation, and is capable of inhibiting the action of AEA and 2-AG in adipose tissue. Thus, understanding how dietary fats alter endocannabinoid system activity is a pertinent area of research due to public health messages promoting a shift towards plant-derived fats, which are rich sources of AEA and 2-AG precursor fatty acids, possibly encouraging excessive energy intake and weight gain. " (web search - Fatty Acid Modulation of the Endocannabinoid System)
Excerpt from a 2022 article entitled, 'Effects of Arachidonic Acid and Its Metabolites on Functional Beta-Cell Mass': Arachidonic acid (AA) is a polyunsaturated 20-carbon fatty acid present in phospholipids in the plasma membrane...Alterations in AA release or AA concentrations have been shown to affect insulin secretion from the pancreatic beta cell, leading to interest in the role of AA and its metabolites in the regulation of beta-cell function and maintenance of beta-cell mass. In this review, we discuss the metabolism of AA by COX, LOX, and CYP, the roles of these enzymes and their metabolites in beta-cell mass and function, and the possibility of targeting these pathways as novel therapies for treating diabetes." (web search - Bosma Effects of Arachidonic Acid)
Excellent discussion. I often talk to patients about the role of protecting the status quo. Professional reputations are on the line here. After you supported a tenant in medicine as a law (actually a hypothesis.) It is difficult for a person or organization to admit they were wrong in any way. It's only a natural response to circle the wagons and dig in!
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. Over time we may slay the dragon.
I'm basically apolitical, but RFK, Jr might be the agent to upset the apple cart and start the process to rebuild a scientifically based approach.
He may be. What worries me, though, is that he might also upset apple carts that deserve more respect. There's a safety-efficacy issue with every intervention. The more wide-ranging the interventions--in this case, the apple cart upsetting--the more likely that harm will be done. I don't know how to avoid it, though. So... fingers crossed.