Dr. Castelli's Views on Saturated Fats

[Guest guest]

Hi Logan:

Do you remember the quotation you supplied (attached below, between

the '=============' lines), attributed to Dr. Castelli? Since you

made that post I have contacted Dr. Castelli to inquire about the

circumstances in which those comments were made. Here is what he

told me about it:

He says he was observing that in one of the first dietary history

studies done at Framingham a data set was used which showed that

those who ate the most saturated fat had the lowest cholesterol

readings. That seemed surprising at the time. But even more

surprising, the same data also indicated that those in the group who

ate the most calories weighed the least.

Since eating more and weighing less appeared contradictory, this

raised questions. They realized something must be awry, so they set

out to determine what it was. The answer turned out to be that in

this particular group of subjects those who ate the most saturated

fat also had the highest energy expenditure. So that, although they

ate more, they weighed less because they were burning a lot more

calories. Also relevant was the fact that exercise appreciably

reduces blood cholesterol in the very short term.

So, in order to figure out whether it was eating saturated fats that

was lowering cholesterol, or the exercise instead, they investigated

further. Specifically, a direct quote cut-and-pasted from Dr.

Castelli's recent communication:

" .... how do you know that eating cholesterol and saturated fat raise

your serum cholesterol? You have to do a metabolic ward study. Being

on a metabolic ward is like being in prison and the two best studies

were done in Minneapolis (Dr. Ancel Keys) and Boston (Mark Hegsted).

They would increase the cholesterol and saturated fat in your diet,

controlling for everything else and showed the more cholesterol you

ate, or the more saturated fat you ate, the higher you serum

cholesterol went. "

In other words it was the higher physical activity that had accounted

for the lower blood cholesterols of the subjects in the earlier

study - exercise was the confounder that had not been controlled for.

Further, he goes on:

" Virtually all the early diet trials were based on removing saturated

fat and cholesterol from you diet and lowering your serum

cholesterol. They also showed that the better they did this, the

better was the fall in coronary heart disease. "

So, Dr. Castelli is saying, not only did lowering saturated fat

intake drop cholesterol, it also reduced heart disease. And further,

Dr. Castelli says:

" ....... the latest diet data from Framingham showed that the women of

Framingham who ate a high fat, low calorie diet doubled the deposits

in their carotid arteries compared to women on a heart healthy diet. "

And still further he notes that the impact on lipids of a high

saturated fat diet is even greater than that measured by standard

cholesterol tests. This is because the tests are normally done after

an eight to ten hour fast. But the atherogenic effects (chylomicron

remnants) peak around the time the meal is eaten and then diminish

dramatically as the hours go by. So they are much greater in the

period immediately following a high fat meal than when the tested

blood is normally drawn many hours later.

-------------------

So the actual views held by the source you provided to support your

arguments about the causes of heart disease, ARE THE OPPOSITE of what

you would have us believe them to be. You quoted the first part of

the story, then for some reason omitted the rest - that is, by far

the most important part. In my opinion, that was less than helpful.

Rodney.

> > If what you say below is true then why is it that it is only

> > saturated and trans fats that are associated with elevated rates

of

> > CVD?

>

> I wasn't specifically referring to trans-fat. But trans-fat is a

> dangerous toxin, not a real food, that gunks up the EFA pathway from

> working properly -- the heart muscle has a special affinity for

Omega

> 3's. You don't need to eat a large amount of fat to get EFAs.

>

> As to saturated fat, this quote says it best:

==================================================================

==================================================================

> " The more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the

> more calories one ate, the lower peoples' serum cholesterol. we

found

> that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated

> fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most

> physically active. " -- Dr. Castelli, Director of the

> prestigious Framingham Study

==================================================================

==================================================================

>

> > All types of fat contain about nine calories per gram. All of

> > them, if eaten in excess, have the same identical ability

to 'crowd

> > out' better nutrition. Why is it that diets high in

> > polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats (that are associated with

> > REDUCED rates of CVD) do not crowd out higher nutrient intakes?

>

> What research unequivocally says they do not? Are you essentially

> implying that eating large amounts of polys and monos is healthy?!!

> Consider that: more fat == more oxidation == more antioxidants

> required. There is even a study I cannot recall at the moment

> showing that more than 37% of calories from monounsaturated fat

> reduces insulin sensitivity, a clear sign of pathology in progress.

>

> Also consider that: excess protein is converted into glucose.

> Cconsider that: excess glucose is converted into saturated fat.

> Would you then claim that a high, whole-grain carbohydrate diet is

> going to cause CVD according to the Lipid Theory due to the excess

> saturated fat and/or cholesterol produced internally? Oh boy.

>

> You know, in general, it seems to me that the economic propaganda

and

> incentives for the Lipid Theory sure makes it exceedingly difficult

> to consider that woefully inadequate nutrition may actually be the

> real cause of CVD. I think perhaps it's collective denial and an

> unwillingness to face self-responsibility. What do people in denial

> do? Bury their heads in the sand and take the path of least

> resistance. It's more pscyhologically comforting and self-

validating.

>

> We probably take it far way too granted in here, but not too long

ago

> it was " firmly established " that nutrition having ANY influence on

> all-cause mortality or disease was considered complete B.S.. A

> theory that was invented 60+ years ago is definitely based on that

> kind of old school thinking.

>

> Logan