🔥Latest review on saturated fat out in a prestigious journal. Does it contradict
@SecKennedy's latest pledge--just days ago--to "end the 40-year war on saturated fats"?
I don't think so.
This paper reviewed 17 clinical trials
Top finding for most people:
"For persons at low cardiovascular risk, reducing or modifying saturated fat intake has little or no benefit over a period of 5 years."
--> This means the current cap on saturated fats in the Dietary Guidelines for ALL Americans over the age of 2 is not warranted. Guidelines are for ALL Americans. Esp. children need more healthy proteins (including regular meat and dairy), and they should not be given a diet designed for middle-aged ppl at high risk for heart disease.
An editorial accompanying the paper makes this same point: The findings "align with the current emerging recognition that [sat fats] are unlikely deleterious for cardiometabolic health for general population."
BUT, for people with high cardiovascular risk, the paper said "low-to moderate-certainty evidence was found for important reductions in mortality and major cardiovascular events, particularly for MI, with respect to replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat."
--> However, all these findings were NOT--technically-- statistically significant, bc the confidence intervals for all relative risks include the number 1 (you can Grok that). The risk intervals tend to show more risk than not, but still, not statistically significant. (h/t
@zoeharcombe)
Bottom line: this paper supports nixing the 10% cap on saturated fat in the Dietary Guidelines, as
@SecKennedy and
@FDACommissioner have repeatedly said they would.
@HHSGov @USDA @SecRollins
Super important point to remember: there is no way to feed children more eggs, meat, regular cheese in school without eliminating this 10% number. You just can't. The math doesn't work. The 10% cap, for which there was never any data (as editorial acknowledges) has to go.
Links:
Paper:
acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/…
Editorial:
acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/…