A nutritionist reviews recent research on the substance to determine whether it deserves its devilish reputation
I keep getting questions about saturated fat. Does it really pose a health risk? If so, how serious a risk? And isn't eating real food okay even if it contains saturated fat? Good questions. Here are a couple of recent examples:
Reader #1: I think that the idea that saturated fats in meat and dairy are unhealthful is errant, based on correlative - not causative - scientific studies ... I propose that instead of demonizing one nutrient over another, we favor whole, high-quality foods of both animal and plant origin ... designed by nature (and thousands of years of trial and error) to meet the needs of their respective populations. What do you say?
Reader #2: I wonder how the government can be so focused on low-fat milk. Is that really such a huge problem? Isn't the bigger problem that the state of NY is telling people pretzels make a healthy snack? Isn't it soda and cheese doodles and eating every dinner from a box that is the problem? Whole milk, really? I'd appreciate your clarity on this ... we are full fat milk and cheese people, and all of this perplexes me.
I can understand why anyone might be confused about saturated fat. Food fats are complicated and it helps to be a biochemist (as I once was) to sort out the issues related to degree of saturation and whether the omegas are 3, 6, or 9 (I explain all this in the chapter on fats and in an appendix to What to Eat).
And yes, the science is complex and sometimes seems contradictory, but scientific committees for the past 50 years have concluded one after another that substituting other kinds of fatty acids for saturated fatty acids would reduce levels of blood cholesterol and the risk for coronary heart disease.
And no, those scientists cannot have all been delusional or paid off by the meat or dairy industries. They--like scientists today--mostly call the science the way they see it.
What makes the research especially hard to sort out is that all food fats--no exceptions--are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (just the proportions differ), that some saturated fatty acids raise blood cholesterol levels more than others do, and that one kind--stearic acid--seems neutral with respect to blood cholesterol.
But overall, the vast majority of expert committees typically conclude that we would reduce our heart disease risks if we kept intake of saturated fat below 10 percent of total calories, and preferably at or below 7 percent. On average, Americans consume 11 to 12 percent of calories from saturated fat, which doesn't sound too far off, but the average means that many people consume much more.
As is often the case with studies of single nutrients, research sometimes comes to different conclusions. Several studies--all done quite well--have appeared just in the last year or so.
One of these is a meta-analysis (a review of multiple studies). It concludes:
...there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] or CVD [cardiovascular disease]. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat [my emphasis].
What saturated fat gets replaced with is the subject of three other well-conducted studies that come to a different--the mainstream--conclusion. One, another recent meta-analysis, confirms decades of previous observations (sorry about the annoying abbreviations):
These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA [polyunsaturated fatty acids] in place of SFA [saturated fatty acids] reduces CHD events in RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. This suggests that rather than trying to lower PUFA consumption, a shift toward greater population PUFA consumption in place of SFA would significantly reduce rates of CHD.
Translation: replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats would be healthier.