E-Mail Edition Volume 14 Number 2
Published Spring, 2017
Published by Piccadilly Books, Ltd., www.piccadillybooks.com.
Bruce Fife, N.D., Publisher, www.coconutresearchcenter.org
If you would like
to subscribe to
the Healthy Ways Newsletter
Contents
-
The American Heart Association Proclaims Coconut Oil Unhealthy!
-
The Warning on Saturated Fat:
The American Heart Association Proclaims Coconut Oil Unhealthy!
The anti-saturated fat fanatics are at it
again, going after coconut oil and other healthy saturated fats
promoting the use of polyunsaturated vegetable oils and statin drugs as
the solution to the worldwide heart disease epidemic.
In June 2017 the journal Circulation published an online article prepared by the American Heart Association (AHA) titled “Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease.” The focus of the article was to reiterate the AHA’s longstanding position against the use of saturated fats, recommending that we replace them with polyunsaturated fats, which they stated, are as effective as cholesterol-lowering statins in reducing the risk of heart disease.
This article was not the result of any new
study but simply a statement of position by the AHA, supported by select
(cherry picked) studies. The article demonized all saturated fats as bad
because they increase LDL cholesterol—the so-called bad cholesterol;
which in turn, supposedly increases the risk of heart disease. Only half
of one page, out of the 24 page article, addresses coconut oil
specifically, along with discussions on dairy fats, trans fats, and
others. The article was not about coconut oil, it was about saturated
fats. However, the editors at USA Today saw it as a way to stir up
controversy by attacking the wholesome image of coconut oil with the
attention grabbing headline, “Coconut Oil Isn’t Healthy, It’s Never Been
Healthy.”
Coconut oil has
been gaining ground as one of the premiere healthy fats.
The editors of
USA Today knew that a widely
perceived healthy fat that was now being labeled as unhealthy by the AHA
would generate huge interest, and sell a lot of papers. And they were
right!
Immediately following publication of the
article, other publications quickly jumped on the bandwagon and started
producing their own shocking stories with headlines such as:
“Coconut Oil As Unhealthy As Beef Fat”
“Coconut Oil May Not Be As Healthy As You
think?”
These articles stirred up a swarm of confusion.
Over the past few years numerous new studies, articles, and books have
sung the praises of coconut oil and many people, including doctors and
nutritionists have recommend it as one of the good fats. Now, all of a
sudden, according to the media, the AHA is declaring it unfit for human
consumption. What is going on here? What is the truth?
These articles are examples of “fake news”
perpetuated by editors solely to attract attention to their
publications. Did you know that 50 percent of the media headlines about
medical studies are deceptively wrong? And that these headlines don’t
accurately match the content or conclusions of the medical journal
articles on which they are based. This fact is from a review published
in the
New England Journal of Medicine.
Today editors are often interested more in sensationalism than in
reporting the facts and, consequently, we get a lot of fake health news
misleading the public. This is the case with the attack on coconut oil.
The AHA article was not specifically about coconut oil, it was a
statement of their position on saturated fats.
The AHA has always maintained the stance that
saturated fats are bad and increase cholesterol levels, which they claim
increases the risk of heart disease. They argue that all saturated fats
raise total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and, therefore, increase the
risk of heart disease. What they conveniently fail to mention is that
total cholesterol is not an accurate indicator of heart disease risk.
They also don’t mention that saturated fats, including coconut oil,
increase HDL cholesterol—the good cholesterol that reduces the risk of
heart disease.
Another fact they
tend to downplay is that there are actually two types of LDL
cholesterol: one, that is small and dense, and another, that is large
and buoyant.
The large buoyant LDL cholesterol is
also a form of good cholesterol. It is the type of cholesterol that is
used to make bile, hormones, and vitamin D; it is essential not only for
good health, but for life itself. The small dense LDL, on the other
hand, is the type of cholesterol that becomes oxidized, and all oxidized
lipids are unhealthy, and can contribute to heart disease. Coconut oil
increases HDL, large LDL, and reduces small dense LDL. The overall
effect is that coconut oil reduces the cholesterol ratio, thus lowering
the risk of heart disease. The cholesterol ratio is recognized as being
a far more accurate indicator of heart disease risk than total
cholesterol. Coconut oil may increase total cholesterol in some people,
but it does so by increasing good LDL and HDL, not the bad LDL.
Blood triglycerides
is another independent risk
factor for heart disease. In fact,
they seem to have a greater influence on heart disease risk than
cholesterol. Sugar and refined carbohydrates increase triglycerides,
while coconut oil reduces triglycerides, thus again lowering risk of
heart disease. Did the AHA report mention this? No, the authors seem to
have forgotten to say anything about this important point. In fact, the
AHA article seemed to leave out a lot of important information such as
the fact that polyunsaturated vegetable oils increase the small, bad LDL
cholesterol and increase the risk of cancer, neurological disorders
(including macular degeneration), and autoimmune disease. Or that
coconut oil can prevent, and possibly even reverse these conditions.
The report also failed to mention that
populations that use coconut oil as their primary source of fat have the
lowest rates of heart disease in the world. The report failed to mention
a lot of important facts, including the financial associations of the
authors. I examined the original article and could find no financial
disclosure that generally accompanies scholarly articles. Which strongly
suggests that the authors may have financial ties with the vegetable oil
or pharmaceutical industries. Indeed, Dr
Barbara Roberts, a cardiologist, discusses the financial connection of
the authors in her article here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-heart-associations-junk-science-diet.
The AHA
should not be allowed to profit off their
own dietary advice, but apparently they do. Which makes their
recommendations questionable.
Read
this article about the financial relationship between the AHA and
the pharmaceutical industry. This is
just one example of the conflict of interest with the AHA. It’s no
wonder why the AHA is so much against coconut oil and other
health-promoting saturated fats.
I am not alone in saying the AHA is misguided
on this issue. The following links go to several others who have come
out with statements regarding coconut oil and heart disease.
Dr. Anthony
Pearson, a cardiologist at St. Luke's Hospital in St. Louis, provides an
excellent rebuttal to the AHA article.
https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2017/06/18/beware-of-more-misinformation-from-the-american-heart-association-on-coconut-oil-and-saturated-fats/
Bestselling author of
Eat Fat, Get Thin, Mark Hyman,
MD, weighs in on the controversy.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2016/04/06/is-coconut-oil-bad-for-your-cholesterol/
Diana Rogers, RD, explains why coconut oil won’t kill you, but listening
to the American Heart Association might!
http://sustainabledish.com/coconut-oil-wont-kill-listening-american-heart-association-might/
Mary Newport, MD, who
used coconut oil to successfully treat her Alzheimer’s affected husband,
comments.
https://www.facebook.com/CoconutOilandAlzheimers/posts/898200733651342
Gary Taubes, an
investigative science and health journalist and bestselling author,
gives a detailed analysis.
http://garytaubes.com/vegetable-oils-francis-bacon-bing-crosby-and-the-american-heart-association/
Learn the truth about coconut oil here:
The following article written by Fabian M. Dayrit, PhD, discusses the
flawed science and history of the cholesterol hypothesis, which the AHA
uses as the basis for its dietary recommendations.
The Warning on Saturated Fat:
From Defective Experiments to Defective Guidelines
Dr. Fabian M. Dayrit
Professor, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
Chairman, Scientific Advisory Committee for Health, Asian and Pacific
Coconut Community
Abstract
Coconut oil has been adversely affected by the current dietary
guidelines that
advocate a lowering of total fat and the replacement of saturated fat
with polyunsaturated fat. This recommendation has its origins in the
saturated fat-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis that Ancel Keys first
proposed in 1957. This hypothesis became an official recommendation with
the publication of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980 and has
been adopted by many other countries and international agencies. The
dietary recommendations also warn against coconut oil. Recently, the
American Heart Association re-issued this warning in its 2017
Presidential Advisory. However, a critical review of the experiments
that Keys conducted has revealed experimental errors and biases that
cast serious doubt on the correctness of his hypothesis and the warnings
against coconut oil. Further, the recommendation to decrease saturated
fat recommendation effectively means an increase in unsaturated fat in
the diet. The actual result has been an increase in omega-6 fats and a
high omega-6 to omega-3 fat ratio. This unhealthy ratio has been linked
to heart disease, the very disease that the AHA wants to target, as well
as cancer and inflammatory diseases. Defective experiments have led to
defective guidelines. This first paper in this series of papers will
present these errors and biases and address the points raised by the
AHA.
Introduction: the Dietary Guidelines
The Vital Statistics of the United States 1976 listed “diseases of
heart” as the leading cause of death in the US (USDHHS, 1980). From 1980
to 2015, there were eight editions of the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans which sought to address the problem of heart disease. In all
eight editions of the Dietary Guidelines, there was one warning that was
consistent: “Decrease overall fat intake and replace saturated fat with
unsaturated fat.” However, in 2016, heart disease continued to be the
leading cause of death in the US (CDC, 2016).In its 2017 Presidential
Advisory, the American Heart Association continued to emphatically
recommend that “lowering intake of saturated fat and replacing it with
unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats, will lower the
incidence of CVD (Sacks et al., 2017).Albert Einstein famously defined
insanity as: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.” This essay aims to show how the Dietary Guidelines
and the AHA recommendation are examples of insanity. The warning against
“saturated fat” is virtually the same recommendation that Ancel Keys
made in the 1950s. The Keys hypothesis, generally known as the saturated
fat-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis, states that saturated fats
raise serum cholesterol which in turn increases the risk for heart
disease. Although the saturated fats that are most often studied are
animal fats, coconut oil is often included in this warning because it is
a saturated fat. This first paper will discuss the basis for the
recommendations against coconut oil and saturated fat. We will review of
the work of Ancel Keys which reveals several errors that invalidate his
strictures against coconut oil.
Errors in the Keys experiments
Keys committed several serious errors that cast doubt on the validity of
his saturated fat-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis with respect to
coconut oil. He conducted both human feeding and observational studies.
In his human feeding studies, Keys used hydrogenated coconut oil, while
in his observational studies coconut oil was only a minor component of
the population’s diet. Finally, Keys was never able to unambiguously
prove his hypothesis and refused to acknowledge results that
contradicted his hypothesis.
Keys used hydrogenated coconut oil in his human feeding studies
In 1957, Keys published two important papers, one in the
Journal of Nutrition (Anderson, Keys & Grande, 1957) and the other
in Lancet (Keys,
Anderson, Grande, 1957)
on controlled feeding studies using schizophrenic patients from the
Hastings State Hospital, businessmen in Minnesota, and Japanese
coalminers in Shime, Japan. These were relatively small, short-term
feeding studies with the number of subjects ranging from 16 to 66. In
these studies, Keys wanted to compare the effects on serum cholesterol
of feeding monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats versus saturated
fats. For sources of unsaturated fats, he used corn oil, olive oil,
cottonseed oil, safflower oil, and sardine oil. For sources of saturated
fats, he used butterfat, margarine and hydrogenated coconut oil
(HydrolÔ)
in the Minnesota experiment and margarine in the Shime experiment.
The use of hydrogenated fats – margarine and Hydrol – in this feeding
study casts doubt on the validity of the conclusions of this work
regarding the effects of coconut oil. It
was already known in the 1920s that hydrogenation of vegetable oils
produced trans fats (Hilditch & Vidyarthi, 1929). In 1957, the same year
when both Keys papers came out, it was reported that
trans fats were deposited in various human tissues, such as adipose
tissues, liver, aortic tissue, and atheroma of those who died of
atherosclerosis (Johnston, Johnson, Kummerow, 1957).
In a 1961 paper on hydrogenated fats, Keys himself noted that
hydrogenated oils raised serum cholesterol and triglycerides (Anderson,
Grande, Keys, 1961). Therefore, the increase in serum cholesterol that
Keys observed may have been due to the trans fats in margarine and
hydrogenated coconut oil and this would make his conclusions invalid.
The use of hydrogenated coconut oil may also have biased Keys’s judgment
against coconut oil.
The Seven Countries Study was not a representative study
Keys described the evolution of the Seven Countries Study in a book
that he published in 1980. Keys conducted initial studies on CHD in 1947
in Minnesota on healthy businessmen and professionals. In 1952, this
study expanded to include Italy and Spain, in 1956, Japan and Finland.
The aim of these studies was to identify dietary and lifestyle factors
in apparently healthy middle-aged men that contributed to CHD. However,
this study had two built-in limitations which would give results that
are not representative. First, to ensure higher probability of
successful follow-up (every 5 years), the study targeted rural
populations so that 11 of the 16 cohorts studied were rural populations.
For the US, since the stability of rural populations could not be
assured, the American subjects selected were railroad men and to balance
this effect, Italian railroad men were also selected. Second, the basis
for the selection of the seven countries was not systematic but was
decided by the availability of collaborators. As Keys himself stated, it
was the availability of research collaborators that became the deciding
factor in the selection of subject areas (Keys, 1980). It is clear that
there was no scientific basis for the selection of the seven countries
and these limitations should have been declared so that sweeping
generalizations could be avoided.
The Seven Countries Study was begun in 1956 and ended with the
publication of the 1986 paper (Keys et al., 1986). The most important
conclusions from the Seven Countries Study were given as follows:
“Death rates were related positively to average percentage of dietary
energy from saturated fatty acids, negatively to dietary energy
percentage from monounsaturated fatty acids …. All death rates were
negatively related to the ratio of monounsaturated to saturated fatty
acids… Oleic acid accounted for almost all differences in
monounsaturates among cohorts. All-cause and coronary heart disease
death rates were low in cohorts with olive oil as the main fat.”
There are a number of important things that should be noted regarding
the Seven Countries Study: First, this study cannot be claimed to be
representative for all types of oils and for all groups of people.
Second, the beneficial oil claimed in the Seven Countries Study was
olive oil and it should be compared only to the other fats and oils that
were consumed, which was mainly animal fat. Interestingly, although
Japan showed very low death rates, olive oil consumption in Japan was
negligible (Pitts et al., 2007). Third, this study assumed that all
saturated fats have the same properties regardless of chain length. This
assumption is not valid given what is known today regarding the
individual properties of saturated fatty acids (this will be discussed
in a succeeding article).
Coconut oil was not a significant part of the diet in the Seven
Countries Study
Coconut oil was not a significant part of the diet in any of the seven
countries and it was not mentioned in the 1986 Keys paper. Based on the
consumption record for the year 1961, the estimated amount of animal fat
consumed in Northern and Southern Europe was 67.5% and 35.7%,
respectively, while for coconut oil, it was 5.9% and 1.6%. In the US,
the amount of animal fat in the diet was 51% versus 3% for coconut oil
(FAOSTAT, 2006; Pitts et al., 2007). Clearly, coconut oil was an
insignificant part of the diet in Europe and the US so how did coconut
oil get included in the health warnings on heart disease?
The Low-fat Diet and Obesity
The first official recommendation on saturated fat was contained in the
first Dietary Guidelines for
Americans which was jointly issued by the US Department of
Agriculture and the US Department of Health and Human Services in 1980
and updated every 5 years. From the first to the eighth edition of
Dietary Guidelines, the
recommendation on saturated fat remained fundamentally the same: consume
a low fat diet and avoid saturated fat. In the 2010 edition, the
recommendation was made more specific: “consume less than 10% of
calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with
monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.”
Cohen and co-workers (2015) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the
food consumption patterns together with the body weight and body mass
index of the US adult population using data from the US National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that Americans in
general have been following the nutrition advice from the
Dietary Guidelines. In
particular from 1971 to 2011, consumption of fats dropped from 45% to
34% of total caloric intake, but this was accompanied by an increase in
carbohydrate consumption from 39% to 51%. The result was a dramatic
increase in the percentage of overweight or obese Americans from 42% to
66% over the same period. It is surprising that the AHA would continue
to recommend the “low-fat diet” in light of the obesity epidemic among
Americans.
Keys failed to prove his Saturated Fat-Cholesterol-Heart Disease
Hypothesis
Since the Seven Countries Study was an observational study, Keys wanted
to do a study where he could carefully control the diet of the subjects.
In 1967, Ivan Frantz, Jr. and Ancel Keys undertook a project entitled
“Effect of a Dietary Change on Human Cardiovascular Disease,” also
called the “Minnesota Coronary Survey” (MCS). This study was funded by
the US National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and was undertaken from
1968 to 1973. MCS was meant to be a landmark study because of the large
number of subjects (n=9,423), the length of the feeding study (5 years),
the high level of dietary control, and the double blind randomized
design. MCS used residents in a nursing home and patients in six state
mental hospitals in Minnesota. This enabled the study to carefully
control and document the food that was actually consumed. This study
sought to test whether replacement of saturated fat (animal fat,
margarines and shortenings) with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid
(mainly corn oil) will reduce all-cause death, and CHD in particular, by
lowering serum cholesterol. Coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial
infarcts were also checked in 149 autopsies conducted (Ramsden et al.,
2016). This study was conducted at the same time that Keys was
coordinating the Seven Countries Study and would have provided powerful
validation of the saturated fat-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis.
Unfortunately, Keys did not publish the results of this study. A partial
release of the results of MCS study was made in a 1989 paper in the
journal Arteriosclerosis with
Frantz as lead author. This paper made the modest conclusion that: “For
the entire study population, no differences between the treatment (high
linoleic acid group) and control (high saturated fat group) were
observed for cardiovascular events, cardiovascular deaths, or total
mortality.” (Frantz et al., 1989). Interestingly, although Keys was a
co-proponent of the MCS study, his name did not appear as a co-author in
the Arteriosclerosis paper; he
was not even mentioned in the Acknowledgment.
The full data were discovered in the basement of the home of Frantz by
his son, Robert, who turned them over to Ramsden and co-workers, who
then analyzed and interpreted the data (O’Connor, 2016). The key results
from the MCS study were reported by Ramsden and co-workers (2016) and
are summarized as follows:
-
The group that consumed the high linoleic acid diet showed significant reduction in serum cholesterol compared with those on the saturated fat group.
-
However, there was no difference in mortality among the groups.
-
There was a higher risk of death in subjects who showed reduction in serum cholesterol level.
-
The main conclusions from this study areas follows: a high linoleic acid diet effectively lowers serum cholesterol but this increases the risk of CHD.
The results of the MCS study did not give the expected results and
directly contradicted the conclusions of the Seven Countries Study which
Keys had published in a few years earlier in 1986. This might explain
why it was published in a journal of limited circulation which gave it
less exposure. It is clear that a wider distribution of the results of
the 1989 paper, with Keys properly included as co-author, would have
been fatal to the saturated fat-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis and
to the scientific basis of Dietary
Guidelines, which was going into its third edition.
The recovered MCS study is not the only example of an unreported study
which had negative results. The Sydney Diet Heart Study (SDHS) was
conducted from 1966 to 1973, almost at the same time as the MCS study,
with the same objectives and similar study design to evaluate the
effectiveness of replacing dietary saturated fat with linoleic acid for
the prevention of CHD and all-cause mortality. This was a single
blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial involving 458 men
aged 30-59 years with a recent coronary event. The intervention involved
replacement of dietary saturated fats (from animal fats, common
margarines, and shortenings) with omega-6 linoleic acid (from safflower
oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine). The primary outcome
was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcomes were CHD and death
from heart disease. The results of this study were contrary to
expectation: the unsaturated fat group had higher rates of death than
the animal fat group, both in terms of all-cause mortality and CVD
mortality. Similar to the recovered MCS study, the SDHS data were not
reported but were recovered for analysis by Ramsden and co-workers
almost 40 years after it was conducted (Ramsden et al., 2013).
In addition to the hidden MCS and SDHS studies, there are a number of
published studies that contradicted the saturated
heart-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis. A six-year dietary study of
21,930 Finnish men,
aged 50-69 years, concluded that there was no association between the
intake of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat with the risk of
coronary death (Pietinen et al., 1997). A dietary study of 80,082 women
in the US Nurses’ Health Study, aged 34–59 years, with a 14-year
follow-up, failed to come up with an unambiguous conclusion on the link
between saturated fat and CHD (Hu et al., 1999). A study involving
58,453 Japanese men and women, aged 40-79 years, with a 14- year
follow-up, gave an inverse association between SFA intake and mortality
from total cardiovascular disease and concluded that replacing SFA with
PUFA would have no benefit for the prevention of heart disease
(Yamagishi et al., 2010).
One would think that these studies should be enough evidence to prove
that the saturated fat-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis is wrong.
Unfortunately, the 2017 AHA Presidential Advisory did not cite these
studies and instead went out of its way to discredit the results of the
Minnesota Coronary Survey and the Sydney Diet Heart Study so that they
could remove these studies from the “totality of the scientific evidence
(that) satisfy rigorous criteria for causality.”
In 1981, Steven Broste, who was then a MS student at the University of
Minnesota, analyzed the MCS data and addressed the difficulties that the
AHA used to reject this study. These issues included withdrawals and
uneven feeding periods of subjects. After making the appropriate
statistical corrections, Broste still came to the conclusion that: "the
experimental diet of the MCS may actually have been harmful in some way
to patients who were exposed to it for at least one year" (Broste, 1981,
p 85), and that "the experimental diet of the MCS, and reductions in
cholesterol that resulted from the diet, were counterproductive…
cholesterol reductions were generally associated with increased
mortality, especially among males and older patients" (Broste, 1981, p
97). Broste’s conclusions
were consistent with those of Frantz and co-workers (1989) and Ramsden
and co-workers (2016). Contrary to the claims of the AHA, the MCS
results are valid: low serum cholesterol increases the risk of CHD. It
is unfortunate that the AHA chose to dismiss the results of the MCS and
SHDS studies as lacking in scientific rigor.
High PUFA consumption and high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio: A dietary
disaster
The low-fat and low-saturated fat recommendation of the
Dietary Guidelines may be the reason for rising obesity, diabetes,
and other metabolic diseases among Americans. The low-fat recommendation
has effectively increased the consumption of sugar and carbohydrates.
Since 1980, consumption of fats fell by 11% of total caloric intake
(from 45% to 34%), while consumption of carbohydrates rose by 12% (from
39% to 51%) (Cohen et al., 2015). The consumption of soybean oil, a high
omega-6 polyunsaturated oil, more than doubled during the same period
and now accounts for over 90% of vegetable oil consumption in the
US(Index Mundi, 2016).Because soybean oil is a polyunsaturated oil, it
is susceptible to the formation of free radicals, malondialdehyde, trans
fats, and polymeric material during frying (Brühl, 2014).
The other major problem with the
Dietary Guidelines is that it has resulted in a diet with excessive
omega-6 fatty acid resulting in an average omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of
about 15:1. Such a high ratio has been blamed for cardiovascular
disease, cancer, and chronic inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases. The
ideal omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is about 4:1 (Simopoulos 2002, 2008,
2010).
AHA should worry about the impact of too much soybean oil – not coconut
oil – on the American diet. It should also rethink its support for the
Dietary Guidelines.
From defective experiments to defective guidelines
Despite its widespread adoption, the saturated fat-cholesterol-heart
disease hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect. Ancel Keys committed
a number of errors and was unable to unambiguously demonstrate a causal
link for the role of saturated fat in heart disease. The twenty-five
year old, 8-edition Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which has a great influence on
international guidelines, has failed to address the problem of heart
disease. Defective experiments can only lead to defective guidelines,
and defective guidelines can only result in poor health outcomes.
References:
Anderson JT, Grande F, Keys A (1961). Hydrogenated Fats in the Diet and
Lipids in the Serum of Man. J. Nutr. 75: 388-394.
Anderson JT, Keys A, Grande F (1957). The effects of different food fats
on serum cholesterol concentration in man. J Nutr. 62: 421-444.
Broste SK (1981). Lifetable Analysis of the Minnesota Coronary Survey.
MS thesis, University of Minnesota.
Brühl L (2014). Fatty acid alterations in oils and fats during heating
and frying. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 116: 707-715.
[CDC] Center for Disease Control. 2016.
https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/docs/fs_heart_disease.pdf
[Codex] Codex Alimentarius 210-1999, amended 2015; Codex Alimentarius
33-1981, amended 2013.
Cohen E, Cragg M, deFonseka J, Hite A, Rosenberg M, Zhou B (2015).
Statistical review of US macronutrient consumption data, 1965–2011:
Americans have been following dietary guidelines, coincident with the
rise in obesity. Nutrition 31: 727–732.
[FAOSTAT] Food and Agriculture Organisation Statistics Data. 2006. World
lipid availability, Kg/capita/year, 1961. Food Balance Sheets, Rome:
FAO.
Frantz Jr. ID, Dawson EA, Ashman PL, Gatewood LC,Bartsch GE, Kuba K,
Elizabeth R. Brewer ER (1989). Arteriosclerosis 9:129-135.
Hilditch TP, Vidyarthi NL (1929). The products of partial hydrogenation
of higher monoethylenic esters. Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 122(790): 552-563.
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Ascherio A, Colditz GA, Speizer FE,
Hennekens CH, C Willett WC (1999). Dietary saturated fats and their food
sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am.
J. Clin. Nutr. 70:1001–1008.
Index Mundi (2016). http:// www.indexmundi.com/
Keys A, Anderson JT, Grande F (1957). Prediction of serum-cholesterol
responses of man to changes in fats in the diet. Lancet 959-966.
Keys A, Aravanis C, Blackburn H, Buzina R, Djordjević BS, Dontas AS,
Fidanza F, Karvonen MJ, Kimura N, Menotti A, Mohacek I, Nedeljkovic S,
Puddu V, Punsar S, Taylor HL, van Buchem FSP (1980). Seven Countries. A
Multivariate Analysis of Death and Coronary Heart Disease. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Keys A, Menotti A, Karvonen MJ, Aravanis C, Blackburn H, Buzina R,
Djordjevic BS, Dontas AS, Fidanza F, Keys MH, Kromhout D, Nedeljkovic S,
Punsar S, Seccareccia F, Toshima H (1986). The diet and 15-year death
rate in the Seven Countries Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 124(6): 903-915.
O'Connor A (2016). A Decades-Old Study, Rediscovered, Challenges Advice
on Saturated Fat. New York Times, April 13, 2016.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-study-rediscovered-challenges-advice-on-saturated-fat/?_r=0
Pietinen P, Ascherio A, Korhonen P, Hartman AM, Willett WC, Albanes D,
Virtamo J (1997). Intake of Fatty Acids and Risk of Coronary Heart
Disease in a Cohort of Finnish Men. Am. J. Epidemiol. 145(10): 876-887.
Pitts M, Dorling D, Pattie C (2007). Oil for Food: The Global Story of
Edible Lipids. Journal of World-Systems Research, Volume XIII, Number 1,
Pages 12-32. ISSN 1076-156X.
Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Leelarthaepin B, Majchrzak-Hong SF, Faurot KR,
Suchindran CM, Ringel A, Davis JM, Hibbeln JR (2013). Use of dietary
linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and
death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and
updated meta-analysis. BMJ 2013;346:e8707.
Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Majchrzak-Hong S, R Faurot KR, Broste SK, Frantz
RP, Davis JM, Ringel A, Suchindran CM, Hibbeln JR (2016). Re-evaluation
of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data
from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73). BMJ 2016;353:i1246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1246.
Sacks FM, Lichtenstein AH,Wu JHY, Appel LJ, Creager MA, Kris-Etherton
PM,Miller M, Rimm EB, Rudel LL, Robinson JG, Stone NJ, Van Horn LV
(2017). Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease, A Presidential Advisory
From the American Heart Association. Circulation 135: e1-e24.
Simopoulos AP (2002). The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3
essential fatty acids. Biomed Pharmacother 56(8): 365-79.
Simopoulos AP (2008). The Importance of the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid
Ratio in Cardiovascular Disease and Other Chronic Diseases. Exp Biol Med
233(6): 674-688.
Simopoulos AP (2010). Genetic variants in the metabolism of omega-6 and
omega-3 fatty acids: their role in the determination of nutritional
requirements and chronic disease risk. Exp Biol Med 235: 785–795.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture (2017). United States
Department of Agriculture. Food Composition Databases.
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/; (downloaded: May 15, 2017).
[USDHHS] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1980. Vital
Statistics of the United States 1976. Volume II- Mortality. Part A.
National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, Maryland.
Vijayakumar M, Vasudevan DM, Sundaram KR, Krishnan S, Vaidyanathan K,
Nandakumar S, Chandrasekhar R, Mathew N (2016). A randomized study of
coconut oil versus sunflower oil on cardiovascular risk factors in
patients with stable coronary heart disease. Ind. Heart J. 68: 498-506.
Yamagishi K, Iso H, Yatsuya H, Tanabe N, Date C, Kikuchi S, Yamamoto A,
Inaba Y, Tamakoshi A, (JACC Study Group) (2010). Dietary intake of
saturated fatty acids and mortality from cardiovascular disease in
Japanese: the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer
Risk (JACC) Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 92:759-765.
Source: Integrated Chemists of the Philippines, June 19, 2017.
http://www.icp.org.ph/2017/06/the-warning-on-saturated-fat-from-defective-experiments-to-defective-guidelines/.
Do you have friends who would like this newsletter? If so, please feel free to share this newsletter with them.
If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend and you would like to subscribe, click here.
Copyright © 2017, Bruce Fife. All rights reserved.