saturated versus unsaturated fats today we make sense of this controversy on
fats once and for all. saturated fat is concentrated in animal foods like cheese,
butter and meat and some plant products like coconut oil while unsaturated fat
is concentrated in nuts, seeds, avocado and most oils, like olive oil but the
health effects of each is where things get controversial. we've known for a long
time that saturated fat raises our cholesterol levels but that's just a
marker. what we really want to know is do people get actual heart disease
classical studies linked saturated fat and heart disease so saturated fat was
widely seen as a problem until a few years ago a media storm rocked the
nutrition world. was saturated fat fine after all? had it all been a lie? it even
made the cover of Time magazine. so what was that hoopla all about?
2 studies looked at people's eating habits. people eating different amounts of
saturated fat had similar rates of cardiovascular disease. so how can we
make sense of this? I mean, it seems so confusing, one study says one thing
another study says something else. don't ever be intimidated by science.
it's usually a lot simpler than it seems. say I want to find out if soda is
fattening. I ask people about their soda drinking habits and I also weigh them. I
find out that people drinking three cups of soda a day are not significantly
heavier than those drinking one cup a day. did I prove soda is not fattening?
it's not hard to see the flaws, right? maybe people lied or maybe the light soda
drinkers also ate a Twinkie and a lollipop. I was so focused on the soda I
didn't even bother to ask them what else they eat. I jumped to a conclusion. okay,
back to saturated fat. it's the exact same logic. in those studies that made
the headlines around the world, people eating less saturated fat had as
much cardiovascular disease as those eating more of it. maybe saturated fat is
not a factor. or maybe they're eating other bad stuff instead. how can we
figure this out? we have to find out what else they eat, of course. that's exactly
what Harvard researchers did. they found that people who eat less saturated fat
and more unsaturated fat instead have lower cardiovascular risk. those who eat
more whole grains instead, things like oatmeal or brown rice,
also had lower risk. but those who ate more refined grains instead (white bread,
white pasta, sugary cereal, cookies etc), their risk was the same. just as bad as
saturated fat. this makes total sense. if you lump it all together it's much
harder to see a difference, especially because most people in our society eat
way more of this than this. so did that study make the cover of Time? take a wild
guess. why wouldn't the media be just as excited about that one? it's more
informative, it's a landmark study. is it because the media is evil? is it because
they're all plotting to give us heart disease? no, it's because it's a less
shocking result so it's less profitable. "eat butter" gets clicks and eyeballs. "oh
never mind eat fruits and vegetables like they've told you for 50 years", not
so much. now, we're looking at all this not to feel superior or to bust out the
"fake media" hashtags but to protect ourselves. the next time you see that
headline "forget everything you thought you knew about food. everybody was wrong"
you know what they're doing. you don't need to get all confused and throw your
hands up. "come on! one day a food is good, the next day it's bad. these scientists
can't agree on anything. you know what? hey Randy, pass the deep-fried chicken
heads! yeah, with the cotton candy around it! see if I care!"
hold on. that Harvard study looked at people's eating habits. so maybe they eat less
saturated fat (less meat and cheese) because they're health freaks and maybe
they also smoke less and they exercise more. how do we know the saturated fat
had anything to do with them being healthier? this is why this type of study
looking at people's normal eating habits is interesting but not super convincing
by itself, because there's many factors at play. looking at a study like this out
of context leaves people confused, as we've seen in the past. now, if you
watched last week's video on olive oil, you know where we're going with this
what we need to do is split people randomly and tell half to eat less
saturated fat and see what happens. a brand new study published last month did
exactly that. except they didn't do it once. they pooled 15 studies that did it
what did they find? the group that was told to eat less saturated fat had less
cardiovascular disease. it wasn't entirely clear which replacement was
best but less saturated fat led to less risk. chocolate is an interesting
exception we'll look at in a minute. also important, they found
no harmful effects of reducing saturated fat, which is crucial because we want to
weigh the pros and cons. now, this issue of saturated fat always raises a lot of
emotion and gets people very upset but it doesn't have to. people are free to
heed the studies or completely ignore them. that's the beauty of science. it
informs our decisions but it doesn't impose anything. I used to eat a lot more
saturated fat growing up and then I became familiar with this information
and I gradually adapted. others might make a different decision. no hard
feelings. this is also why I make sure to go over
the studies and the logic on all my videos. I know that as soon as I show
the first study half the people go "ah, boring, let me go back to cat videos". I
mean, I know that. I could just give you two lists, here's the good foods and the
bad foods. that wouldn't help you because as soon as this video is over you're
gonna watch another video, right? of the ones suggested over here, by someone else,
that's gonna tell you the exact opposite "saturated fat is totally fine eat as
much as you want, no problem" and you still remain confused. so prescriptive
videos don't really help. the only way forward is for you to understand a
little bit why things are the way they are behind the curtains. okay, what does
this all mean for our day-to-day life? it means favoring unprocessed plant
foods which are low in saturated and high in unsaturated fats. I know some of
my viewers are exclusively plant-based, others are omnivores, others are plant
curious. all of those patterns are compatible with health. the key are the
dietary staples. what constitutes the bulk of your diet. what you do once in a
while is our little secret. for people who do want to include some animal
products, fish is a wise option because that balance of saturated/unsaturated
fats is better than a lot of other options. and I know people are gonna ask
about chocolate. interestingly, the main type of saturated fat in chocolate is
called stearic acid and it's unusual. it doesn't raise cholesterol. most studies
actually suggest health benefits of eating chocolate although it's not 100%
clear yet. the best form is probably cocoa powder which is high in
antioxidants and low in fat preferably unsweetened. second-best
is dark chocolate. the more cocoa and the less sugar and fat the better. chocolate
is less of a concern than many of the other sources of saturated fat anyway
because people are having it as an occasional treat, not a full meal, right? I
mean, who would do such a thing? if you google saturated fat you'll find
people saying there's no problem at all and others saying it's bad, period.
clearly the balance of evidence is somewhere in the middle. some types of
saturated fat are worse than others and of course amount matters. at the end of
the day we want to think in terms of foods, not isolated nutrients. a food is a
complex package of many components that all work together. a lot of people get
bogged down with the technicalities and lose track of the big picture. it's
easier to build our menu from the top down: which dietary patterns are health-
promoting? and go from there. if you want more details on how to build an entire
dietary pattern low in saturated fat and high in unsaturated fats
this video covers everything you need to know, A to Z