Xdafjgneoiwe

Yes they do contain trans fats - just not the same kind - and recent research shows that they are probably just as damaging as the artificial creations. See my comment to the other poster.

Losing weight, especially fat does wonders for insulin sensitivity, though.

The low carb group lost 6.2 kg of fat. That is a lot. I do wonder what happens if you look at insulin sensitivity when weight and fat mass remains mostly neutral. I do not know if there are studies done on that (in humans). I will have a look around.

Completely agree. One mechanism for the effect that oil had here could be the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 that most oils completely obliterate.

"Published data suggest that all fatty acids with a double bond in the trans configuration raise the ratio of plasma LDL to HDL cholesterol."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2830458/

Are tibetans generally heart-healthy, though? I took that for granted but did not actually fact check the original poster. I think he just wanted to give an example for a rural, healthy eating society. I do not know if that was true in the past or is now, though.

You are right that being active is also very important for cardiovascular health. However, you cannot underestimate the importance of diet as it too is a daily reoccurent factor for health.

Insulin resistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427477

As for the cholesterol, the study I linked was probably not a very good example - sorry. Saturated fat does raise cholesterol however - so unless you are on a vegan low carb diet, you will see it rise. (IF you keep your weight steady, weight loss almost always lowers cholesterol)

If the sample size was large enough and you could factor our everything else, then yes. I don't think anything like this was done, though.

What exactly is your point, then?

Normally I am all for asking for sources, but this isn't really in dispute nor hard to find. Just one of a thousand sources:

"50% of the fat content in butter is saturated fat and 4% is trans fat."

https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-n...

I do not think you can generalize from Tibetans or other populations. That is because those rural populations often have a much healthier diet than the standard american diet. More vegetables, more fiber, less animal products in general. To say that this obviously shows that butter cannot be that bad is just not true.

You are right in one point: If the only thing you eat is butter with your veggies then you do not have much of a problem in terms of a cardiovascular epidemic.

For starters, saturated fat increases cholesterol and that is almost exclusively in animal products. Animal products are basically the only products to contain dietary cholesterol. So there you have at least a strong correlation.

As for the dietary cholesterol itself, see here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549...

"Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of predicted change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol. The greatest response is expected when baseline dietary cholesterol is near zero, while little if any, measurable change would be expected once baseline dietary cholesterol was > 400-500 mg/d." (That is 2 eggs or 400 g beef etc.)

This is correct. You can expect maybe a kilogram of fat (2 lbs) per week on a very restricted diet. Much more than that is hard to maintain over a longer period and unrealistic. When you first start with a keto diet, you can easily expect 3-4 kilogram of water weight being lost.

That sounds really delicious. But what does it have to do with heart disease risk?

That may be so. But it's undisputed (aside from most keto blogs) that an increase in serum cholesterol and especially LDL-C increases the risk of heart disease.

Studies show that you generally need a level of < 150 mg/dL to avoid heart disease. That's quite a bit below the average "normal" level. But today's average is NOT physiologically optimal.

I do not have one. But I also never said it was better (!).

I merely said that it works. People on a keto diet often say something along the lines of "Oh, keto is such a good diet. I lost 20 pounds with it". And I believe them. But that should not be the only measure of how good a diet is for you. Weight is important but not everything.

Isn't the Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio one important measure of how heart-healthy a diet is? This could at least in part explain increasing heart disease risk.

I assume using lots of Omega-6 oil would push the ratio to even more unhealthy levels than what a standard american diet has.

There is: Butter contains 3 % trans fats. And even keto fanatics admit that trans fats are extremely unhealthy. You could say it doesn't have a huge impact and that might be true because it's only a small part of the diet.

However, any amount of trans fat is dangerous. The body's enzymes can hardly remove any trans fat build up in the arteries.

The problem with ketogenic diets is not the weight loss. The diet works for weight loss, that is undisputed. The problems are in the longer term with elevated cholesterol and increasing insulin resistance.

Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703903

There's however tons of this. Most keto bloggers will try to tell you that increasing LDL-C is okay for different reasons (depending on who you read). That is however just not true. The link between LDL-C and heart disease is very strong and has been proven over decades.

Those are very nice points...

"The problem comes from the inability to use it because the body isn't healthy. Polyunsaturated fats will produce bad byproducts when it breaks down and over time makes the body sick."

However you could be easily making all of this up or be using bad/unscientific sources. Could you show us the studies/articles that you are using to gain those insights?

Could you explain the joke?