softlysoftly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2020
- Posts
- 3,119
- Reputation
- 4,337
One big problem is this attempt to connect PUFAs to heart disease, the actual outcome evidence does not support it; in fact, it like strongly supports the opposite.
Replacement of SFAs with PUFAs has a consistent protective effect on CVD.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30019767/
This is likely due to a few different mechanisms, the first being that SFAs reliably increase blood LDL cholesterol levels and by default Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) which is thought to be a major factor contributing to atherosclerosis and CVD (more discussion on this later). Replacement of SFAs with PUFAs (particularly omega-3 PUFAs) has been shown to have a protective effect on CVD, likely by lowering LDL, ApoB, reducing inflammation, and various other proposed mechanisms.
This even holds true in a meta-analysis of CVD risk and linoleic acid intake.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32020162/
Omega 3 PUFAs do appear to reduce risk in RCTs.
While randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in research, we cannot neglect their limitations, especially when it comes to subject number and time duration. Compare this with the cohort studies on the effects of replacing SFA with PUFA that demonstrate quite a powerful protective effect of replacing SFA with PUFA that appears to be dose dependent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6451787/
Further, even when specifically looking at omega 6 PUFAs there is a protective effect when replacing SFA with them.
www.nature.com
In this cohort study, those with higher blood levels of omega 6 PUFAs had a 50% lower risk of a CVD incident during a 35 year follow up.
TLDR: All of this to bring it back to the topic that saturated fat supposedly is good for you while PUFAs are bad. There is no hard evidence to back this up. People attempt to draw a mechanistic link between PUFA oxidation and CVD while ignoring the fact that saturated fat has a much STRONGER mechanistic link to CVD, which is backed up by actual outcome data in humans. Meanwhile, we not only have mechanistic data showing saturated fat can damage the arterial wall, but we also have outcome data and MR data across multiple lines of evidence showing saturated fat and LDL are most likely causal for CVD. There is no evidence that I am aware of demonstrating that PUFAs are casual for CVD, and if anything, they likely have a protective effect.
@ChristianChad @RabidRosaries @Moggable @russiancel
Replacement of SFAs with PUFAs has a consistent protective effect on CVD.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30019767/
This is likely due to a few different mechanisms, the first being that SFAs reliably increase blood LDL cholesterol levels and by default Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) which is thought to be a major factor contributing to atherosclerosis and CVD (more discussion on this later). Replacement of SFAs with PUFAs (particularly omega-3 PUFAs) has been shown to have a protective effect on CVD, likely by lowering LDL, ApoB, reducing inflammation, and various other proposed mechanisms.
This even holds true in a meta-analysis of CVD risk and linoleic acid intake.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32020162/
Omega 3 PUFAs do appear to reduce risk in RCTs.
While randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in research, we cannot neglect their limitations, especially when it comes to subject number and time duration. Compare this with the cohort studies on the effects of replacing SFA with PUFA that demonstrate quite a powerful protective effect of replacing SFA with PUFA that appears to be dose dependent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6451787/
Further, even when specifically looking at omega 6 PUFAs there is a protective effect when replacing SFA with them.
Association between Plasma N-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Levels and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in a Community-based Cohort Study - Scientific Reports
Most studies support that saturated fatty acid replacement with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and put emphasis on the effects of N-3 PUFAs. The reported relationships between N-6 PUFAs and CVD risks vary. We aimed to examine the...
www.nature.com
TLDR: All of this to bring it back to the topic that saturated fat supposedly is good for you while PUFAs are bad. There is no hard evidence to back this up. People attempt to draw a mechanistic link between PUFA oxidation and CVD while ignoring the fact that saturated fat has a much STRONGER mechanistic link to CVD, which is backed up by actual outcome data in humans. Meanwhile, we not only have mechanistic data showing saturated fat can damage the arterial wall, but we also have outcome data and MR data across multiple lines of evidence showing saturated fat and LDL are most likely causal for CVD. There is no evidence that I am aware of demonstrating that PUFAs are casual for CVD, and if anything, they likely have a protective effect.
@ChristianChad @RabidRosaries @Moggable @russiancel
Last edited:
