2
[Paper] United States Dietary Trends Since 1800: Lack of Association Between Saturated Fatty Acid Consumption and Non-communicable Diseases - 2022 (hackertalks.com)
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We reviewed data on the American diet from 1800 to 2019. Methods: We examined food availability and estimated consumption data from 1800 to 2019 using historical sources from the federal government and additional public data sources. Results: Processed and ultra-processed foods increased from <5 to >60% of foods. Large increases occurred for sugar, white and whole wheat flour, rice, poultry, eggs, vegetable oils, dairy products, and fresh vegetables. Saturated fats from animal sources declined while polyunsaturated fats from vegetable oils rose. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) rose over the twentieth century in parallel with increased consumption of processed foods, including sugar, refined flour and rice, and vegetable oils. Saturated fats from animal sources were inversely correlated with the prevalence of NCDs. Conclusions: As observed from the food availability data, processed and ultra-processed foods dramatically increased over the past two centuries, especially sugar, white flour, white rice, vegetable oils, and ready-to-eat meals. These changes paralleled the rising incidence of NCDs, while animal fat consumption was inversely correlated.

Annual total caloric and macronutrient availability per capita from 1909 to 2010 (Source: USDA ERS).

Full Paper - http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago

The standard criticisms will apply:

  • Lack of association is not the same thing as the lack of causation
  • Historical trends has many confounding variables
[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

You should probably read he commentary linked to the paper at the top of the page:

The title of the article is misleading because the stated conclusion cannot be drawn from the research described in the article. In addition, studies show mortality rates due to cardiovascular disease have declined significantly in recent decades (6) which can be attributed to better treatment, but also to lower intakes of SFAs (7, 8). In fact, a Cochrane systematic review based on randomized controlled trials with human subjects suggested that replacement of SFAs for polyunsaturated fatty acids results in a 27% reduction in cardiovascular events (2).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

with the advice to limit SFA-consumption from the American Heart Association

The response article is expert opinion saying that the original research doesn't match preexisting expert opinion.

That is the entire point of the original article.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

I might be completely misreading due to my undercaffated brain right now, but isn't it stating that the research is in line with preexisting opinion, but the title is not?

[-] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This conclusion is not supported by the presented data, it contradicts with robust studies looking at the relationship between dietary fats and disease (2) and with the advice to limit SFA-consumption from the American Heart Association (3).

Here they say the research doesn't support existing expert opinion

The title of the article is misleading because the stated conclusion cannot be drawn from the research described in the article. In addition, studies show mortality rates due to cardiovascular disease have declined significantly in recent decades (6) which can be attributed to better treatment, but also to lower intakes of SFAs (7, 8).

This is their opinion again, but notice the weasel use of mortality and not incidence? And most worrisome is their relance on existing opinion that SFAs lead to cardiovascular events - They are already assuming the conclusion of their own opinion. That isn't a fair evaluation of the data.

But experts can have different opinions, that's fine... they both get to publish.

You will notice both the research paper and the opinion are in the same journal and neither are retracted. That means they disagree. Commentary isn't peer reviewed, but the original research is.

If you want to have a general conversation on saturated fat itself rather then just this one paper and other researchers opinions on it, we could discuss https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/saturated-fat#evidence-to-date

this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
2 points (75.0% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

58 readers
2 users here now

Carnivore

The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet

Meat Heals.

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

Keep being AWESOME

Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
  6. No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.

Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods

Resource Post!- Papers - Books - Channels

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]