Saturated fat associated with higher homocysteine

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Homocysteine is a moderate and independent risk factor of heart disease. In
a new study high intake of saturated fatty acids was associated with higher
plasma homocysteine. Fish oils were associated with reduced levels.

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

Dietary fat and plasma total homocysteine concentrations in 2 adult age
groups: the Hordaland Homocysteine Study
Paula Berstad, Svetlana V Konstantinova, Helga Refsum, Eha Nurk, Stein Emil
Vollset, Grethe S Tell, Per M Ueland, Christian A Drevon and Giske Ursin

Background: The intake of n-3 (formerly called omega-3) fatty acids (FAs)
may be inversely associated with plasma total homocysteine (tHcy)
concentrations, but the epidemiologic data are sparse.

Objective: We examined the association between dietary fat and tHcy in a
Norwegian population.

Design: A cross-sectional, population-based study of 5917 subjects in 2 age
groups (47-49 and 71-74 y old) was conducted with the use of food-frequency
questionnaires and measurement of plasma tHcy concentrations.

Results: The intake of saturated FAs (SFAs) was positively and significantly
(P for trend < 0.001) associated with tHcy concentrations; the difference in
plasma tHcy concentrations between the highest and lowest quartiles of SFAs
was 8.8%. The intake of marine very-long-chain n-3 FAs was inversely
associated with tHcy concentrations; the difference in plasma tHcy
concentrations between the lowest and the highest quartiles was -5.0% (P for
trend < 0.001). Intakes of total and monounsaturated fat also were
positively associated with plasma tHcy concentrations (P for trend < 0.001
and < 0.005, respectively), whereas the intake of polyunsaturated fat was
positively associated with tHcy concentrations only in the younger subjects
(P for trend = 0.03). The associations were weakened by additional
adjustment for B vitamin intake but remained significant for SFA intake (P <
0.001). When stratified for total B vitamin intake, the inverse association
between tHcy concentrations and very-long-chain n-3 FAs was significant only
in the highest quartile of B vitamin intake (P for trend = 0.001),
regardless of supplement use.

Conclusions: High intakes of SFAs are associated with high plasma
concentrations of tHcy. The inverse association between dietary intakes of
very-long-chain n-3 FAs and plasma tHcy concentrations is apparent only at
high B vitamin intakes.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/6/1598

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes


Juhana Harju wrote:
> Homocysteine is a moderate and independent risk factor of heart disease.

No, it isn't.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:

No link has ever stood up to further scrutiny. Lowering homocysteine
resulted in increased mortality.

Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> Juhana Harju wrote:
>
> Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.

Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by supplements.
The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in saturated fats and
higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is a completely different
thing.

> Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

I did not say anything about causality.

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Susan wrote:
>
>> Juhana Harju wrote:
>>
>> Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.
>
>
> Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by
> supplements. The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in
> saturated fats and higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is a
> completely different thing.
>
>> Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.
>
>
> I did not say anything about causality.
>

Such studies are useless wrt saturated fats unless they control for
grass fed vs. feedlot animal products.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> Juhana Harju wrote:
>> Susan wrote:
>>> Juhana Harju wrote:
>>>
>>> Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.
>>
>> Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by
>> supplements. The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in
>> saturated fats and higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is
>> a completely different thing.
>>
>>> Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.
>>
>> I did not say anything about causality.
>
> Such studies are useless wrt saturated fats unless they control for
> grass fed vs. feedlot animal products.

That is just a way to evade the topic.

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:

> That is just a way to evade the topic.
>

It IS the topic.

There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from saturated
fats.

Further, the fat profiles from grass fed meat and dairy is extremely
heart healthy, much more so than that from feedlot beef.

All we have so far is research on feedlot animal fat which is much less
healthy, and still, it's what you eat with the fat, not the fat that has
been proven to cause the risks.

Susan

It's not the SFAs, except in terms of "associations," "links," or
"correlations." If SFAs were so bad, where is all the "associated"
disease amongst those who consume SFA-rich, but PUFA-poor diets? They
are studying SFAs in the context of typical Western diets, where
people don't eat much coconut, but do eat plenty of meat. There is no
biochemical connection between homocysteine and SFAs. The reason they
don't understand is because they are not isolating the various
molecules and determining which are dangerous. More insightful
researchers have demonstrated that a PUFA-rich diet and the HCAs
generated in cooked meat are a very dangerous combination. To see
these kinds of studies, go to my free site and read the essay about
saturated fatty acids being the solution, not the problem:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

On Jul 5, 4:50 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Juhana Harju wrote:
> > That is just a way to evade the topic.

> There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from saturated
> fats.

There's plenty of evidence.

> Further, the fat profiles from grass fed meat and dairy is extremely
> heart healthy, much more so than that from feedlot beef.

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html
shows that it's better, but not extremely better. The reason its
better is because of increased omega 3 fatty acid content.

> All we have so far is research on feedlot animal fat which is much less
> healthy, and still, it's what you eat with the fat, not the fat that has
> been proven to cause the risks.

What nutrition component do you think can lead to CVD?

--
Ron

x-no-archive: yes

Ron Peterson wrote:

> http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html
> shows that it's better, but not extremely better. The reason its
> better is because of increased omega 3 fatty acid content.

That's not the only reason. It's also has higher CLA and lower
arachidonic acid.

>
>
>>All we have so far is research on feedlot animal fat which is much less
>>healthy, and still, it's what you eat with the fat, not the fat that has
>>been proven to cause the risks.
>
>
> What nutrition component do you think can lead to CVD?


High glycemic load; starch and sugar and the resultant oxidative stress.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> Juhana Harju wrote:
>
>> That is just a way to evade the topic.
>
> It IS the topic.
>
> There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from
> saturated fats.

I just provided some further evidence by posting two studies but you are
evading the subject because you are denying that which is evident. However,
I completely understand the reasons you are so evasive. Because of your
health reasons you are a low-carber who is favouring animal fats, saturated
fats among them. So you have hard time when you see any contrary evidence.
You should notice that I am not denying the obvious health benefits of
low-carbing in achieving better glycemic control. But the subject is
different now.

--
Juhana

In 2000 I had my blood lipids checked. For a several of days prior
I had been eating raw coconut. My HDL was 70 and the Doc
said even though my total cholesterol was ~ 230 my blood lipids
were excellent. The next time I was tested the HDL was down
to 38 and I had been eating somewhat more conventionally.
Granted at the time I was very stressed so there were other
factors.

I also have suspect heated polyunsaturated fats are worse
than the same fats if unheated. For example a raw sesame
or sunflower seed versus sesame oil or sunflower oil.

Butter is thought of as saturated but it tends to go
rancid rather rapidly. Certainly frying with butter, would
be a way to up one's toxic oxysterol exposure.

I've tried coconut oil for cooking and wasn't overly impressed.
It seems to disappear into the food more than other fats.
I keep aiming to cook a pie and try it in the crust, it would have
to be better than hydrogenated lard.





On Jul 5, 3:26 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote:
> It's not the SFAs, except in terms of "associations," "links," or
> "correlations." If SFAs were so bad, where is all the "associated"
> disease amongst those who consume SFA-rich, but PUFA-poor diets? They
> are studying SFAs in the context of typical Western diets, where
> people don't eat much coconut, but do eat plenty of meat. There is no
> biochemical connection between homocysteine and SFAs. The reason they
> don't understand is because they are not isolating the various
> molecules and determining which are dangerous. More insightful
> researchers have demonstrated that a PUFA-rich diet and the HCAs
> generated in cooked meat are a very dangerous combination. To see
> these kinds of studies, go to my free site and read the essay about
> saturated fatty acids being the solution, not the problem:
>
> http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

Yes, it is.

Now that is my equally rich response :-)


On Jul 5, 11:18 am, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Juhana Harju wrote:
> > Homocysteine is a moderate and independent risk factor of heart disease.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Susan

I see that as an unwarrented conclusion for the bulk of the
population.
Most people will be eating feed lot animals and their fat whatever it
is
seems less than optimal.


On Jul 5, 2:10 pm, Susan <neverm...@nomail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>
> Juhana Harju wrote:
> > Susan wrote:
>
> >> Juhana Harju wrote:
>
> >> Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.
>
> > Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by
> > supplements. The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in
> > saturated fats and higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is a
> > completely different thing.
>
> >> Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.
>
> > I did not say anything about causality.
>
> Such studies are useless wrt saturated fats unless they control for
> grass fed vs. feedlot animal products.
>
> Susan

x-no-archive: yes

betaine_hcl@yahoo.com wrote:
> I see that as an unwarrented conclusion for the bulk of the
> population.
> Most people will be eating feed lot animals and their fat whatever it
> is
> seems less than optimal.

So what? That doesn't suggest that saturated fat is bad. only that
feedlot animal foods are bad.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

betaine_hcl@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Do you have the reference on lowering homocysteine increasing
> mortality?

Try googling this group and Jim Chinnis; he's a scientist who's
reviewed the research due to his own former homocysteine concerns and
presented conclusions about it here, including, IIRC, mentions of
increased mortality, and he and David Rind have discussed publications
about it on this group.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

betaine_hcl@yahoo.com wrote:
> Yes, it is.
>
> Now that is my equally rich response :-)

We've had the discssion here ad nauseum; that's what it's come down to.

:-)

Susan

x-no-archvie: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Susan wrote:
>
>> Juhana Harju wrote:
>>
>>> That is just a way to evade the topic.
>>
>>
>> It IS the topic.
>>
>> There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from
>> saturated fats.
>
>
> I just provided some further evidence by posting two studies but you are
> evading the subject because you are denying that which is evident.
> However, I completely understand the reasons you are so evasive. Because
> of your health reasons you are a low-carber who is favouring animal
> fats, saturated fats among them. So you have hard time when you see any
> contrary evidence. You should notice that I am not denying the obvious
> health benefits of low-carbing in achieving better glycemic control. But
> the subject is different now.
>


Bullshit. I've provide citations ad nauseum to rebut you, but you don't
read them, you just provide more unsupported opinion pieces that are not
supported by data or methodology or well controlled.

I've got a low tolerance for small mindedness.

Susan

Susan wrote:
> x-no-archvie: yes
> Juhana Harju wrote:
>> Susan wrote:
>>> Juhana Harju wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is just a way to evade the topic.
>>>
>>> It IS the topic.
>>>
>>> There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from
>>> saturated fats.
>>
>>
>> I just provided some further evidence by posting two studies but you
>> are evading the subject because you are denying that which is
>> evident. However, I completely understand the reasons you are so
>> evasive. Because of your health reasons you are a low-carber who is
>> favouring animal fats, saturated fats among them. So you have hard
>> time when you see any contrary evidence. You should notice that I am
>> not denying the obvious health benefits of low-carbing in achieving
>> better glycemic control. But the subject is different now.
>
> Bullshit. I've provide citations ad nauseum to rebut you, but you
> don't read them, you just provide more unsupported opinion pieces
> that are not supported by data or methodology or well controlled.
>
> I've got a low tolerance for small mindedness.

In that case I encourage you to use killfile and not to respond to my
postings anymore. I would not loose anything.

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:

> In that case I encourage you to use killfile and not to respond to my
> postings anymore. I would not loose anything.
>

Actually, I've had you KF'ed for a long time, but sometimes the feature
on Thunderbird slips up. Then I see your disinformation and feel
compelled to respond.

Susan