Well, the sample is quite small, and just because a measure of fats in blood did not increase, it is probably not justified to conclude that a high intake is safe.
High anything is probably not wise. However a somewhat different story from that to which we're accustomed, is emerging.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
CONCLUSIONS:
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
We've been running some basic experiments that suggest the opposite to these findings: http://hema.vu/1vA0sHR . But again, this is hardly conclusive (our sample size is much smaller).
Your experiment doesn't really look like the same thing at all. From your link, it doesn't look like you are controlling carbohydrates and your participants are just eating lots of fast food. The study started with low carb high saturated fat. I would argue that fast food is high carb and high fat. Interesting research though either way.
Yes, it's time we stop reflexively dismissing every study with a small sample size as if that made it worthless. This is the latest meme in a sequence that includes "correlation is not causation" and "the plural of anecdote is not data". It's a generic dismissal and has a de-interesting effect on discussion. It has more in common with internet reflexes like "First" and "Betteridge" than with reflective thought.
One way to catch oneself before doing this is to ask if you're tacitly assuming that the people doing the work are idiots. The odds—and the Principle of Charity [1]—suggest they're not. Comments that imply this generically are usually low-quality.
If the people doing the work really are dumb, then it almost certainly has more specific flaws (e.g. "this way of measuring glucose isn't reliable", to make something totally up) that it would be far more helpful to point out.
vixen99|11 years ago
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
CONCLUSIONS:
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
17425170|11 years ago
volker48|11 years ago
doctorcomputer|11 years ago
Dewie|11 years ago
Regards,
Peanut gallery on every article on some research
dang|11 years ago
One way to catch oneself before doing this is to ask if you're tacitly assuming that the people doing the work are idiots. The odds—and the Principle of Charity [1]—suggest they're not. Comments that imply this generically are usually low-quality.
If the people doing the work really are dumb, then it almost certainly has more specific flaws (e.g. "this way of measuring glucose isn't reliable", to make something totally up) that it would be far more helpful to point out.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity