This has nothing to do with OPEC and strife in the
Mideast. It’s another press release
about oils in our diet.
It started with a headline on the BBC
declaring: “Coconut oil is as unhealthy
as beef dripping and butter, say US heart experts.” As usual, we have to be very wary of
headlines, especially ones like this one designed to scare. It turns out that the information is from the
American Heart Association (AHA). They
are concerned that coconut oil is considered by some to be a health food
containing fat that “may be better for us than other saturated fats.” The AHA says there are no good studies
backing up this claim. According to
them, all saturated fat is bad.
But all the differing opinions about good fat and bad fat
can be very confusing. Generally animal
fat is considered unhealthier than vegetable fat, but not everyone agrees with
that distinction either. I wrote about this just five months ago when the story came out that Nutella contains palm
oil which has recently been placed on the bad list. In that piece I reviewed a number of
different sources showing how they ranked the oils in different orders of
healthiness.
Another article (coincidentally also) from the BBC but a
year earlier, “Diet debate: Is butter back and is sat fat good?” gives a
balanced explanation. At one time the
experts felt that all cholesterol is bad, but now everyone knows about HDL
(good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol).
The oil and fat debate is equally subtle, making the comparison to
butter in that latest headline questionable.
Furthermore, any research is difficult because it depends on many people
accurately reporting what they eat over long periods of time.
Back in the 1950s some researchers found evidence that fat
was the culprit. To understand the
history in detail an interesting source is the book The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. It tells of some of the problems with study
methods – in one case looking at Italians during Lent to assess their usual
eating habits – and of the politics involved – when the US Government commits
to a particular diet recommendation, studies with contrary findings are often
ignored and scientists risk loss of funding.
Those who thought sugar, not fat, was the problem were marginalized. As a NY Times Magazine piece from 2002 put
it: “While the low-fat-is-good-health
dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has
spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth,
the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific
fantasy.”
That Times article also gives a great summary of the history
and politics. At one point they explain
it this way: A huge government study “concluded
that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The
N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith.” With virtually no evidence that eating less
fat had any health benefits, they assumed that “if a cholesterol-lowering drug
could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should
do the same.” But the research and the
experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion.
With all this conflicting evidence,
what’s an eater to do? The best answer has
to do with moderation: in fat, in sugar, and in portion size. Contradictory news will continue to pour
in. For example, eggs that we were told just a few years
ago were "worse than smoking cigarettes" (for the cholesterol) are back on the good-guy
list. Popular Science reported just two
weeks ago “An egg a day could help babies grow bigger and taller.”
So the answer is not to take all the headlines too seriously
and to practice moderation. You heard it
here first! – Except this is really just common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment