Training & Nutrition - Butter vs margarine

I usually don't use butter or a lot of it because of the fat content but as of some of you guys know I started to eat sweet potatoes.

I bought and used Smart Balance margarine? anyways, I read that its healthier than butter but after reading up on it, it is considered margarine.

Whats the pros and cons of using butter or margarine?

what do you guys use?

Butters better!!

What else do you need to know.:D

OK, OK, see, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html

I'm not claiming that its an unbiased view.

Regards, Anthony

butter is far better

margarine is a chemical glop. butter is churned milk. what would you rather eat ?

If you don't think butter makes everything better, go see...

Last Tango in Paris

B-u-t-t-e-r

Only real butter for me!!! Tastes so much better!!!

Eat food, not food products. Nine out of ten of my meals are vegan (and the remaining and occasional one has a very modest amount of dairy), and I have no problem strongly urging you to eat butter rather than margarine.

Regardless of whether you are vegetarian, vegan, or obligate carnivore, you're in real trouble if you're not eating food that was grown from a plant or given by an animals as opposed to fabricated at a plant or concocted by a chemist. To quote someone far smarter than I:

"As for butter versus margarine, I trust cows more than chemists." ~Joan Gussow

Thanks for the heads up.

Most margarines (not all) are partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. This means the oils have been exposed to extreme heat, steam , and a catalysts such as nickel or platinum which causes one of the the carbon - carbon bond becomes to become a single carbon bond and an additional hydrogen atom is picked up. Translated into plainer english...it creates Trans-fats. Some of the newer tub margarines claim not to be treated this way and therefore have far less trans-fats. Trans-fats are bad news as far as blood lipid profile and also not good for the structure of cell walls.

Personally, I'd rather have real butter and not worry about Trans-fats so much (although they do occur in natural butter, just not as much as in margarine)

Butter is tasty. And often natural as can be.
Most margarines are worse. Some are truly awful. There is, however, a newer generation of margarines (buttery spread, if you will) that are comprised of fairly healthy ingredients.

My advice: learn to read the labels yourself and separate your food from politics. It'll make for a better decision for your needs.

Health wise, I don't think there's a lot of difference between butter and margarine. I prefer butter because it tastes better and therefore I use a little less.

I like the kind that is cut with canola oil so that it spreads easier.

Health wise, I don't think there's a lot of difference between butter and margarine. I prefer butter because it tastes better and therefore I use a little less.

I like the kind that is cut with canola oil so that it spreads easier.

There's a huge spectrum of various blends in your average supermarket. Statements like these only fortify the point that it pays to read labels and learn what they mean.

Anyone else use the zero calorie spray butters?

After my heart surgery, I went to a nutritionist and they were touting spray margarine. They said that margarine is oil and the thicker the margarine, the more oil it took to make it, so thinner is better; spray is best..

Anyone else use the zero calorie spray butters?Those aren't really zero-calories. They're typically hydrogenated soy-bean oil and contains the same 9-calories per gram as any other fat. However, the label is misleading because it says "calories per spray". Well... since each spray contains less than 0.054gm of oil, that's less than 0.49-calories per spray and they round down to 0 calories. Better way to look at it is that 100gm bottle still has 900-calories just like the same weight butter or margarine. Or about the same as an entire 2-liters of soda. :eek:

well.... AHhahahahash

I guess i'll skip the butter & margarine and start eating lard on my bread and potatoes.

Jk.

Butter, I just use less of it

But for a spread on toast I really like a little olive oil.

-D

Butter, I just use less of it

But for a spread on toast I really like a little olive oil.

-D

+1

olive oil infused with some herbs on italian bread, absolute heaven.

You know, olive oil is a fat too. Fat is fat, even though some oils like olive oil are better than others. But if the goal of avoiding butter is because of the fat, then think again, because olive oil is just as fat as butter is. The one strike against butter is that it's animal fat, and so, it does have cholesterol, which oils like olive don't. Margarine is just as fat as butter is, but because it's vegetable, it has no cholesterol. However, unlike butter, it's really a totally artificial product. I prefer a little butter when butter is called for, and olive oil for almost everything else that requires a bit of oil. A little bit of butter isn't going to affect anything - as long as you don't overdo it.

You know, olive oil is a fat too. Fat is fat, even though some oils like olive oil are better than others. But if the goal of avoiding butter is because of the fat, then think again, because olive oil is just as fat as butter is. The one strike against butter is that it's animal fat, and so, it does have cholesterol, which oils like olive don't. Margarine is just as fat as butter is, but because it's vegetable, it has no cholesterol. However, unlike butter, it's really a totally artificial product. I prefer a little butter when butter is called for, and olive oil for almost everything else that requires a bit of oil. A little bit of butter isn't going to affect anything - as long as you don't overdo it.

There are vastly different reactions that occur in the body based on the fat consumed. Sure all of them have approximately 9Kcals/gram if that's all your worried about. But to say fat is fat is to ignore basic biochemistry. Olive oil does not effect cholesterol, butter does since it contains a large portion of saturated fat.

I use one heaping scoop of butter and one large scoop of marshmallow on my baked sweet potato once a year. It's so good I really don't eat anything else on Thanksgiving.

Anyone else use the zero calorie spray butters?

YES!
i've been reading this forum since the beginning so i'm going to keep reading but i hope i dont hear anything bad about my spray butter...sooooo good.

Sweet potatoes? I like and use butter, but sweet potatoes get eaten as-is. No butter or marshmallow needed.

Ok, I do put a bit of olive oil on the skin before I cook them...just enough to keep them nice in the oven. Butter might make them a little better, but they are tasty either way.

YES!
i've been reading this forum since the beginning so i'm going to keep reading but i hope i dont hear anything bad about my spray butter...sooooo good.

Spray Butter is sooooo good????:eek:

Man NOW I've heard it all.

I mean what rates as "sooooo good".


French grass fed butter. Its deffinitely up there. Lard is way up there on the "soooooo good" stakes even though no one wants to admit it. I mean, we all know that its bad for you (actaly I don't) but you knew you were sacrificing something in giving it up. Good Italian and Greek Extra Virgin Olive Oils are up there and Duck fat. Duck fat has a Serious "sooooo good" factor.

OK so you will give ALL this up for Spray Butter!


Man, are you OFF YOUR TREE!!!!! You've given all that up for hydrogenated soy bean oil. Before you give in to the devil you need to try some real food.

You young man NEED a good feed!

Regards, Anthony

I have never heard of butter and mm, unless I am missing the sarcasm.
Only Cdn pure maple syrup for me.

Only Cdn pure maple syrup for me.

Maple syrup is the one true gift from the gods. Smokey goodness.

I have never heard of butter and mm, unless I am missing the sarcasm.
Only Cdn pure maple syrup for me.

Most people of this world since the dawn of mankind have thought that animal fats are "MMMMM". This fat phobia is just a phenomina of less than the last 50 years and it will be found out as the fraud that it is sooner or later.

Good butter on good bread is just devine. Lard sandwhiches were all the rage not that long ago.

Even those who's minds tell them not to like fat realy DO like fat if you hide it in the food which is what food proccessors do.

Regards, Anthony

'spray butter' is an oxymoron. if you spray it, it's not butter.

margarine is a pretty wide basket too. lots of different things pass themselves off as 'margarine'. the source material has a lot to d with the quality of the margarine. but you can't avoid the fact that it is indeed a totally synthetic food product, whether or not it is based on a vegetable oil or a lard...

Whats the pros and cons of using butter or margarine?
Poorly phrased question, since you admit you already know that there are several different types of margarine. Typically stick margarines contain the most "trans" fats that are currently assumed to be an unhealthy type of fat for overall health.

So a simple answer to your simple question might be: There is little difference health-wise between butter and stick margarine, but some newer "tub" margarines restrict trans fats and could be deemed slightly "healthier" than butter ---- End of story.

The larger issue is -- how much trans fats are you consuming in your total diet due to their usage processed foods such as chips, cakes, breads and many other products.....?

http://www.healthcastle.com/butter-or-margarine.shtml

I just wanted to mention a quick, interesting fact.

If you put a stick of margarine and a stick of real butter outside, overnight, the next morning the real butter will be covered in bugs, but the margarine will not have an insect in sight. Margarine is so processed that even bugs won't eat it...

Spray butter for corn on the cob only.
Smart Balance or Take COntrol for all other "butter" uses.

So let me summarize this thread. Margarine bad, butter good because margarine is synthetic and butter is "natural". ok... :rolleyes:

So let me summarize this thread. Margarine bad, butter good because margarine is synthetic and butter is "natural". ok... :rolleyes:

no...not exactly.
Better summarized this way;
Butter = saturated fats (not so good)
Stick Margarine = Trans Fats (bad)
Tub & Liquid Margarines = not so much trans fats (so not as bad as stick margarine)
Olive oil = Monounsaturated fats = still a fat and therefore has 9Kcals/gram but no saturated fats or tran fats.
oh yeah....and 1 vote for canadian maple syrup (which is not a fat :D)

OK, I've asked this question before yet I will ask it again.

Who's read the scientific evidence showing that saturated fats are harmful?

Truth be known it doesn't exist. There is ONLY circumstantial evidence against saturated fats but this evidence only exists because saturated fats weren't seperated from transfats in surveys. They were 'considered' to be the same when no such evidence existed so therefore any evidence against saturated fats is simply statistical evidence against transfats.

Hard scientific evidence against transfats now exist but no one can bring themselves to admit they got it wrong with saturated fats because that would cause a serious loss of face and damgage the publics "faith" in the powers that be.

Regards, Anthony

OK, I've asked this question before yet I will ask it again.

Who's read the scientific evidence showing that saturated fats are harmful?

Truth be known it doesn't exist. There is ONLY circumstantial evidence against saturated fats but this evidence only exists because saturated fats weren't seperated from transfats in surveys. They were 'considered' to be the same when no such evidence existed so therefore any evidence against saturated fats is simply statistical evidence against transfats.

Hard scientific evidence against transfats now exist but no one can bring themselves to admit they got it wrong with saturated fats because that would cause a serious loss of face and damgage the publics "faith" in the powers that be.

Regards, Anthony

I thought butter contains trans fats, as well as other animal products.

I thought butter contains trans fats, as well as other animal products.


Butter and other natural fats contains small amounts of naturaly occuring trans fats but nothing like the quantities in hardened vegetable oils.

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html

Regards, Anthony

OK, I've asked this question before yet I will ask it again.

Who's read the scientific evidence showing that saturated fats are harmful?

Truth be known it doesn't exist. There is ONLY circumstantial evidence against saturated fats but this evidence only exists because saturated fats weren't seperated from transfats in surveys. They were 'considered' to be the same when no such evidence existed so therefore any evidence against saturated fats is simply statistical evidence against transfats.

Hard scientific evidence against transfats now exist but no one can bring themselves to admit they got it wrong with saturated fats because that would cause a serious loss of face and damgage the publics "faith" in the powers that be.

Regards, Anthony


If you were presented evidence that showed SFA's were harmful would you believe it;

Do you think that the context would change the effect that SFA's have on a person;

For someone that is not physically active and is overweight, do you think that there would be less health risks on certain diets and;

If someone is physically active and stays away from processed food, would it make a difference where there calories come from regarding the general health of the person?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

More questions?

OK what is the evidence that saturated fatty acids are harmful?

It doesn't exist, lipid scientist know it doesn't exist and the rest is just speculation.

See there was a fundamental lack of science done BEFORE SFAs were considered harmful and I contend that its loss of face that keeps this theory going and prevents most from openly discussing where the evidence is realy at.

Human populations have never consumed LESS saturated fats than we do now and there has never been a higher incedence of heart disease. Now I know that this is only statistical correlation but it should be sending alarm bells that we are going the wrong way.

Regards, Anthony

OK what is the evidence that saturated fatty acids are harmful?

It doesn't exist, lipid scientist know it doesn't exist and the rest is just speculation.

See there was a fundamental lack of science done BEFORE SFAs were considered harmful and I contend that its loss of face that keeps this theory going and prevents most from openly discussing where the evidence is realy at.

Human populations have never consumed LESS saturated fats than we do now and there has never been a higher incedence of heart disease. Now I know that this is only statistical correlation but it should be sending alarm bells that we are going the wrong way.

Regards, Anthony

I am not really disagreeing with you, I am trying to see what you would consider evidence of harm. What would constitute evidence of harm to you? Would it be the presence of plaques, LDL/HDL ratios, or anything else?

You contend that SFA's are healthy, you are probably right, but are you afraid of loosing face as well?

You mention statistical correlation, but any time a study showing harm has been presented you say it is only statistical correlation? Anything using a qualitative, realist ontology will only be able to show statistical correlation. Just like there is not proof that smoking causes cancer, the correlation is very strong though, and many more times than not it will, but it is not always the case.

OK what is the evidence that saturated fatty acids are harmful?

It doesn't exist, lipid scientist know it doesn't exist and the rest is just speculation.

See there was a fundamental lack of science done BEFORE SFAs were considered harmful and I contend that its loss of face that keeps this theory going and prevents most from openly discussing where the evidence is realy at.

Human populations have never consumed LESS saturated fats than we do now and there has never been a higher incedence of heart disease. Now I know that this is only statistical correlation but it should be sending alarm bells that we are going the wrong way.

Regards, Anthony

You are dismissing the fact that people are far more sedentary (on average) now than at any time in the past. Do you not think this is a major factor in CAD? PAD?

We all need a little bit of all fats. When I said previously that fat is fat, I didn't mean that all fats have the same health properties. I was talking strictly in the context of fattening. All fats fatten the same. But of course, some fats are better for general health than others are.

You are dismissing the fact that people are far more sedentary (on average) now than at any time in the past. Do you not think this is a major factor in CAD? PAD?

Thank you.

If what you say is true there is much more than diet involved. This is why I ask about context. Price's findings about health and SF were related to peoples far removed from todays context. Sure the Inuit of past and the Masai subsist mostly on meat, but there life is (was) nothing like western society is today.

Now, Fallon uses Price's name to promote herself. I agree that a traditional diet is much better than a drive through diet, but diet is only one part of the context in which we live.

For me, my favorite bread grease is butter.

Anthony, I do not disagree with you that all SF is bad because there is quite a bit of brainwashing that goes on in health care. I am right in the thick of it. On one hand we are told to use critical thinking, on the other if our answers on the exams do not match textbook dogma you will not make it through school.

My reading on SF is a bit behind but I had thought the reason that they switched to trans fats was because it was shown how damaging that saturated fats could be back in the day (in a typical American diet where they are consumed in much greater quantities then what you need). I thought now they (food companies) are trying to swing back the other way to the SF and are using things like coconut and palm oils.

Here's a recent article with numerous references: Harvard School of Public Health - Fats & Cholesterol (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html).

Thank you.

If what you say is true there is much more than diet involved. This is why I ask about context. Price's findings about health and SF were related to peoples far removed from todays context. Sure the Inuit of past and the Masai subsist mostly on meat, but there life is (was) nothing like western society is today.

Now, Fallon uses Price's name to promote herself. I agree that a traditional diet is much better than a drive through diet, but diet is only one part of the context in which we live.

For me, my favorite bread grease is butter.

Anthony, I do not disagree with you that all SF is bad because there is quite a bit of brainwashing that goes on in health care. I am right in the thick of it. On one hand we are told to use critical thinking, on the other if our answers on the exams do not match textbook dogma you will not make it through school.


OK, I've been looking through my references.

When it comes to science I wan't to see cause and effect and then if your still in doubt you can relate it to your own experiences. I used to follow low fat dogma in my own diet and I was quite overweight and VERY sick. About 7-8 years ago now I started a long and slow journey to turn my life around and get my health back. A diet RICH in saturated fats has been important in getting my health back and losing weight.

From personal experience my body HATES EDIT: Refined vegetable oils. My liver can't proccess them, I feel unwell and suffer from some jaundice. Saturated animal fats and saturated vegetable fats like virgin coconut oil are fine. My liver is happy to proccess them, I don't get jaundice and I lose weight on a saturated fat rich diet. EDIT: OK, extra virgin olive oil was OK on my liver but I couldn't eat out for a while because the proccessed vegetable oils that EVERY restaraunt uses was a BIG problem for me.

See I don't pack on weight from eating fat so I dont buy the concept that ONLY phisicaly active people can eat them and be healthy. I simply don't eat a big volume of food and this is easy enough to do when eating saturated fats because they satisfy.

The idea of good cholesterol, bad cholesterol is bunk too. BOTH high density and low density cholesterol have a job to do in our body and calling one good and one bad is simplistic nonsense.

Something I've noticed since being on a saturated fat diet for 7-8 years now is that I hardly get sunburn anymore and if I do get red its VERY mild, I don't peel and in a few days I have a darker tan. Now I don't go deliberately sunbaking and I try and avoid midday Australian, summer sun but I do sometimes get more exposure than I planned when on my bicycle.

Here's some references,

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.org.uk/

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html

http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm

There is a REALY good article out there but I can't find it right now. I will look for it later.

Also science wise if I am to believe that saturated fats are harmful I want to at least see some animal studies where they have fed rats beef tallow or coconut oil vs vegetable oil and the animals fed natural saturated fats developed disease. These studies just haven't been published because EVERY time they tried to do them they didn't get the results they wanted.

Regards, Anthony

Anthony, the one thing some of your ideas doesn't seem to address is that humans evolve in response to their environments, but there is a substantial lag. This lag explains a number of your statements about how our ancestors survived on high fat diets and such. Having said that, humans now generally live twice as long as they did 150 years ago (why is indeed a complex matter), and statistical correlation is not indicative of causal relationship (good place to look, though). Remember, 1000 years ago our ancestors craved fat, salt, and sugar because they were both rare and essential. Our circumstances have changed radically since. Perhaps our diets should as well.

Modern science may indeed have an ax to grind (and sell), but it isn't all hooey.

Anthony, the one thing some of your ideas doesn't seem to address is that humans evolve in response to their environments, but there is a substantial lag. This lag explains a number of your statements about how our ancestors survived on high fat diets and such. Having said that, humans now generally live twice as long as they did 150 years ago (why is indeed a complex matter), and statistical correlation is not indicative of causal relationship (good place to look, though). Remember, 1000 years ago our ancestors craved fat, salt, and sugar because they were both rare and essential. Our circumstances have changed radically since. Perhaps our diets should as well.

Modern science may indeed have an ax to grind (and sell), but it isn't all hooey.Part of the issue here also is that our ancestors didn't have readily available food either. To get that fat and meat, they had to spend a lot of time and energy chasing and killing it. They certainly didn't eat as much of it as we do nowadays. One of the main problems with our modern diets is we simply eat way too much... of everything.

OK, I've been looking through my references.

When it comes to science I wan't to see cause and effect and then if your still in doubt you can relate it to your own experiences. I used to follow low fat dogma in my own diet and I was quite overweight and VERY sick. About 7-8 years ago now I started a long and slow journey to turn my life around and get my health back. A diet RICH in saturated fats has been important in getting my health back and losing weight.

From personal experience my body HATES EDIT: Refined vegetable oils. My liver can't proccess them, I feel unwell and suffer from some jaundice. Saturated animal fats and saturated vegetable fats like virgin coconut oil are fine. My liver is happy to proccess them, I don't get jaundice and I lose weight on a saturated fat rich diet. EDIT: OK, extra virgin olive oil was OK on my liver but I couldn't eat out for a while because the proccessed vegetable oils that EVERY restaraunt uses was a BIG problem for me.

See I don't pack on weight from eating fat so I dont buy the concept that ONLY phisicaly active people can eat them and be healthy. I simply don't eat a big volume of food and this is easy enough to do when eating saturated fats because they satisfy.

The idea of good cholesterol, bad cholesterol is bunk too. BOTH high density and low density cholesterol have a job to do in our body and calling one good and one bad is simplistic nonsense.

Something I've noticed since being on a saturated fat diet for 7-8 years now is that I hardly get sunburn anymore and if I do get red its VERY mild, I don't peel and in a few days I have a darker tan. Now I don't go deliberately sunbaking and I try and avoid midday Australian, summer sun but I do sometimes get more exposure than I planned when on my bicycle.

Here's some references,

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.org.uk/

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html

http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm

There is a REALY good article out there but I can't find it right now. I will look for it later.

Also science wise if I am to believe that saturated fats are harmful I want to at least see some animal studies where they have fed rats beef tallow or coconut oil vs vegetable oil and the animals fed natural saturated fats developed disease. These studies just haven't been published because EVERY time they tried to do them they didn't get the results they wanted.

Regards, Anthony


Thank you Anthony for your view. Now I understand what you are looking for as evidence.

I don’t believe that a general cause and effect can be shown for either side of the equation. As you stated, good and bad cholesterol is just a too simplistic way of looking at things. Just like the reduction of good and bad fats. Is that kind of like, good/bad boy/girl? If I understand you properly, it was your own personal experience that has helped shaped your beliefs in this matter. That I will not discount, but a good part of me wants to discount what you are saying.

The programming I go through tells me you are wrong. Obviously this is my bias; I will freely admit that. I also contend that many others in the health care field, in part, share my bias.


Here is a good example of that.

Here's a recent article with numerous references: Harvard School of Public Health - Fats & Cholesterol (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html).


Here is a good quote from the article:


Although fat intake doesn't seem to increase colon cancer risk, high consumption of red meat still does appear to do so.(18)

Here is the abstract from the source that supposedly says that red meat increases the risk of colon cancer


The role of fat, fatty acids, and total energy intake in the etiology of human colon cancer.

Giovannucci E, Goldin B.

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. edward.giovannucci@channing.harvard.edu

A high correlation between national per capita disappearance of fat and national rates of colon cancer led to the hypothesis that consumption of fat, especially from animal sources, increases risk for colon cancer. Over the past two decades, this hypothesis has been tested in numerous case-control and cohort studies. In general, neither case-control nor cohort studies find that the total fat composition of the diet increases risk of colon cancer. Case-control studies frequently find that total energy consumption is related to a higher risk of colon cancer, but this result is difficult to interpret because physical activity appears to be protective whereas obesity increases risk. In contrast with the results for total fat, epidemiologic data regarding the role of specific fatty acids are sparse. Nonetheless, useful information regarding major fatty acids may be inferred from the numerous studies that have examined major source of various fats in relation to colon cancer. Intake of red meat or beef has been related to colon cancer risk in most case-control and cohort studies, whereas dietary fat from sources other than red meat, including dairy, poultry, and vegetable oils, does not increase risk of colon cancer. The apparent influence of red meat does not appear to be mediated through its total lipid content, suggesting that other factors such as heterocyclic amines formed during cooking may be critical. Mechanisms whereby fat or red meat may influence colon carcinogenesis are discussed, although none appear compelling.


Here is an animal trial AnthonyG



How about this one from Shaefer, (2000) citing:
Nicolosi RJ. Dietary fat saturation effects on low-density-lipoprotein
concentrations and metabolism in various animal models. Am J
Clin Nutr 1997;65(suppl):1617S–27S.



Animal models have shown a direct relation between LDLcholesterol
concentrations and atherosclerosis. Animals consuming
diets high in saturated fat and cholesterol have elevated LDLcholesterol
concentrations and develop intimal lesions that progress
from fatty streaks to ulcerated plaques, resembling those of
human atherosclerosis (155). In monkeys, severe atherosclerosis
regresses when blood cholesterol is lowered through diet therapy.


In Nicolosi (1997) there is no mention of lesions, plaques, ulcerated, atherosclerosis. In fact he only mentions LDL, HDL, and other numbers. The words, lesions, plaques, ulcerated, and atherosclerosis do not appear in the same context that Shaefer (2000) seems to indicate. As in the case of atherosclerosis it only appears in a reference

Here is the abstract:

Dietary fat saturation effects on low-density-lipoprotein concentrations and metabolism in various animal models

RJ Nicolosi
Department of Health and Clinical Sciences, University of Massachusetts- Lowell 01854, USA. NicolosiR@Woods.UML.EDU


Saturated vegetable oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel oil) and fats (butter and lard) are hypercholesterolemic relative to monounsaturated and polyunsaturated vegetable oils. The increase in plasma low-density- lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations associated with consumption of saturated vegetable oils and fats is largely explained by a decrease in hepatic LDL receptor activity and an increase in the LDL-C production rate. Hepatic LDL receptor activity may be regulated by the messenger RNA concentration of the LDL receptor. The decrease in hepatic LDL receptor activity with saturated fat feeding is associated with decreased hepatic sterol O-acyltransferase activity and, therefore, a reduced inert pool of cholesteryl ester. A putative regulatory pool of cholesterol is increased with saturated fat feeding and suppresses LDL receptor activity, possibly through hepatic messenger RNA regulation. For most studies, an independent effect of a vegetable oil or fat could not be ascertained because there was no neutral control and at least two of the test oils or fats were varied. Animal data for the effects of individual fatty acids on plasma LDL-C concentrations and metabolism are sparse. The evidence suggests that caproic acid (6:0), caprylic acid (8:0), and capric acid (10:0) are neutral with respect to their LDL-C-raising properties and their ability to modulate LDL metabolism. Lauric acid (12:0), myristic acid (14:0), and palmitic acid (16:0) are approximately equivalent in their LDL-C-raising potential by reducing hepatic LDL receptor activity and increasing the LDL-C production rate, apparently via modulation of sterol O-acyltransferase activity. Stearic acid (18:0) appears to be neutral in its LDL-C-raising potential and how it affects LDL metabolism.


I will take up your challenge and try to find an animal trial that shows that a high sat fat intake will increase the chance of disease. Not to prove you wrong, there is no benefit in that, but to see what I can learn.

Presently, I am of the opinion that if you stay away from the processed crap and eat normal food you will be in better shape than if you did not. For fun, I will also try to find evidence to the contrary.

http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm

There is a REALY good article out there but I can't find it right now. I will look for it later.



OK, I've had time to read my links and I have already posted above the realy good article I was looking for. They moved it. Previously it was buried and they tricked me by putting it on the index page:o EDIT:OK, it wasn't the title page. Man I'm having a bad day but thats the important acticle.


Anyway it explains in a quite manner of fact way what's wrong with the 'saturated fat is bad for your heart' theory. Basicaly if you do the chemistry then cholesterol consumption AND saturated fat consumption has NO impact whatsoever on your blood cholesterol levels which is at the heart of the theory.

Now the alternative point of view doesn't dismiss that there is an association between highly elevated cholesterol levels and possible poor health outcomes. What it disputes is the notion that elevated cholesterol is the CAUSE of the poor health outcomes EDIT: or that artificialy lowering your cholesterol with drugs will provide a benifit. The only undisputed benifit of statins is an antioxidant effect and there are better and cheaper antioxidants available.

Cholesterol is part of your bodies self healing mechanisms so if your unwell then elevated cholesterol is to be expected, even desired. Its beneficial in such circumstances.

Regards, Anthony