A new study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology indicates that consumption of trans-fatty acids is linked to precancerous growths in the colon. Do you really need more incentive to avoid that nasty stuff? Taste alone should guide you to the right choice!
According to researchers at the University of North Carolina, those people who ate the most trans-fatty acid also suffered the most precancerous growths. Those who ingested a little over 6.75 grams of trans-fatty acid each day were 86% more likely to have precancerous polyps than those participants who consumed the least trans-fatty acids per day.
This study, like other studies outlining the risks of consuming the artificial fats, underscores the importance of not just limiting consumption of trans-fatty acids but eliminating them entirely. Wholesome, naturalfats including animal fats like butter and lard and vegetable fats like coconut and olive oils provide some very real benefits. Instead of being detrimental to human health, they are actually good for you and they taste infinitely better too.
Lovage Soup for Spring
Moroccan Preserved Lemons
campfire roast chicken with flowering onion and dill
Our Daily Bread: No-knead Sourdough
A Story of Recovery (and a Recipe for Grain-free Carrot Cupcakes with Honey Cream Cheese Frosting)
A Recipe for Beet Kvass: A Deeply Cleansing Tonic
I have absolutely no argument with consuming natural fats instead of industrial fats and oils.
BUT, I’m reluctant to use epidemiological studies results to prove causation or as reason to make changes in my diet.
Epidemiology only notes correlation, not causation, and often doesn’t control for other potentially significant factors (an example – heart disease also correlates positively with TV watching, but it is more like that other factors present in a heavy TV-watching lifestyle are causative, not the watching the TV).
Epidemiology is a useful science for developing hypotheses, but definitely not health policy. Remember, epidemiology is what got us the upside-down, misguided and downright unhealthy heath advice we’ve heard non-stop in the media every day for the past few decades. Well-designed intervention studies are more appropriate if one wants to prove causation.
As for me, I tend to put more stock in historical and anthropological data than epidemiology. Our stone age ancestors (who share just about the same physiology with us) had a diet found in nature which didn’t include industrial fats and oils.
I tend to agree with you that historical and anthropological data are the keys. Indeed, if our ancestors didn’t eat it we ought not eat it either. Yet, at the same time, I value clinical research that’s well performed. And it’s interesting to me when that research mirrors what anthropological data hold to be true.
Interestingly, in many of the heart and health studies that led the public to low fat living, the data was largely misinterpreted rather than being blatantly false. For example at the time that Jane Brody and other nutritionists blamed the egg as being dangerous to consume, not a single study at that time had confirmed it; rather, it was a misinterpretation of data.