© 2010 American Society for Nutrition
Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease1,2,3,4
Patty W Siri-Tarino, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, and Ronald M Krauss
+ Author Affiliations

1From the Department of Atherosclerosis Research Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute Oakland CA (PWS-TRMK); the Center for Excellence in Nutritional Genomics University of California at Davis Davis CA (PWS-TRMK);the Departments of Nutrition (QS)Epidemiology (FBH) Harvard School of Public Health Boston MA.
+ Author Notes

↵2 The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health. Information on the NCRR is available at http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/.

↵3 Supported by grant UL1 RR024131-01 from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institutes of Health Roadmap for Medical Research. Research relevant to this study was supported by the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities Center for Excellence in Nutritional Genomics and a grant from the National Dairy Council (PS-T and RMK). FBH was supported by NIH grant HL60712. QS was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from Unilever Corporate Research.

↵4 Address correspondence to RM Krauss, Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, 5700 Martin Luther King Junior Way, Oakland, CA 94609. E-mail: rkrauss@chori.org.

Abstract

A focus of dietary recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and treatment has been a reduction in saturated fat intake, primarily as a means of lowering LDL-cholesterol concentrations. However, the evidence that supports a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients. Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events, although several studies showed no effects. An independent association of saturated fat intake with CVD risk has not been consistently shown in prospective epidemiologic studies, although some have provided evidence of an increased risk in young individuals and in women. Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.

Received April 15, 2008.
Accepted December 3, 2009.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/502.short

Hur menar du att det verkar som om de studier jag läst är gamla?

Konsensus är inte så starkt som du tror bland forskare http://www.thincs.org/

Det finns ju en hel del referenser på den här sajten. Verkar som om en del av de studier du läst är gamla.

För övrigt menar jag vad jag skrev, att jag tror man extra tydligt måste visa att det man tror stämmer när det går emot konsensus. Eftersom jag är intresserad av kost efterfrågar jag metod/studier som tydligt visar att stora mängder mättat fett "är nyttigt" för generella allmänheten långsiktigt som påstås.

Min grundläggande epidemilogilitteratur jag läser för tillfället motsäger så vitt jag kan förstå vissa av doc's formuleringar i detta inlägg varför jag hade hoppats på vidare referat till varför detta inlägg skulle vara mer pålitligt, eller tydlig förklaring på vad jag missuppfattat.

k s #151,
Intressant fråga. Men tycker du inte det snarast blir skenvetenskap om "expertgrupper" uttalar sig bergsäkert med mer eller mindre obefintliga bevis?

Att anse att något måste vara sant, trots brist på bevis, det hör väl mer till det religiösa området?