Saturated fats (SFA), commonly found in animal fats that we consume, has been shown to increase one’s low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by inhibiting LDL receptor activity need for LDL uptake by cell (increasing in blood LDL) and increasing LDL production. This increase in LDL causes it to deposit in the walls of arteries forming plaques; therefore, increasing risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). By lowering the consumption of SFA, it decreases one’s risk of a cardiac event by decreasing plaque formation. One method of lowering SFA is by substituting foods high in SFA with foods containing other macronutrients while possibly gain additional benefits (such as lowering body weight, reducing oxidative stress, or inducing favorable lipid
…show more content…
All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality also had a confidence interval (CI) of 0.90-1.05 & 0.80-1.12, respectively; both include 1.00, which implies that there was no statistical difference between the control and intervened groups studied. In addition, these same results apply for substituting SFA with PUFA on risk of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. However, reducing SFA intake may reduce combined cardiovascular events (stroke & heart attack) by 17% (0.83 risk ratio, significantly (CI of 0.72- 0.96) lower than the average risk 1.00). Furthermore, when they focus on the impact of substituting SFA with PUFA, studies found a significant (CI of 0.58 to 0.92) 27% reduction (0.73-risk ratio) in cardiovascular events. This was not found in studies that used MUFAs, CHO or protein. Thus, no benefit was found from reducing SFA alone or in combination with other macronutrients on the risk of dying. Beneficial association between reduced SFA and cardiovascular events is dependent on being replaced with only PUFA. This MA does have some weakness such as blinding was adequate in only one trial. Therefore, the intervention groups may have receiving additional support in areas like gaining additional healthcare …show more content…
We used to recommend reduce SFA to no more than 5%-6 % of total calories intake, which we no longer support this percentage since SFA reduction has no effect on all-cause mortality, CVD mortality (except when reduction in SFA was >8% of total calories intake), or cardiovascular event. Perhaps replacing SFA with PUFA may reduce risk of a cardiovascular event, but we cannot support this with the MA alone. The GRADE found no serious bias existed for CVD mortality, cardiovascular event, and all-cause mortality while attributing it to the studies include being randomized controlled trial. However, the GRADE did acknowledge the heterogeneous results (the studies differ by 65%) in cardiovascular events results (17% decrease in SFA reduction) since it was “partly explained by the degree of SFA reduction and cholesterol lowering achieved” from PUFA substitution (Cochrane review 2015). Furthermore, we conclude that the GRADE suggestion that this finding heterogeneous results (>50% was considered too much) was non-significant effect in this MA for reduction in cardiovascular events is flawed and not a meaningful result. In addition, DART 1989 & Veterans Admin 1969 (responsible for ~25%) had no significance (0.74-1.15 & 0.63-1.00, respectively)
All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality also had a confidence interval (CI) of 0.90-1.05 & 0.80-1.12, respectively; both include 1.00, which implies that there was no statistical difference between the control and intervened groups studied. In addition, these same results apply for substituting SFA with PUFA on risk of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality. However, reducing SFA intake may reduce combined cardiovascular events (stroke & heart attack) by 17% (0.83 risk ratio, significantly (CI of 0.72- 0.96) lower than the average risk 1.00). Furthermore, when they focus on the impact of substituting SFA with PUFA, studies found a significant (CI of 0.58 to 0.92) 27% reduction (0.73-risk ratio) in cardiovascular events. This was not found in studies that used MUFAs, CHO or protein. Thus, no benefit was found from reducing SFA alone or in combination with other macronutrients on the risk of dying. Beneficial association between reduced SFA and cardiovascular events is dependent on being replaced with only PUFA. This MA does have some weakness such as blinding was adequate in only one trial. Therefore, the intervention groups may have receiving additional support in areas like gaining additional healthcare …show more content…
We used to recommend reduce SFA to no more than 5%-6 % of total calories intake, which we no longer support this percentage since SFA reduction has no effect on all-cause mortality, CVD mortality (except when reduction in SFA was >8% of total calories intake), or cardiovascular event. Perhaps replacing SFA with PUFA may reduce risk of a cardiovascular event, but we cannot support this with the MA alone. The GRADE found no serious bias existed for CVD mortality, cardiovascular event, and all-cause mortality while attributing it to the studies include being randomized controlled trial. However, the GRADE did acknowledge the heterogeneous results (the studies differ by 65%) in cardiovascular events results (17% decrease in SFA reduction) since it was “partly explained by the degree of SFA reduction and cholesterol lowering achieved” from PUFA substitution (Cochrane review 2015). Furthermore, we conclude that the GRADE suggestion that this finding heterogeneous results (>50% was considered too much) was non-significant effect in this MA for reduction in cardiovascular events is flawed and not a meaningful result. In addition, DART 1989 & Veterans Admin 1969 (responsible for ~25%) had no significance (0.74-1.15 & 0.63-1.00, respectively)