Loren Cordain's response (9 Oct 97) to Fallon and Enig regarding
the positive association between dietary saturated fat and heart disease
risk was to my mind rather convincing, but the role of saturated fat
in contributing to CHD relative to other factors still seems
somewhat uncertain.

It seems we would agree that "moderate" intake of saturated fat
probably does not pose a problem, esp. if it is a higher proportion
of 18:0 relative to 12:0, 14:0 and 18:0, and if the various factors
that may also contribute to CHD are minimized, and if
the factors that are cardio-protective are incorporated in diet
and lifestyle. I suspect that the "concensus view" in this symposium
would support a saturated fat intake higher than that currently advocated
by the medical establishment, if the various other factors are
in a reasonable balance.

Perhaps this view is supported by the point made by
Enig and Fallon that the amount of SF in the American
diet remained the same between 1935 and 1974, a period of great
increase in heart disease.  I don't have the data at my disposal,
but my sense is that the level of CHD was fairly low in the pre-1935
period, despite a high (relative to the current recommendations)
intake of SF. Certainly many of the other risk factors for CHD were
present to a lesser extent during that time, and factors such as
n6/n3 ratio were "better." And I suspect that the % of wild game
(with it's lower SF than domesticated meats and higher % of 18:0 SF)
as % of total animal food was higher (esp. before 1900).

I'd be interested in thoughts of others on this.


Steve Meyers
[log in to unmask]