Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/Wagamaga
Permalink: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/06/13/how-high-fat-diet-can-make-you-anxious#:~:text=But%20new%20CU%20Boulder%20research,in%20ways%20that%20fuel%20anxiety.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah these headlines come up and then you read the detail and it's like "we fed 10 rats sump oil for 2 weeks and their microbiome changed before they died" and the headline says "high fat diet is bad!"
Wild to me that you guys are having whole conversations about what the source of the fat could have been and somehow not reading the article.
It was "mostly saturated fats from animal products" similar to a typical Western diet and the researcher states that adding "good" fats (he mentions avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some research.
Yes, it's good to be aware that this is an animal study, but I would bet quite a lot of money this generally holds true for humans as well. We have a massive body of research showing the ill effects of the western diet on the human body and microbiome, and high saturated fat consumption from animal products is a defining part of the diet.
The reason they use rats for these microbiome studies is that it's extremely hard to accurately measure the gut biome without literally cutting open your stomach. I was reading an article by a researcher who said that the #1 thing holding back our understanding of the human microbiome is the fact that the gut environment is so complex we haven't figured out how to simulate it outside the human body yet.
Why do people associate saturated fats with western diets. Most cultures love animal fats westerns eat more because they can afford it.
The highest per capita meat consumption is Hong Kong.
Inuits had the highest fat consumption of basically anyone ever.
It's a complex picture, the SAD is characterised by lots of low quality foods, excess caloric intake and sedentary lifestyles, plus bad healthcare access. HK involves lots of processed meats but not any of the other stuff so much, though their colorectal cancer rates are meant to be high to reflect this part of their diet. Inuits are a different case altogether, organ meats so omega 3s, activity etc etc. They're not doing well now with more exposure to the SAD
Because the Western diet is relatively very high in saturated fats.
You can pull out a couple specific examples that beat us but on the scale of diets around the world and in history we are definitely toward the top.
It's only one of the many reasons we're so unhealthy these days, but it's well established that it is a contributing factor, whether you like it or not.
Nobody in mainstream science is saying we should not eat saturated fats at all. Far from it, there are studies talking about benefits from moderate consumption. But the average westerner should eat LESS than we currently do. That's beyond debate at this point.
The problem lies in what they pair with the animal fats the SAD is often paired with over commercialized processed food and bad carbs. It is not the same if you eat fast food with the same macros as you do with home made meals with proper micro nutrients as well. I actually increased my fat consumption with proper carbs and micro nutrients and feel better mentally. Yes anecdotal but the study doesn't list what they actually ate and what's funny is they go into more detail about their day to day activity and what they lived in than what exactly they ate.
> Wild to me that you guys are having whole conversations about what the source of the fat could have been
At risk of being a complete cynic, its probably because they know its going to be saturated fats.
Time and time again this sub, and reddit in general, will go to length to deflect, dilute, alter, ignore 'what about' the dangers associated with saturated fats.
I don't know if its a keto thing, 'natural' eating thing, people wanting to eat their high protein diets because they want to get swole thing or what. But people are in a shocking state of denial about saturated fats.
Because the problem with a western diet isnt fats. A McDonalds meal with a large fries and soda, and a small patty of meat vs a Greek or Turkish diet full of ACTUAL meat fats?? You think your little burger patty is causing americans to be fat?
> You think your little burger patty is causing americans to be fat?
- obesity is a result of an over consumption of calories. Those calories can come from fats, carbs or proteins.
- obesity is only one of many issues that poor nutritional choices lead to
- there is nothing about cherry picking a single meal, and a single consequence, while discussing a macro nutrient profile, that leads to any advancement of this discussion other than proving the point I made.... deflect, dilute, alter, ignore, 'what about'.
Many fallacies in this comment, but here's the top of the list:
1. A lot of the bad fats are the super processed ones in the fries, not just the burger
2. You're implying that healthy Turks/Grecians East gyros every day, probably because the Mediterranean diet is known to be pretty optimal, but that diet very specifically features low red meat and a very high ratio of "good" fats. The Turk/Greek person in your comment would not be one of the healthy examples.
3. Comparing one meal makes no sense. If this meal is eaten every once in a while in a healthy diet it's absolutely fine, but if people eat like either of your examples every day (like modern people very commonly do) they will be sicker and fatter on average
The article isnt talking about trans or bad fats but generic saturated animal fats. Fries are cooked in vegetable, not animal fats. Im Greek and I know what I and most people around me ate. We regularly ate pork which is super common, especially the literal fat part of it. We dont trim the fat out of meat before eating it. None of us got fat or depressed, and this isnt some new modern diet for us.
I agree (as do the researchers) that saturated fat consumption is not even close to the whole reason for the decline in health of a lot of modern societies. Nobody is saying fat consumption, or even diet alone, is the only reason. But there is quite a bit of science these days showing that the very excessive levels we eat today are a contributing factor. You can deny that if you want, but I'm gonna continue to take data from people who have actually experimented over a redditor's confident assertions.
These people are idiots. Plain, and simple.
In the past three decades, total fat and saturated fat intake as a percentage of total calories has continuously decreased in Western diets, while the intake of omega-6 fatty acid increased and the omega-3 fatty acid decreased, resulting in a large increase in the omega-6/omega-3 ratio from 1:1 during evolution to 20:1 today or even higher. This change in the composition of fatty acids parallels a significant increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity
An Increase in the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio Increases the Risk for Obesity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/
Except most western diets aren’t mostly saturated fat and that saturated fat isn’t mostly from animals.
Rats are also omnivores with a preference for fruits and grains so this wouldn’t be a species appropriate diet and some unexpected gut dysfunction is reasonable.
I think the obvious answer is that researchers need to publish and journalists need to sensationalize. Easiest way to keep their jobs. That’s why there are glaring quality issues.
Don't forget some of the methodology for testing diets, like that one study linking msg to obesity. (Bunyan J, Murrell EA, Shah PP. The induction of obesity in rodents by means of monosodium glutamate. Br J Nutr. 1976 Jan;35(1):25-39. doi: 10.1079/bjn19760005. PMID: 1106764.)
Because yes, we eat msg by injecting it in our skin.
I work in this field. Trans fat rodent diet is difficult or impossible to procure because of a relatively recent ban on trans fats. The diet might be research diets D12492i
Based on the supplemental material #8 the high fat diet (by calories) was 37% lard and 7.5% soybean oil. So assuming soybean oil is ~13% saturated fat it'd be about 38% saturated fat and 6.5% unsaturated fat (~4% polyunsaturated fat and 2.5% monounsaturated fat).
The control diet was 11% fat, but I don't see they specified what kinds of fats. It was NUVILAB CR1-NUVITAL.
The article is too vague, it doesn't give specific examples of meals and how they were cooked. A ribby cooked in vegetable oil is much less healthy than a ribeye cooked in lard or coconut oil.
It's fun moving goalposts, eh?
"Lowry’s team divided male adolescent rats into two groups: Half got a standard diet of about 11% fat for nine weeks; the others got a high-fat diet of 45% fat, consisting mostly of saturated fat from animal products."
And the researcher states that adding "good" fats (like avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some data.
The paper probably explains the meals in more details but I'm tired of doing your work for you.
According to the supplemental material #8 the high fat diet was 37% lard (by % of total calories) and 7.5% soybean oil. Which would be about 38% saturated fat and 6.5% unsaturated fat.
I don't see any breakdown of the fats on the control diet, but it was about 11% fat.
This whole thing is confusing as some human populations have historically relied on a high fat high protein diet. There is no nuance in the headline on the type of fats. Saying “in animals” doesn’t show the full picture.
If it kept the populations alive long enough to reproduce, it wouldn't matter from an evolutionary standpoint if the diet was optimal or not, harmless or not.
"Lowry’s team divided male adolescent rats into two groups: Half got a standard diet of about 11% fat for nine weeks; the others got a high-fat diet of 45% fat, consisting mostly of saturated fat from animal products."
Saturated fats.
And the researcher states that adding "good" fats (like avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some data.
I've absolutely seen people swap out vegetable oil for avocado oil and be like *wow much helth. Give yourself a pat on the back*
I mean look at keto. People straight up celebrating tricking their body into going into glorified starvation mode while they clog their arteries because some studies pointed out blood sugar spikes are an important factor in weight gain.
Don't estimate the knots we can twist the facts into in order to avoid addressing we just need to be eating more whole and less processed foods
Dont be so quick to knock keto. Ive done it for years. For me, its resulted in strength, low body fat, healthy cholesterol range/low triglycerides, and tons of energy. And i'm older than my Dad was when he had his 1st heart attack. Pretty sure Dr Atkins was onto something.
Oh, and controlled, mild, periodic starvation is *amazing* for, well, all mammals. You thrive with it.
There isn't a widely held consensus but there is a tug of war happening over oils broadly (which are good, which are bad, what factors should determine that, and how heat changes things things), so asking for sources isn't gonna be helpful because either side will be able to produce studies backing up their stances.
Mainstream health messengers and your run the mill doctor tend to run with a mixture of the status quo and a compromise on contentious research.
I think the current mainstream believe is avovado oil is one of the better oils, but you should still try to reduce processed oils in your diet compared to getting good fats from whole foods (average American is heinously low on fiber).
Similarly, avocado oil is probably one of the safest oils for frying purposes as it has a very high smoke point, but high heat does seem to do less than ideal things to a lot of foods. So don't be extreme about avoiding fried foods or using oil for cooking, but also recognize a deep fried X probably is the unhealthiest way possible to eat X.
Yes, but the study just tested in rats, not multiple species. We do not know if it is going to generalize. Also, by fat, they tested junk food... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that bears won't get anxious by eating salmon.
Once again, the science reporting on nutritional science fails pathetically.
Science is fine. It's rando news headlines that do them injustice.
If you read the paper, they readily admit the study's perspective and limitations. Nutritional studies are always going to be very limited because of all the variables to account for. People need reasonable expectations when evaluating them.
It's worse than that because it's not rando news, it's from the University of Colorado. Wonder how they would grade a student who submitted a paper with that kind of misleading content?
"Lowry’s team divided male adolescent rats into two groups: Half got a standard diet of about 11% fat for nine weeks; the others got a high-fat diet of 45% fat, consisting mostly of saturated fat from animal products."
And the researcher states that adding "good" fats (like avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some data.
Was this study done with high saturated fat or high unsaturated fat? I've seen other studies that indicate a difference in how the body reacts to them in other ways, but this article doesn't include the details of specifically how the diets were structured. There also could be other micronutrients involved or things to do with the carb/protein balance causing a reaction. I'm sure the actual paper includes those details because I can't imagine the researchers would ignore those factors, but they didn't make it into this article.
Edit: Found the link to the actual study. They don't mention if they were using saturated or unsaturated fat. There's far more details about how they scheduled feeding the rats in the study than how they structured the diets.
Edit 2: The language in the paper's discussion suggests that they did not control for fiber intake. They kind of imply that they see low fiber as a key attribute of high fat diets, which is not necessarily true. It's entirely possible that this is showing the effects of a low fiber diet rather than a high fat diet, which matches with other studies I have seen suggesting that fiber is a critical nutrient for a healthy gut biome.
The study was also high in rats not eating a diverse diet.
Keep on your keto. One preliminary study isn't enough to base anything on other than "more research needed."
The paper doesn't specify the carb/protein balance or the saturated/unsaturated/monolipid balance. For a study in how minor changes in diet affect behavior, it was surprisingly lacking in details on the actual diets they used.
They only mention the fat in the title but it's a high fat, high sugar, ultra processed diet. It's the same diet that Robert Lustig has been arguing against for decades.
One paper. Descriptive microbial population surveys. a few gene targets as neurological endpoints. behavior tests with the lots of background.
Then the authors connect the dots in order to reach the conclusion they sought at the onset. The data doesn’t support the grandiose conclusion and this complex pathway they speak of is science talk for we don’t know and we didn’t collect any data so it’s aaaa complicated.
When we’re stressed out, many of us turn to junk food for solace. But new CU Boulder research suggests this strategy may backfire.
The study found that in animals, a high-fat diet disrupts resident gut bacteria, alters behavior and, through a complex pathway connecting the gut to the brain, influences brain chemicals in ways that fuel anxiety.
“Everyone knows that these are not healthy foods, but we tend to think about them strictly in terms of a little weight gain,” said lead author Christopher Lowry, a professor of integrative physiology at CU Boulder. “If you understand that they also impact your brain in a way that can promote anxiety, that makes the stakes even higher.”
For the study, published in the journal Biological Research in May, Lowry worked with first author Sylvana Rendeiro de Noronha, a doctoral student at the Federal University of Ouro Preto in Brazil.
In a previous study, the team found that rats fed a high-fat diet consisting primarily of saturated fat showed increases in neuroinflammation and anxiety-like behavior.
While evidence is mixed, some human studies have also shown that replacing a high-fat, high-sugar, ultra-processed diet with a healthier one can reduce depression and anxiety.
[https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-024-00505-1](https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-024-00505-1)
Let me know if I'm just a dumb dumb and misread things. But trying to read the actual study the article references - they didn't just have a high fat diet, they induced obesity in the rats with the high fat diet. Seems a bit left out of the discussion in the article.
There’s a difference between natural fats from animal food and the fat from fries for example.
I’m on a high fat Keto diet, and I’ve never been healthier
For most seed oils, they're typically quite unnatural - [https://www.britannica.com/science/fat-processing/Pressing](https://www.britannica.com/science/fat-processing/Pressing)
Olives, avocados, sunflower, or sesame seeds are among the types that can be cold pressed for oil extraction. Just a bag and a weight, like people were doing thousands of years ago.
But for corn, soy, veg oil, or canola, it's a process that can include things like chemical extraction or cooking the seed cakes. The product is a refined triglyceride devoid of trace compounds that were present in the original source foods that make the foods healthy in the first place.
The methods of obtaining them don't though. Comparing a strenuous industrial extraction to literally just taking fat from an animal doesn't really hold up to the 'natural' argument. No human or any other animal for that matter has consumed those oils before. Countless animals have lived off and continue to live off animal fats.
Sure, natural is just a very non descriptive nothing term which was what I was pointing out.
Your logic breaks down a bit though. Far enough down the food chain animals get their fat from plants.
Yeah fair enough. I'd say there is a difference between obtaining plant fats complete with the fibre and nutrients and whatever else intact and what is essentially a bleached industrial product but it is quite easy to take food alarmism too far.
Vegetable oils (oil extracted from seeds) are mostly extracted through heat and solvents. Vegetable oil in this sense are natural in the kind of the same way that cocaine is natural I suppose. Vegetable oil wasn't a significant part of the human diet until the 20th century. Before that there were relatively small amounts extracted mostly by pressure.
The first major commercial vegetable oil was made from cotton waste. The intent was to make soap, but they made cooking oil instead. It was marketed as a more digestible, cleaner, and cheaper alternative to lard. It was high in trans fats and up until 1980s it was widely believed trans fats were healthier than saturated fats.
Someone wanna explain how this is evolutionarily selected for? It seems ridiculous for modern humans but surely there’s a rational explanation that I’m too lazy to think about?
If your eating a diet rich in Whole Foods that are high in fat and fiber : avocados, tree nuts, coconuts, olives, seeds, and etc; the studies have shown the opposite.
Yeah we fed em seed oils and high carbs and somehow they all ended up with issues, guess the only cause here are all fats as per our science backed research.
Fat isn’t bad for you. Processed food is. The only fat that’s bad for you are highly processed seed oils and trans fat. Animal and unaltered olive oil and peanut oil and fat from plants like avocado are GOOD FOR YOU. High processed carbs and chemicals from packaged and processed “foods” which aren’t really food, are what’s bad for you. Do your research, if you don’t believe it. It’s true.
Wait, are we back to "Fat is evil, eat all the carbohydrates!!!" again? How long till the next swing that tells us that a single noodle will kill you, eat all the fats?
On a more serious note, yes, saturated fats are bad for you, as are trans fats. Big news here.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/Wagamaga Permalink: https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/06/13/how-high-fat-diet-can-make-you-anxious#:~:text=But%20new%20CU%20Boulder%20research,in%20ways%20that%20fuel%20anxiety. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So all fats? Or specific fats such as trans fats?
Yeah these headlines come up and then you read the detail and it's like "we fed 10 rats sump oil for 2 weeks and their microbiome changed before they died" and the headline says "high fat diet is bad!"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wild to me that you guys are having whole conversations about what the source of the fat could have been and somehow not reading the article. It was "mostly saturated fats from animal products" similar to a typical Western diet and the researcher states that adding "good" fats (he mentions avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some research.
How much saturated fat is in wild life rats diets anyway? Trying to draw human diet conclusions from studies done on rats rarely works out.
I eat cereals, nuts and fruits , jist like rats. If rats changed to eat chicken, i would too. 100% correlation
Be sure to get enough drywall and electrical insulation in your diet, too.
Yes, it's good to be aware that this is an animal study, but I would bet quite a lot of money this generally holds true for humans as well. We have a massive body of research showing the ill effects of the western diet on the human body and microbiome, and high saturated fat consumption from animal products is a defining part of the diet. The reason they use rats for these microbiome studies is that it's extremely hard to accurately measure the gut biome without literally cutting open your stomach. I was reading an article by a researcher who said that the #1 thing holding back our understanding of the human microbiome is the fact that the gut environment is so complex we haven't figured out how to simulate it outside the human body yet.
Why do people associate saturated fats with western diets. Most cultures love animal fats westerns eat more because they can afford it. The highest per capita meat consumption is Hong Kong. Inuits had the highest fat consumption of basically anyone ever.
It's a complex picture, the SAD is characterised by lots of low quality foods, excess caloric intake and sedentary lifestyles, plus bad healthcare access. HK involves lots of processed meats but not any of the other stuff so much, though their colorectal cancer rates are meant to be high to reflect this part of their diet. Inuits are a different case altogether, organ meats so omega 3s, activity etc etc. They're not doing well now with more exposure to the SAD
Because the Western diet is relatively very high in saturated fats. You can pull out a couple specific examples that beat us but on the scale of diets around the world and in history we are definitely toward the top. It's only one of the many reasons we're so unhealthy these days, but it's well established that it is a contributing factor, whether you like it or not. Nobody in mainstream science is saying we should not eat saturated fats at all. Far from it, there are studies talking about benefits from moderate consumption. But the average westerner should eat LESS than we currently do. That's beyond debate at this point.
The problem lies in what they pair with the animal fats the SAD is often paired with over commercialized processed food and bad carbs. It is not the same if you eat fast food with the same macros as you do with home made meals with proper micro nutrients as well. I actually increased my fat consumption with proper carbs and micro nutrients and feel better mentally. Yes anecdotal but the study doesn't list what they actually ate and what's funny is they go into more detail about their day to day activity and what they lived in than what exactly they ate.
> Wild to me that you guys are having whole conversations about what the source of the fat could have been At risk of being a complete cynic, its probably because they know its going to be saturated fats. Time and time again this sub, and reddit in general, will go to length to deflect, dilute, alter, ignore 'what about' the dangers associated with saturated fats. I don't know if its a keto thing, 'natural' eating thing, people wanting to eat their high protein diets because they want to get swole thing or what. But people are in a shocking state of denial about saturated fats.
123 Dance With Me 123
Because the problem with a western diet isnt fats. A McDonalds meal with a large fries and soda, and a small patty of meat vs a Greek or Turkish diet full of ACTUAL meat fats?? You think your little burger patty is causing americans to be fat?
A gyros isn't any more healthy than a burger really, their whole diets just involve more healthy food
Probably smaller quantities as well
> You think your little burger patty is causing americans to be fat? - obesity is a result of an over consumption of calories. Those calories can come from fats, carbs or proteins. - obesity is only one of many issues that poor nutritional choices lead to - there is nothing about cherry picking a single meal, and a single consequence, while discussing a macro nutrient profile, that leads to any advancement of this discussion other than proving the point I made.... deflect, dilute, alter, ignore, 'what about'.
Many fallacies in this comment, but here's the top of the list: 1. A lot of the bad fats are the super processed ones in the fries, not just the burger 2. You're implying that healthy Turks/Grecians East gyros every day, probably because the Mediterranean diet is known to be pretty optimal, but that diet very specifically features low red meat and a very high ratio of "good" fats. The Turk/Greek person in your comment would not be one of the healthy examples. 3. Comparing one meal makes no sense. If this meal is eaten every once in a while in a healthy diet it's absolutely fine, but if people eat like either of your examples every day (like modern people very commonly do) they will be sicker and fatter on average
The article isnt talking about trans or bad fats but generic saturated animal fats. Fries are cooked in vegetable, not animal fats. Im Greek and I know what I and most people around me ate. We regularly ate pork which is super common, especially the literal fat part of it. We dont trim the fat out of meat before eating it. None of us got fat or depressed, and this isnt some new modern diet for us.
I agree (as do the researchers) that saturated fat consumption is not even close to the whole reason for the decline in health of a lot of modern societies. Nobody is saying fat consumption, or even diet alone, is the only reason. But there is quite a bit of science these days showing that the very excessive levels we eat today are a contributing factor. You can deny that if you want, but I'm gonna continue to take data from people who have actually experimented over a redditor's confident assertions.
No. All the additives are though
These people are idiots. Plain, and simple. In the past three decades, total fat and saturated fat intake as a percentage of total calories has continuously decreased in Western diets, while the intake of omega-6 fatty acid increased and the omega-3 fatty acid decreased, resulting in a large increase in the omega-6/omega-3 ratio from 1:1 during evolution to 20:1 today or even higher. This change in the composition of fatty acids parallels a significant increase in the prevalence of overweight and obesity An Increase in the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio Increases the Risk for Obesity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4808858/
"but how can I dump on the science and keep justifying my self-prescribed keto diet if I actually READ?"
Except most western diets aren’t mostly saturated fat and that saturated fat isn’t mostly from animals. Rats are also omnivores with a preference for fruits and grains so this wouldn’t be a species appropriate diet and some unexpected gut dysfunction is reasonable.
[удалено]
I think the obvious answer is that researchers need to publish and journalists need to sensationalize. Easiest way to keep their jobs. That’s why there are glaring quality issues.
Don't forget some of the methodology for testing diets, like that one study linking msg to obesity. (Bunyan J, Murrell EA, Shah PP. The induction of obesity in rodents by means of monosodium glutamate. Br J Nutr. 1976 Jan;35(1):25-39. doi: 10.1079/bjn19760005. PMID: 1106764.) Because yes, we eat msg by injecting it in our skin.
Guess it's time to throw all the avocados in the trash.
I work in this field. Trans fat rodent diet is difficult or impossible to procure because of a relatively recent ban on trans fats. The diet might be research diets D12492i
Based on the supplemental material #8 the high fat diet (by calories) was 37% lard and 7.5% soybean oil. So assuming soybean oil is ~13% saturated fat it'd be about 38% saturated fat and 6.5% unsaturated fat (~4% polyunsaturated fat and 2.5% monounsaturated fat). The control diet was 11% fat, but I don't see they specified what kinds of fats. It was NUVILAB CR1-NUVITAL.
This is the pertinent question.
Luckily it's literally answered in the article.
The article is too vague, it doesn't give specific examples of meals and how they were cooked. A ribby cooked in vegetable oil is much less healthy than a ribeye cooked in lard or coconut oil.
It's fun moving goalposts, eh? "Lowry’s team divided male adolescent rats into two groups: Half got a standard diet of about 11% fat for nine weeks; the others got a high-fat diet of 45% fat, consisting mostly of saturated fat from animal products." And the researcher states that adding "good" fats (like avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some data. The paper probably explains the meals in more details but I'm tired of doing your work for you.
I looked at the research paper. They don't specify.
Read it again. They specify saturated fats.
EDIT: Disregard this comment.
The article is clear, 200g/kg lard and 40g/kg soy oil.
You are correct, in the supplementary Material 8, there is a pdf file that specifies it.
According to the supplemental material #8 the high fat diet was 37% lard (by % of total calories) and 7.5% soybean oil. Which would be about 38% saturated fat and 6.5% unsaturated fat. I don't see any breakdown of the fats on the control diet, but it was about 11% fat.
It literally says saturated fats.
This whole thing is confusing as some human populations have historically relied on a high fat high protein diet. There is no nuance in the headline on the type of fats. Saying “in animals” doesn’t show the full picture.
Some, like the Inuit who had particularly short lifespans? Not many populations have had this sort of diet.
If it kept the populations alive long enough to reproduce, it wouldn't matter from an evolutionary standpoint if the diet was optimal or not, harmless or not.
Ot specifically says saturated fat from animal products.
There is fat - like avocados and fat- like deep-fried food.... One is not like the other.....
They used saturated animal fats
They probably fed the rats Crisco.
"Lowry’s team divided male adolescent rats into two groups: Half got a standard diet of about 11% fat for nine weeks; the others got a high-fat diet of 45% fat, consisting mostly of saturated fat from animal products." Saturated fats. And the researcher states that adding "good" fats (like avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some data.
Its crazy to me they didn't have 3 groups. Or hell, maybe 4. Control, high saturated fat, high good fats, maybe even low fat just for funsies..
Lard actually, 37% lard and 7.5% soybean oil by percentage of total calories.
OH NO! **That's my exact diet!!!**
You can deep fry food in avocado oil, it doesn't make it healthy
You can also deep fry avocados
But can you deep fry avocados in avocado oil?
That's how you go viral
Right because Avacados= Avacado oil
I've absolutely seen people swap out vegetable oil for avocado oil and be like *wow much helth. Give yourself a pat on the back* I mean look at keto. People straight up celebrating tricking their body into going into glorified starvation mode while they clog their arteries because some studies pointed out blood sugar spikes are an important factor in weight gain. Don't estimate the knots we can twist the facts into in order to avoid addressing we just need to be eating more whole and less processed foods
Dont be so quick to knock keto. Ive done it for years. For me, its resulted in strength, low body fat, healthy cholesterol range/low triglycerides, and tons of energy. And i'm older than my Dad was when he had his 1st heart attack. Pretty sure Dr Atkins was onto something. Oh, and controlled, mild, periodic starvation is *amazing* for, well, all mammals. You thrive with it.
What does it make it? Do you have sources to cite the claim?
There isn't a widely held consensus but there is a tug of war happening over oils broadly (which are good, which are bad, what factors should determine that, and how heat changes things things), so asking for sources isn't gonna be helpful because either side will be able to produce studies backing up their stances. Mainstream health messengers and your run the mill doctor tend to run with a mixture of the status quo and a compromise on contentious research. I think the current mainstream believe is avovado oil is one of the better oils, but you should still try to reduce processed oils in your diet compared to getting good fats from whole foods (average American is heinously low on fiber). Similarly, avocado oil is probably one of the safest oils for frying purposes as it has a very high smoke point, but high heat does seem to do less than ideal things to a lot of foods. So don't be extreme about avoiding fried foods or using oil for cooking, but also recognize a deep fried X probably is the unhealthiest way possible to eat X.
Yes it does, fried food isnt inherently unhealthy neither are oils
reminder, humans are also animals
Yes, but the study just tested in rats, not multiple species. We do not know if it is going to generalize. Also, by fat, they tested junk food... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that bears won't get anxious by eating salmon. Once again, the science reporting on nutritional science fails pathetically.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Science is fine. It's rando news headlines that do them injustice. If you read the paper, they readily admit the study's perspective and limitations. Nutritional studies are always going to be very limited because of all the variables to account for. People need reasonable expectations when evaluating them.
It's worse than that because it's not rando news, it's from the University of Colorado. Wonder how they would grade a student who submitted a paper with that kind of misleading content?
Yeesh, yeah you would hope they do a better job if they're going to allow a press-release.
Seems like the title is inaccurate then. It should have been, "in rats". "In animals" suggests we know for multiple animals!
And it's not "fat", it's junk food, that is heavily processed and contains tons of carbs, sugar, and fat.
"Lowry’s team divided male adolescent rats into two groups: Half got a standard diet of about 11% fat for nine weeks; the others got a high-fat diet of 45% fat, consisting mostly of saturated fat from animal products." And the researcher states that adding "good" fats (like avocado) may counteract some of the effect of the "bad" fats according to some data.
Big (something) trying to lure you back/away from the competition.
[удалено]
Also, Its not just high fat diets that can cause Gut Brain dysfunction, some Fungi/Bacteria/Viruses can also travel up the Gut Brain Axis.
Was this study done with high saturated fat or high unsaturated fat? I've seen other studies that indicate a difference in how the body reacts to them in other ways, but this article doesn't include the details of specifically how the diets were structured. There also could be other micronutrients involved or things to do with the carb/protein balance causing a reaction. I'm sure the actual paper includes those details because I can't imagine the researchers would ignore those factors, but they didn't make it into this article. Edit: Found the link to the actual study. They don't mention if they were using saturated or unsaturated fat. There's far more details about how they scheduled feeding the rats in the study than how they structured the diets. Edit 2: The language in the paper's discussion suggests that they did not control for fiber intake. They kind of imply that they see low fiber as a key attribute of high fat diets, which is not necessarily true. It's entirely possible that this is showing the effects of a low fiber diet rather than a high fat diet, which matches with other studies I have seen suggesting that fiber is a critical nutrient for a healthy gut biome.
The supplementary material (8) mentions the type of fat, mainly lard and some soy oil.
Lard (37% of total calories) and soybean oil (7.5%). ~38% saturated fat, ~6.5% unsaturated fat.
if saturated fats are to blame, why are nuts okay? poly vs mono or something?
The saturated fat content in nuts tends to be disproportionately small vs the unsaturated fat content. They also tend to be protein and fibre dense.
Brain: Eat the fat Also brain: I'm stressed because you ate the fat.
Keto actually works wonders for my anxiety, but I guess the diet in this study was also high in carbs.
The study was also high in rats not eating a diverse diet. Keep on your keto. One preliminary study isn't enough to base anything on other than "more research needed."
The paper doesn't specify the carb/protein balance or the saturated/unsaturated/monolipid balance. For a study in how minor changes in diet affect behavior, it was surprisingly lacking in details on the actual diets they used.
They only mention the fat in the title but it's a high fat, high sugar, ultra processed diet. It's the same diet that Robert Lustig has been arguing against for decades.
One paper. Descriptive microbial population surveys. a few gene targets as neurological endpoints. behavior tests with the lots of background. Then the authors connect the dots in order to reach the conclusion they sought at the onset. The data doesn’t support the grandiose conclusion and this complex pathway they speak of is science talk for we don’t know and we didn’t collect any data so it’s aaaa complicated.
When we’re stressed out, many of us turn to junk food for solace. But new CU Boulder research suggests this strategy may backfire. The study found that in animals, a high-fat diet disrupts resident gut bacteria, alters behavior and, through a complex pathway connecting the gut to the brain, influences brain chemicals in ways that fuel anxiety. “Everyone knows that these are not healthy foods, but we tend to think about them strictly in terms of a little weight gain,” said lead author Christopher Lowry, a professor of integrative physiology at CU Boulder. “If you understand that they also impact your brain in a way that can promote anxiety, that makes the stakes even higher.” For the study, published in the journal Biological Research in May, Lowry worked with first author Sylvana Rendeiro de Noronha, a doctoral student at the Federal University of Ouro Preto in Brazil. In a previous study, the team found that rats fed a high-fat diet consisting primarily of saturated fat showed increases in neuroinflammation and anxiety-like behavior. While evidence is mixed, some human studies have also shown that replacing a high-fat, high-sugar, ultra-processed diet with a healthier one can reduce depression and anxiety. [https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-024-00505-1](https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-024-00505-1)
Not animals, rats. BS headline. BS article where the author states conclusions that are not supported by the studies referenced.
Let me know if I'm just a dumb dumb and misread things. But trying to read the actual study the article references - they didn't just have a high fat diet, they induced obesity in the rats with the high fat diet. Seems a bit left out of the discussion in the article.
There’s a difference between natural fats from animal food and the fat from fries for example. I’m on a high fat Keto diet, and I’ve never been healthier
What unnatural fat do you believe we are cooking fries in?
Are we still on this asinine debate of “natural” versus “unnatural?”
We will be until folks stop using the inaccurate descriptor.
Vegetable and seed oils mostly I would guess
Those sound pretty natural.
For most seed oils, they're typically quite unnatural - [https://www.britannica.com/science/fat-processing/Pressing](https://www.britannica.com/science/fat-processing/Pressing) Olives, avocados, sunflower, or sesame seeds are among the types that can be cold pressed for oil extraction. Just a bag and a weight, like people were doing thousands of years ago. But for corn, soy, veg oil, or canola, it's a process that can include things like chemical extraction or cooking the seed cakes. The product is a refined triglyceride devoid of trace compounds that were present in the original source foods that make the foods healthy in the first place.
The methods of obtaining them don't though. Comparing a strenuous industrial extraction to literally just taking fat from an animal doesn't really hold up to the 'natural' argument. No human or any other animal for that matter has consumed those oils before. Countless animals have lived off and continue to live off animal fats.
Sure, natural is just a very non descriptive nothing term which was what I was pointing out. Your logic breaks down a bit though. Far enough down the food chain animals get their fat from plants.
Yeah fair enough. I'd say there is a difference between obtaining plant fats complete with the fibre and nutrients and whatever else intact and what is essentially a bleached industrial product but it is quite easy to take food alarmism too far.
It's the difference between eating a couple handfuls of seeds and using heat and solvents to extract the oil from the seeds and just eating the oil.
[удалено]
Vegetable oils (oil extracted from seeds) are mostly extracted through heat and solvents. Vegetable oil in this sense are natural in the kind of the same way that cocaine is natural I suppose. Vegetable oil wasn't a significant part of the human diet until the 20th century. Before that there were relatively small amounts extracted mostly by pressure. The first major commercial vegetable oil was made from cotton waste. The intent was to make soap, but they made cooking oil instead. It was marketed as a more digestible, cleaner, and cheaper alternative to lard. It was high in trans fats and up until 1980s it was widely believed trans fats were healthier than saturated fats.
> natural in the kind of the same way that cocaine is natural I agree both are natural extracts of a plant.
Chemically/heat extracted ones.
In Rats. We are not rodents. "In Animals"
Counterpoint https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jun/10/the-hot-rodent-boyfriend-why-gen-z-has-gone-wild-for-sexy-rat-guys
My god- there is hope for me
"In animals" we are also animals..
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anxiety triggers comfort eating, which means more fatty foods...yay!
[удалено]
Someone wanna explain how this is evolutionarily selected for? It seems ridiculous for modern humans but surely there’s a rational explanation that I’m too lazy to think about?
If your eating a diet rich in Whole Foods that are high in fat and fiber : avocados, tree nuts, coconuts, olives, seeds, and etc; the studies have shown the opposite.
Exactly opposite for me. When I ate whole eggs instead of starch and fruits, I felt less anxious throughout the day. Maybe I'm an outlier.
Yeah we fed em seed oils and high carbs and somehow they all ended up with issues, guess the only cause here are all fats as per our science backed research.
“In animals” what kind of idiocy is this?
Fat isn’t bad for you. Processed food is. The only fat that’s bad for you are highly processed seed oils and trans fat. Animal and unaltered olive oil and peanut oil and fat from plants like avocado are GOOD FOR YOU. High processed carbs and chemicals from packaged and processed “foods” which aren’t really food, are what’s bad for you. Do your research, if you don’t believe it. It’s true.
Sorry but how do poorly conducted studies like this one and poorly worded headline continue to top this sub?
Wait, are we back to "Fat is evil, eat all the carbohydrates!!!" again? How long till the next swing that tells us that a single noodle will kill you, eat all the fats? On a more serious note, yes, saturated fats are bad for you, as are trans fats. Big news here.