Can Saturated Fats Be Healthy?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Saturated Fat: What’s The Truth?

We asked you for your health-related opinion of saturated fat, and got the above-pictured, below-described, set of results.

  • Most recorded votes were for “Saturated fat is good, but only some sources, and/or in moderation”
    • This is an easy one to vote for, because of the “and/or in moderation” part, which tends to be a “safe bet” for most things.
  • Next most popular was “Saturated fat is terrible for the health and should be avoided”
  • About half as many recorded votes were for “I’m not actually sure what makes saturated fat different”, which is a very laudable option to click. Admitting when we don’t know things (and none of us know everything) is a very good first step to learning about them!
  • Fewest recorded votes were for “Saturated fat is the best source of energy; we should get plenty”.

So, what does the science say?

First, a bit of physics, chemistry, and biology

You may be wondering what, exactly, saturated fats are “saturated” with. That’s a fair question, so…

All fats have a molecular structure made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. Saturated fats are saturated with hydrogen, and thus have only single bonds between carbon atoms (unsaturated fats have at least one double-bond between carbon atoms).

The observable effect this has on them, is that fats that are saturated with hydrogen are solid at room temperature, whereas unsaturated fats are liquid at room temperature. Their different properties also make for different interactions inside the human body, including how likely or not they are to (for example) clog arteries.

See also: Could fat in your bloodstream cause blood clots?

Saturated fat is the best source of energy; we should get plenty: True or False?

False, in any reasonable interpretation, anyway. That is to say, if your idea of “plenty” is under 13g (e.g: two tablespoons of butter, and no saturated fat from other sources, e.g. meat) per day, then yes, by all means feel free to eat plenty. More than that, though, and you might want to consider trimming it down a bit.

The American Heart Association has this to say:

❝When you hear about the latest “diet of the day” or a new or odd-sounding theory about food, consider the source.

The American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats, which are found in butter, cheese, red meat and other animal-based foods, and tropical oils.

Decades of sound science has proven it can raise your “bad” cholesterol and put you at higher risk for heart disease.❞

Source: The American Heart Association Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations on Saturated Fat

The British Heart Foundation has a similar statement:

❝Despite what you read in the media, our advice is clear: replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats and avoid trans fats. Saturated fat is the kind of fat found in butter, lard, ghee, fatty meats and cheese. This is linked to an increased risk of heart and circulatory disease❞

Source: British Heart Foundation: What does fat do and what is saturated fat?

As for the World Health Organization:

❝1. WHO strongly recommends that adults and children reduce saturated fatty acid intake to 10% of total energy intake

2. WHO suggests further reducing saturated fatty acid intake to less than 10% of total energy intake

3. WHO strongly recommends replacing saturated fatty acids in the diet with polyunsaturated fatty acids; monounsaturated fatty acids from plant sources; or carbohydrates from foods containing naturally occurring dietary fibre, such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits and pulses.❞

Source: Saturated fatty acid and trans-fatty acid intake for adults and children: WHO guideline

Please note, organizations such as the AHA, the BHF, and the WHO are not trying to sell us anything, and just would like us to not die of heart disease, the world’s #1 killer.

As for “the best source of energy”…

We evolved to eat (much like our nearest primate cousins) a diet consisting mostly of fruits and other edible plants, with a small supplementary amount of animal-source protein and fats.

That’s not to say that because we evolved that way we have to eat that way—we are versatile omnivores. But for example, we are certainly not complete carnivores, and would quickly sicken and die if we tried to live on only meat and animal fat (we need more fiber, more carbohydrates, and many micronutrients that we usually get from plants)

The closest that humans tend to come to doing such is the ketogenic diet, which focuses on a high fat, low carbohydrate imbalance, to promote ketosis, in which the body burns fat for energy.

The ketogenic diet does work, and/but can cause a lot of health problems if a lot of care is not taken to avoid them.

See for example: 7 Keto Risks To Keep In Mind

Saturated fat is terrible for the health and should be avoided: True or False?

False, if we are talking about “completely”.

Firstly, it’s practically impossible to cut out all saturated fats, given that most dietary sources of fat are a mix of saturated, unsaturated (mono- and poly-), and trans fats (which are by far the worst, but beyond the scope of today’s main feature).

Secondly, a lot of research has been conducted and found insignificant or inconclusive results, in cases where saturated fat intake was already within acceptable levels (per the recommendations we mentioned earlier), and then cut down further.

Rather than fill up the newsletter with individual studies of this kind here’s a high-quality research review, looking at 19 meta-analyses, each of those meta-analyses having looked at many studies:

Dietary saturated fat and heart disease: a narrative review

Saturated fat is good, but only some sources, and/or in moderation: True or False?

True! The moderation part is easy to guess, so let’s take a look at the “but only some sources”.

We were not able to find any convincing science to argue for health-based reasons to favor plant- or animal-sourced saturated fat. However…

Not all saturated fats are created equal (there are many kinds), and also many of the foods containing them have additional nutrients, or harmful compounds, that make a big difference to overall health, when compared gram-for-gram in terms of containing the same amount of saturated fat.

For example:

  1. Palm oil’s saturated fat contains a disproportionate amount of palmitic acid, which raises LDL (“bad” cholesterol) without affecting HDL (“good” cholesterol), thus having an overall heart-harmful effect.
  2. Most animal fats contain a disproportionate amount of stearic acid, which has statistically insignificant effects on LDL and HDL levels, and thus is broadly considered “heart neutral (in moderation!)
  3. Coconut oil’s saturated fat contains a disproportionate amount of lauric acid, which raises total cholesterol, but mostly HDL without affecting LDL, thus having an overall heart-beneficial effect (in moderation!)

Do you know what’s in the food you eat?

Test your knowledge with the BHF’s saturated fat quiz!

Enjoy!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Could Just Two Hours Sleep Per Day Be Enough?
  • Good to Go – by Christie Aschwanden
    Endurance athlete and science journalist analyzes popular recovery methods, revealing the most effective, economical ways to bounce back post-exertion.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The Truth About Vaccines

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The Truth About Vaccines

    Yesterday we asked your views on vaccines, and we got an interesting spread of answers. Of those who responded to the poll, most were in favour of vaccines. We got quite a lot of comments this time too; we can’t feature them all, but we’ll include extracts from a few in our article today, as they raised interesting points!

    Vaccines contain dangerous ingredients that will harm us more than the disease would: True or False?

    False, contextually.

    Many people are very understandably wary of things they know full well to be toxic, being injected into them.

    One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are poison, and/or are some manner of conspiracy ” wrote:

    ❝I think vaccines from 50–60 years ago are true vaccines and were safer than vaccines today. I have not had a vaccine for many, many years, and I never plan to have any kind of vaccine/shot again.❞

    They didn’t say why they personally felt this way, but the notion that “things were simpler back in the day” is a common (and often correct!) observation regards health, especially when it comes to unwanted additives and ultraprocessing of food.

    Things like aluminum or mercury in vaccines are much like sodium and chlorine in table salt. Sodium and chlorine are indeed both toxic to us. But in the form of sodium chloride, it’s a normal part of our diet, provided we don’t overdo it.

    Additionally, the amount of unwanted metals (e.g. aluminum, mercury) in vaccines is orders of magnitude smaller than the amount in dietary sources—even if you’re a baby and your “dietary sources” are breast milk and/or formula milk.

    In the case of formaldehyde (an inactivating agent), it’s also the dose that makes the poison (and the quantity in vaccines is truly miniscule).

    This academic paper alone cites more sources than we could here without making today’s newsletter longer than it already is:

    Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation

    I have a perfectly good immune system, it can handle the disease: True or False?

    True! Contingently.

    In fact, our immune system is so good at defending against disease, that the best thing we can do to protect ourselves is show our immune system a dead or deactivated version of a pathogen, so that when the real pathogen comes along, our immune system knows exactly what it is and what to do about it.

    In other words, a vaccine.

    One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are important but in some cases the side effects can be worse ” wrote:

    ❝In some ways I’m vacd out. I got COVid a few months ago and had no symptoms except a cough. I have asthma and it didn’t trigger a lot of congestion. No issues. I am fully vaccinated but not sure I’ll get one in fall.❞

    We’re glad this subscriber didn’t get too ill! A testimony to their robust immune system doing what it’s supposed to, after being shown a recent-ish edition of the pathogen, in deactivated form.

    It’s very reasonable to start wondering: “surely I’m vaccinated enough by now”

    And, hopefully, you are! But, as any given pathogen mutates over time, we eventually need to show our immune system what the new version looks like, or else it won’t recognize it.

    See also: Why Experts Think You’ll Need a COVID-19 Booster Shot in the Future

    So why don’t we need booster shots for everything? Often, it’s because a pathogen has stopped mutating at any meaningful rate. Polio is an example of this—no booster is needed for most people in most places.

    Others, like flu, require annual boosters to keep up with the pathogens.

    Herd immunity will keep us safe: True or False?

    True! Ish.

    But it doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means. For example, in the UK, “herd immunity” was the strategy promoted by Prime Minister of the hour, Boris Johnson. But he misunderstood what it meant:

    • What he thought it meant: everyone gets the disease, then everyone who doesn’t die is now immune
    • What it actually means: if most people are immune to the disease (for example: due to having been vaccinated), it can’t easily get to the people who aren’t immune

    One subscriber who voted for “Vaccines are critical for our health; vax to the max! ” wrote:

    ❝I had a chiropractor a few years ago, who explained to me that if the general public took vaccines, then she would not have to vaccinate her children and take a risk of having side effects❞

    Obviously, we can’t speak for this subscriber’s chiropractor’s children, but this raises a good example: some people can’t safely have a given vaccine, due to underlying medical conditions—or perhaps it is not available to them, for example if they are under a certain age.

    In such cases, herd immunity—other people around having been vaccinated and thus not passing on the disease—is what will keep them safe.

    Here’s a useful guide from the US Dept of Health and Human Services:

    How does community immunity (a.k.a. herd immunity) work?

    And, for those who are more visually inclined, here’s a graphical representation of a mathematical model of how herd immunity works (you can run a simulation)!

    Stay safe!

    Share This Post

  • Spreading Mental Health Awareness

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? You can always hit “reply” to any of our emails, or use the feedback widget at the bottom!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    Request: more people need to be aware of suicidal tendencies and what they can do to ward them off

    That’s certainly a very important topic! We’ll cover that properly in one of our Psychology Sunday editions. In the meantime, we’ll mention a previous special that we did, that was mostly about handling depression (in oneself or a loved one), and obviously there’s a degree of crossover:

    The Mental Health First-Aid That You’ll Hopefully Never Need

    Share This Post

  • 8 Critical Signs Of Blood Clots That You Shouldn’t Ignore

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Blood clots can form as part of deep vein thrombosis or for other reasons; wherever they form (unless they are just doing their job healing a wound) they can cause problems. But how to know what’s going on inside our body?

    Telltale signs

    Our usual medical/legal disclaimer applies here, and we are not doctors, let alone your doctors, and even if we were we couldn’t diagnose from afar… But for educational purposes, here are the eight signs from the video:

    • Swelling: especially if only on one leg (assuming you have no injury to account for it), which may feel tight and uncomfortable
    • Warmness: does the area warmer to the touch? This may be because of the body’s inflammatory response trying to deal with a blood clot
    • Tenderness: again, caused by the inflammation in response to the clot
    • Discolored skin: it could be reddish, or bruise-like. This could be patchy or spread over a larger area, because of a clot blocking the flow of blood
    • Shortness of breath: if a clot makes it to the lungs, it can cause extra problems there (pulmonary embolism), and shortness of breath is the first sign of this
    • Coughing up blood: less common than the above but a much more serious sign; get thee to a hospital
    • Chest pain: a sharp or stabbing pain, in particular. The pain may worsen with deep breaths or coughing. Again, seek medical attention.

    For more on recognizing these signs (including helpful visuals), and more on what to do about them and how to avoid them in the first place, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Further reading

    You might like to read:

    Dietary Changes for Artery Health

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Could Just Two Hours Sleep Per Day Be Enough?
  • The Science of Nutrition – by Rhiannon Lambert

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    While there are a lot of conflicting dietary approaches out there, the science itself is actually fairly cohesive in most regards. This book does a lot of what we do here at 10almonds, and presents the science in a clear fashion without having any particular agenda to push.

    The author is a nutritionist (BSc, MSc, RNutr) and therefore provides an up-to-date evidence-based approach for eating.

    As a result, the only part of this book that brings it down in this reviewer’s opinion is the section on Intermittent Fasting. Being not strictly about nutrition, she has less expertise on that topic, and it shows.

    The information is largely presented in double-page spreads each answering a particular question. Because of this, and the fact there are colorful graphic representations of information too, we do recommend the print version over Kindle*.

    Bottom line: if you like the notion of real science being presented in a clear and simple fashion (we like to think our subscribers do!), then you’ll surely enjoy this book.

    Click here to check out the Science of Nutrition, and get a clear overview!

    *Writer’s note: I realize I’ve two days in a row recommended this (yesterday because there are checkboxes to check, worksheets to complete, etc), but it’s not a new trend; just how it happened to be with these two books. I love my Kindle dearly, but sometimes print has the edge for one reason or another!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • If You’re Poor, Fertility Treatment Can Be Out of Reach

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Mary Delgado’s first pregnancy went according to plan, but when she tried to get pregnant again seven years later, nothing happened. After 10 months, Delgado, now 34, and her partner, Joaquin Rodriguez, went to see an OB-GYN. Tests showed she had endometriosis, which was interfering with conception. Delgado’s only option, the doctor said, was in vitro fertilization.

    “When she told me that, she broke me inside,” Delgado said, “because I knew it was so expensive.”

    Delgado, who lives in New York City, is enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income and disabled people. The roughly $20,000 price tag for a round of IVF would be a financial stretch for lots of people, but for someone on Medicaid — for which the maximum annual income for a two-person household in New York is just over $26,000 — the treatment can be unattainable.

    Expansions of work-based insurance plans to cover fertility treatments, including free egg freezing and unlimited IVF cycles, are often touted by large companies as a boon for their employees. But people with lower incomes, often minorities, are more likely to be covered by Medicaid or skimpier commercial plans with no such coverage. That raises the question of whether medical assistance to create a family is only for the well-to-do or people with generous benefit packages.

    “In American health care, they don’t want the poor people to reproduce,” Delgado said. She was caring full-time for their son, who was born with a rare genetic disorder that required several surgeries before he was 5. Her partner, who works for a company that maintains the city’s yellow cabs, has an individual plan through the state insurance marketplace, but it does not include fertility coverage.

    Some medical experts whose patients have faced these issues say they can understand why people in Delgado’s situation think the system is stacked against them.

    “It feels a little like that,” said Elizabeth Ginsburg, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School who is president-elect of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a research and advocacy group.

    Whether or not it’s intended, many say the inequity reflects poorly on the U.S.

    “This is really sort of standing out as a sore thumb in a nation that would like to claim that it cares for the less fortunate and it seeks to do anything it can for them,” said Eli Adashi, a professor of medical science at Brown University and former president of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinologists.

    Yet efforts to add coverage for fertility care to Medicaid face a lot of pushback, Ginsburg said.

    Over the years, Barbara Collura, president and CEO of the advocacy group Resolve: The National Infertility Association, has heard many explanations for why it doesn’t make sense to cover fertility treatment for Medicaid recipients. Legislators have asked, “If they can’t pay for fertility treatment, do they have any idea how much it costs to raise a child?” she said.

    “So right there, as a country we’re making judgments about who gets to have children,” Collura said.

    The legacy of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, when states passed laws that permitted poor, nonwhite, and disabled people to be sterilized against their will, lingers as well.

    “As a reproductive justice person, I believe it’s a human right to have a child, and it’s a larger ethical issue to provide support,” said Regina Davis Moss, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, an advocacy group.

    But such coverage decisions — especially when the health care safety net is involved — sometimes require difficult choices, because resources are limited.

    Even if state Medicaid programs wanted to cover fertility treatment, for instance, they would have to weigh the benefit against investing in other types of care, including maternity care, said Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “There is a recognition about the primacy and urgency of maternity care,” she said.

    Medicaid pays for about 40% of births in the United States. And since 2022, 46 states and the District of Columbia have elected to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage to 12 months, up from 60 days.

    Fertility problems are relatively common, affecting roughly 10% of women and men of childbearing age, according to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

    Traditionally, a couple is considered infertile if they’ve been trying to get pregnant unsuccessfully for 12 months. Last year, the ASRM broadened the definition of infertility to incorporate would-be parents beyond heterosexual couples, including people who can’t get pregnant for medical, sexual, or other reasons, as well as those who need medical interventions such as donor eggs or sperm to get pregnant.

    The World Health Organization defined infertility as a disease of the reproductive system characterized by failing to get pregnant after a year of unprotected intercourse. It terms the high cost of fertility treatment a major equity issue and has called for better policies and public financing to improve access.

    No matter how the condition is defined, private health plans often decline to cover fertility treatments because they don’t consider them “medically necessary.” Twenty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring health plans to provide some fertility coverage, but those laws vary greatly and apply only to companies whose plans are regulated by the state.

    In recent years, many companies have begun offering fertility treatment in a bid to recruit and retain top-notch talent. In 2023, 45% of companies with 500 or more workers covered IVF and/or drug therapy, according to the benefits consultant Mercer.

    But that doesn’t help people on Medicaid. Only two states’ Medicaid programs provide any fertility treatment: New York covers some oral ovulation-enhancing medications, and Illinois covers costs for fertility preservation, to freeze the eggs or sperm of people who need medical treatment that will likely make them infertile, such as for cancer. Several other states also are considering adding fertility preservation services.

    In Delgado’s case, Medicaid covered the tests to diagnose her endometriosis, but nothing more. She was searching the internet for fertility treatment options when she came upon a clinic group called CNY Fertility that seemed significantly less expensive than other clinics, and also offered in-house financing. Based in Syracuse, New York, the company has a handful of clinics in upstate New York cities and four other U.S. locations.

    Though Delgado and her partner had to travel more than 300 miles round trip to Albany for the procedures, the savings made it worthwhile. They were able do an entire IVF cycle, including medications, egg retrieval, genetic testing, and transferring the egg to her uterus, for $14,000. To pay for it, they took $7,000 of the cash they’d been saving to buy a home and financed the other half through the fertility clinic.

    She got pregnant on the first try, and their daughter, Emiliana, is now almost a year old.

    Delgado doesn’t resent people with more resources or better insurance coverage, but she wishes the system were more equitable.

    “I have a medical problem,” she said. “It’s not like I did IVF because I wanted to choose the gender.”

    One reason CNY is less expensive than other clinics is simply that the privately owned company chooses to charge less, said William Kiltz, its vice president of marketing and business development. Since the company’s beginning in 1997, it has become a large practice with a large volume of IVF cycles, which helps keep prices low.

    At this point, more than half its clients come from out of state, and many earn significantly less than a typical patient at another clinic. Twenty percent earn less than $50,000, and “we treat a good number who are on Medicaid,” Kiltz said.

    Now that their son, Joaquin, is settled in a good school, Delgado has started working for an agency that provides home health services. After putting in 30 hours a week for 90 days, she’ll be eligible for health insurance.

    One of the benefits: fertility coverage.

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • What Matters Most For Your Heart?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Eat More (Of This) For Lower Blood Pressure

    Heart disease remains the world’s #1 killer. We’d say “and in the US, it’s no different”, but in fact, the US is #1 country for heart disease. So, it’s worse and perhaps some extra care is in order.

    But how?

    What matters the most

    Is it salt? Salt plays a part, but it’s not even close to the top problem:

    Hypertension: Factors Far More Relevant Than Salt

    Is it saturated fat? Saturated fat from certain sources plays more of a role than salt, but other sources may not be so much of an issue:

    Can Saturated Fats Be Heart-Healthy?

    Is it red meat? Red meat is not great for the heart (or for almost anything else, except perhaps anemia):

    The Whys and Hows of Cutting Meats Out Of Your Diet

    …but it’s still not the top dietary factor.

    The thing many don’t eat

    All the above are foodstuffs that a person wanting a healthier heart and cardiovascular system in general might (reasonably and usually correctly) want to cut down, but there’s one thing that most people need more of:

    Why You’re Probably Not Getting Enough Fiber (And How To Fix It)

    And this is especially true for heart health:

    ❝Dietary fiber has emerged as a crucial yet underappreciated part of hypertension management.

    Our comprehensive analysis emphasizes the evidence supporting the effectiveness of dietary fiber in lowering blood pressure and reducing the risk of cardiovascular events.❞

    ~ Dr. Francine Marques

    Specifically, she and her team found:

    • Each additional 5g of fiber per day reduces blood pressure by 2.8/2.1 (systolic/diastolic, in mmHG)
    • Dietary fiber works in several ways to improve cardiovascular health, including via gut bacteria, improved lipids profiles, and anti-inflammatory effects
    • Most people are still only getting a small fraction (¼ to ⅓) of the recommended daily amount of fiber. To realize how bad that is, imagine if you consumed only ¼ of the recommended daily amount of calories every day!

    You can read more about it here:

    Dietary fiber critical in managing hypertension, international study finds

    That’s a pop-science article, but it’s still very informative. If you prefer to read the scientific paper itself (or perhaps as well), you can find it below

    Recommendations for the Use of Dietary Fiber to Improve Blood Pressure Control

    Want more from your fiber?

    Here’s yet another way fiber improves cardiometabolic health, hot off the academic press (the study was published just a couple of weeks ago):

    How might fiber lower diabetes risk? Your gut could hold the clues

    this pop-science article was based on this scientific paper

    Gut Microbiota and Blood Metabolites Related to Fiber Intake and Type 2 Diabetes

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: