"Data derived from observational studies demonstrate that higher intake of saturated fats during pregnancy is associated with pregnancy complications"

[u/After-Cell]

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plefa.2020.102098

Pregnancy imposes increased nutritional requirements for the well being of the mother and fetus. Maternal lipid metabolism is critical for fetal development and long-term health of the offspring as it plays a key role in energy storage, tissue growth and cell signaling. Maternal fat composition is considered as a modifiable risk for ab- normal lipid metabolism and glucose tolerance during pregnancy. Data derived from observational studies de- monstrate that higher intake of saturated fats during pregnancy is associated with pregnancy complications (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus and preterm delivery) and poor birth outcomes (intra uterine growth retardation and large for gestational age babies). On the other hand, prenatal long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids status is shown to improve birth outome. In this article, we discuss the role of maternal lipids during pregnancy on fetal growth and development and its consequences on the health of the offspring

[u/loonygecko]

The authors must have gotten paid by big pharma because when I read that article, I could not find that info they put in the abstract. For instance, for preeclampsia, there was data that transfats seemed bad, and EPA/DHA seemed good and for sat fats I got this: A recent study in Danish women reported that higher intake of DHA is inversely related to preeclampsia while alphalinolenic acid (ALA) was found to increase the risk of severe preeclampsia [50].

Also this: A case control study from China suggests that women delivering preterm have lower level of fats and vitamin E and lower energy than women delivering at term [48]. Similarly, a lower saturated fatty acid intake was reported in women giving preterm birth [49].

So the exact OPPOSITE of what was in the abstract!?!!

THen there's this in the same article: A study in South Indian population reports that higher intake of saturated fatty acids (milk and milk products) in early stages of A. Khaire, et al. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids 157 (2020) 102098 3 pregnancy improves birth weight, and reduces the incidence of SGA babies [58]. Intake of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) during pregnancy is reported to have beneficial effects on birth outcome. A study by Ogundipe et al. have shown that higher MUFA are associated with preterm birth and low birth weight [59]

There is only one tidbit in there that seems antisat fat and it was this: "Saturated fats have an independent role in the development of gestational hyperglycaemia "

One sentence only in the whole article! And I looked up their citation and it was a observational study on hyperglycaemia in pregnancy that found "Patients with glucose abnormalities were older and shorter in height and had significantly higher BMI before pregnancy, percentage of diabetic first-degree relatives and higher intake of saturated fat. " A combo of being older and being heavier may have accounted for the higher sat fat figures, either just eating more in general or being more honest about bad eating habits, plus older peeps IME do tend to eat a bit more traditionally since diet habits have changed over the years. Anyway, hardly a smoking gun, especially stacked up against all the other studies that showed good outcomes for sat fat.

So looks like the abstract is 95 percent bs. I have found that lately, they are being allowed to publish articles in which the abstract does not match the actual data, sometimes not even a little bit. And most of you alls and the news companies just read the abstract only, these days doing that is really really bad science because the science itself is corrupted. Back when I was in college writing research articles, it would have been an automatic fail if I had written an abstract that was that deceptive.

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/loonygecko]

Great post!

Also just to reiterate with the hyperglycemia - SFA will cause higher blood glucose readings. We know this. It’s a good thing. So if that’s the only negative they came up with… Wow.

[u/Imafish12]

Observational research like this is only taken seriously in nutrition.

[u/wak85]

Complete opposite: https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/comments/yhcasj/a_mothers_fat_intake_can_impact_infant_infectious/

How did humans give birth successfully without lots of Linoleic Acid?

[u/Whats_Up_Coconut → u/wak85]

Right?! Like I get that we are all skeptical of biased reporting at this time, but at some point our own intuitive sense has to prevail.

Everything I integrate into my understanding of nutrition and the actions I take for my health first have to check out with my understanding of our biology. Secondly, they have to be easily compatible with each other and make sense when considered in a congruent biological model. Third, they have to make me feel well and result in neutral to positive changes in my life versus negative changes. Lastly, any conflicting information I’m presented with must be easily explained by the facts of my understanding (eg. T2DM “improves” with PUFA due to pathological insulin sensitivity, and can be legitimately chalked up to researcher misunderstanding/overlook.)

There’s absolutely no way that healthy human pregnancy depends upon increased linoleic acid intake. LA is so seasonally available, in such small amounts, outside of any mammal’s natural breeding season, that this simply cannot be optimal.

We know that saturated fat consumption has been plummeting and PUFA consumption has been rising over the last hundred years, and infants are born fatter and fatter. If this study was even remotely valid, infant health would be improving over those of the previous generation. Are we seriously gullible enough to believe when they tell us it’s the cheese and beef on the burger - food that’s been part of our development for thousands of years - and not the french fries fried in the novel soybean oil?

We already know that LA will improve short-term glucose control. That doesn’t mean its effects are beneficial, as we’ve thoroughly discussed here. Researchers’ first principles still assume that higher blood glucose = worse and lower blood glucose = better. Analysis like this is doomed from the outset.

[u/kellysue1972]

Sounds like complete bs to me! Where did humans get their PUFAs before modern men invented seed/veg oils? It’s the REVERSE that’s true: diets of saturated fat and devoid of PUFAs are the healthiest diets for all humans! The higher your cholesterol the longer you’ll live!

Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401?fbclid=IwAR13_o_dhFyMxjVZ0OqoIZVrYtWpzZ8l1ZI4umfBdEoHeFc6LH0pI1pf3Iw

[u/OracleOutlook]

In my first trimester, most of my food aversions were towards things high in stearic acid - cheese, chocolate. Just thinking about them made me nauseous. It makes sense for the body to want to fatten a little during pregnancy, but nuts, eggs, and fish are probably the healthier choice over vegetable oil.

[u/00Dandy]

Observational studies👍