3 ms·
Agree. To give context, this is an editorial in a sports medicine journal. It's not a trial, meta-analysis, or even a systematic review.
by riahi 9y ago
Agree. To give context, this is an editorial in a sports medicine journal.
It's not a trial, meta-analysis, or even a systematic review.
- abainbridge 9y agoNo, but the first reference is to, "A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults." Which you can find here: http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978 http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y agoThe reference concludes that trans fats are bad for you and that the evidence for saturated fats not being bad for you is not complete: Conclusions Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations. Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality, probably because of higher levels of intake of industrial trans fats than ruminant trans fats. Dietary guidelines must carefully consider the health effects of recommendations for alternative macronutrients to replace trans fats and saturated fats. Note "but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations" and "Trans fats are associated with all cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality"