We recently discussed the war on salt, highlighting that it was incorrectly cast in the role of a health villain that causes (especially) high blood pressure. Well, salt was certainly not the only substance that was targeted – saturated fats were also vilified at relatively the same time as salt, especially through the 1977 report from a US government committee chaired by Senator George McGovern. Well, the inclination towards vilifying saturated facts was not exclusively a product of misguided legislation – it was also a product of what happens when politics, profits and science converge. And so, today, we ought to address this further, in light of the war on fat, and the deception by the sugar industry.
RECAPITULATION: GEORGE MCGOVERN AND THE 1977 REPORT
And now onto our main discussion on the war on fat, and the deception by the sugar industry; and we ought to begin with some recapitulation – with certain nuances added, of course. That the low-fat diet became officiated by government committees and laws (in nations such as the US and the UK) represents a subversion of science by political and corporate forces that overlooked evidence and abandoned reason.
Now, as we’ve established, the low-fat diet was born in a 1977 report from a US government committee chaired by Senator George McGovern, which had become aware of research purportedly linking excessive fat in the diet to diseases such as coronary heart disease and cancer. The hypothesis that eating too much saturated fat results in heart disease, caused by narrowing of the coronary arteries, was also formulated by American physiologist Ancel Keys in the 1950s. Keys’ own epidemiological study, conducted in seven different countries, initially confirmed his hypothesis (particularly, because he cherry-picked those specific countries out of data consisting of 25 countries). Nevertheless, many other studies failed to corroborate the diet-heart hypothesis, and Keys’ data itself no longer substantiated it 25 years later. Double-blind clinical trials which, unlike epidemiological studies are supposed to be able to establish causation – they also gave results in conflict with the hypothesis from Ancel Keys. And so, there really was no scientific study that corroborated the hypothesis that saturated facts were the root cause of heart disease.
Furthermore, although it was found that eating less saturated fat could lower cholesterol levels, a growing body of evidence showed that it did NOT help to ward off heart attacks or prolong life spans. AND YET Senator McGovern’s committee forged ahead regardless! The results of ALL the epidemiological studies and major clinical trials that refuted the diet-heart hypothesis were simply ignored – which is a classic case of good science being trampled on by bad politics.
And, so – ultimately – the McGovern committee’s report turned the mistaken hypothesis from Ancel Keys into nutritional dogma by drawing up a detailed set of dietary guidelines for the American public. After heated political wrangling with other government agencies, the US Department of Agriculture formalised the guidelines in 1980, effectively sanctioning the first ever, official low-fat diet. The UK followed suit a few years later. Here’s further recapitulation on this.
THE GOVERNMENT-FORMALISED LOW-FAT DIET LAUNCHED THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC
So, what then emerged from the government formalisation of the low-fat diet? Well, to begin with, while the guidelines erroneously linked high consumption of saturated fat to heart disease, they did concede that what constitutes a healthy level of fat in the diet was not yet settled. But, despite this crucial concession, the guidelines still recommended lowering intake of high-fat foods such as eggs and butter; boosting consumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, poultry and fish; and also eating fewer foods high in sugar and salt.
Furthemore, with government endorsement, the low-fat diet quickly became accepted around the world. But, unfortunately for the public, the low fat diet which was promoted to conquer heart disease contributed to another – being obesity! And this primarily because the low-fat diet replaced fat with refined carbohydrates (which are foods that have had most of their natural fiber and nutrients removed during processing, leaving behind mainly starch and calories – which were essentially ultra-processed foods.
This propensity for the low-fat diet to lead to obesity first became evident in the largest ever, long-term clinical trial of the low-fat diet, known as the Women’s Health Initiative. But, just like the earlier studies that led to the creation of the diet, the trial again showed that the diet-heart hypothesis didn’t hold up, at least for women. After eight years, the low-fat diet was found to have had no effect on heart disease or deaths from the disease. Worse still, in a short-term study of the low-fat diet in US Boeing employees, women who had followed the low-fat diet appeared to have actually increased their risk for heart disease.
But, another ramification of the low-fat diet was the switch from animal fats to industrial seed oils in the 1970s, especially because these alternatives were being subsidised by the government – particularly when we look at grape seed oil. All of these changes: from the 1977 report from George McGovern, to the replacement of saturated fats with refined carbohydrates, and the replacement of animal fats with industrial seed oils – all of this launched the obesity epidemic. Here’s more on this.
SATURATED FATS ARE NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL FOR CERTAIN BODY FUNCTIONS
Thankfully, today the low-fat diet-heart hypothesis is no longer widely accepted and nutritional science has begun to regain the ground that was taken over by politics. But it has taken over 60 years for this attack on saturated fats to be repulsed.
And in contributing to this, we also have to categorically establish that beyond not being the cause of heart disease, saturated fats (like salt) are not only healthy, but play an essential role in the functionality of your body. For instance, saturated fats are actually needed for energy, hormone production, cellular membranes and for organ padding. Furthermore, certain saturated fatty acids are also needed for important signaling and stabilisation processes in the body.
THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION IS A CORRUPT, ANTI-HEALTH LOBBY INSTITUTION
All that we’ve discussed then necessitates that we talk about the American Heart institution. First, when we first discussed Ancel Keys’ hypothesis, we mentioned that Ancel Keys had carefully selected the data of seven countries that support his claim on heart disease – which was essentially cherry picking, and was pointed out by the study’s critics. HOWEVER, he was able to establish significant influence within the American Heart Association. And by 1958, the American Heart Association with Ancel Keys now at the helm, launched his study (despite its obvious flaws that were pointed out), and this went on to influence what the food pyramid looks like today. This means that the American Heart Association played a crucial role in formalising the claim that saturated fats led to heart disease – despite the obvious fallacies and errors in Ancel Keys’ hypothesis.
Well, in preparing for this discussion, I visited their website to assess whether the institution has reformed its perceptions on saturated facts. However, interestingly, the American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves less than 6% of total calories from saturated fat. This is to say, that for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fat – the same saturated fat that has now been proven to be essential for your health and to play an essential role in the functionality of your body!
Well, this unaccountable attitude towards accurate nutritional science in the present (as well) is actually less surprising when you consider that the AHA has been operating as a corrupt, anti-health lobby institution. For instance, this year, the American Heart Association sent an employee to TEXAS to fight a bill that would stop food stamps from covering unhealthy items such as candy and soda—part of the MAHA initiatives. In addition. Well, when you follow the money, you understand why the AHA has these inclinations. Not only is it funded by many pharmaceutical corporations, but General Mills and Pepsi Co are both forum members of The American Heart Association.
But, now, part of how entities like the AHA have been driving the false claim that saturated fats are bad is based on their vilifying of cholesterol as well! You’d recall that we recently discussed that these pharmaceutical companies created a questionable dichotomy between good and bad cholesterol. Cholesterol is generally described as a waxy substance essential for building cell membranes and producing hormones. Cholesterol travels through the bloodstream in particles called lipoproteins, primarily as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). LDL, often called “bad cholesterol,” carries cholesterol to cells and arteries, where it can form plaques, narrowing the arteries and increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. For decades, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has been commonly referred to as “bad cholesterol” due to its association with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), such as heart attacks and strokes. Conversely, high-density lipoprotein, known as “good cholesterol,” transports cholesterol from the arteries to the liver for elimination.
HOWEVER, numerous studies have challenged this claim, including even a recent study involving more than 4 million people across China, which suggests that low-density lipoprotein may not be as harmful as previously thought—at least, not for everyone. Research led by Dr Liang Chen and colleagues reveals a more nuanced picture. They found that while high low-density lipoprotein levels are linked to increased mortality in some groups, they do not pose the same risk for others. In addition, they found that the relationship between low-density lipoprotein and mortality varies significantly based on an individual’s cardiovascular disease risk and overall health status.
BIG SUGAR QUIETLY PAID SCIENTISTS TO POINT BLAME AT FAT, AND NOT SUGAR
But, it is not only government committees, and lobby organisations that have been culpable in the war on saturated fats – big sugar also had a part to play. In essence, while big sugar first became notorious for its role in the fueling the transatlantic slave trade, it’s role in the war on health has also drawn much needed attention. And much like other diabolical corporations, conglomerates, and industries, big sugar used deception to cover their tracks, while pushing their products on consumers.
It started in 1967, when a single scientific study revealed the true culprit of the diabetes and heart disease epidemic was sugar – NOT saturated fat or cholesterol. So why wasn’t this information made common knowledge?
Well, it is largely because in the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine. The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to “refute” concerns about sugar’s possible role in heart disease. The Sugar Research Foundation then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.
The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease. The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso
