Butter is Dangerous, Eat this Instead? New Study on Butter 2025

Summary

Dr. Ken Berry critiques a recent study linking butter consumption to health risks like heart disease and cancer. He points out the study’s flaws, including its observational design, reliance on self-reported data, and failure to control for confounding factors. Dr. Berry argues that the study doesn't prove causation and highlights its weak statistical significance. He also discusses potential biases due to the researchers' affiliations and the outdated data used. Ultimately, Dr. Berry suggests that personal dietary experimentation, like keto or carnivore diets, is a more reliable approach than relying on such studies.

Takeaways

• 😀 The study claiming butter increases mortality and cancer risk is an observational study, which cannot prove causality.
• 😀 Self-reported data in food frequency questionnaires can be inaccurate, leading to recall bias in the study.
• 😀 The study did not account for confounding factors in a meaningful way, such as lifestyle habits and health-conscious biases.
• 😀 Healthy user bias exists because people avoiding butter often lead healthier lifestyles, skewing the results of the study.
• 😀 The study did not differentiate between different types of oils (e.g., soybean, canola, olive oil), lumping them all together as one category.
• 😀 There is no distinction made between cooking and uncooked oils, which is important as cooking oils can cause oxidation and inflammation.
• 😀 The study did not address the industrial processing of plant-based oils, which can produce pro-inflammatory compounds.
• 😀 Death certificates were used to classify the causes of death, which are often unreliable as doctors don’t always provide accurate data.
• 😀 The hazard ratios found in the study were small (1.15 for butter), suggesting a weak and potentially clinically insignificant association.
• 😀 The study’s results may not be applicable to diverse populations, as it was conducted predominantly on white healthcare professionals.
• 😀 Dr. Berry emphasizes that personal experimentation with diet (such as keto or carnivore) and tracking individual results is more valuable than relying on flawed observational studies.

Q & A

What is the main critique Dr. Ken Berry has of the recent study on butter consumption?

Dr. Ken Berry's main critique of the study is that it is an observational study, which cannot prove causation. He also points out various methodological flaws, such as reliance on self-reported data, confounding variables, and lack of differentiation between butter and other oils.

Why does Dr. Berry consider observational studies weak in establishing causal relationships?

Observational studies are weak because they only identify correlations, not causal links. Dr. Berry explains that these studies can’t account for all variables and biases, such as confounding factors, recall bias, and socioeconomic influences, making them unreliable for proving causation.

What is 'recall bias' and how does it impact the study's results?

Recall bias occurs when participants inaccurately remember or report their dietary habits, which is common in self-reported food frequency questionnaires. This leads to unreliable data, which Dr. Berry argues weakens the study’s findings.

What are confounding factors, and why are they an issue in this study?

Confounding factors are variables that influence both the independent variable (butter consumption) and the dependent variable (health outcomes). In this study, confounding factors like BMI, smoking, and socioeconomic status could skew the results, making it difficult to isolate the effects of butter consumption.

What is 'healthy user bias' and how does it affect the interpretation of this study?

Healthy user bias occurs when individuals who make healthier lifestyle choices, such as avoiding smoking or exercising, are more likely to avoid foods like butter. This bias can make it seem like butter consumption is linked to worse health outcomes, even though those who eat more butter may have other unhealthy behaviors.

Why does Dr. Berry find the study's death certificate data unreliable?

Dr. Berry argues that death certificates often rely on assumptions made by doctors who may not have all the information, such as the cause of death in cases without autopsies. He claims that this leads to unreliable data about cause of death, which undermines the study's findings.

What does Dr. Berry mean when he says the study doesn't offer a 'plausible mechanistic explanation'?

Dr. Berry means that the study fails to explain how butter could directly cause negative health outcomes, like cancer or heart disease. Since humans have been consuming butter for thousands of years without these issues, the study doesn’t provide a convincing biological or scientific explanation for why it would suddenly be harmful.

Why does Dr. Berry criticize the statistical methods used in the study?

Dr. Berry criticizes the study’s statistical methods because the hazard ratios are very small, indicating a weak association between butter consumption and health risks. He suggests that the small differences might not be clinically significant, meaning they likely don’t translate to real-world health impacts.

How does Dr. Berry address the study's applicability to different populations?

Dr. Berry notes that the study was conducted mostly on health professionals, which limits its applicability to other populations, such as lower-income or minority groups. He questions how relevant the findings are to people who may have different dietary habits and access to resources.

What does Dr. Berry suggest viewers do in response to this study on butter?

Dr. Berry suggests that viewers should not be swayed by the study and instead focus on personal experiences when choosing a diet. He encourages people to experiment with diets like keto or carnivore and track their own health improvements, as personal data is more valuable than the weak evidence from studies like this one.