The debate over whether butter or olive oil is healthier has been reignited by a personal experiment that challenges long-held nutritional beliefs. For five weeks, journalist Jane Druker replaced olive oil with butter in her cooking, undergoing blood tests before and after the trial to assess the impact on her health.
The prevailing view for years has been that olive oil, rich in monounsaturated fats, is superior to butter, which is high in saturated fats. Saturated fats have been linked to increased "bad" cholesterol (LDL) and a higher risk of heart disease, while olive oil is associated with boosting "good" cholesterol (HDL) and promoting longevity, a key component of the Mediterranean diet.
However, a new perspective, amplified by social media influencers and even echoed by some public figures, suggests that oils can be harmful and that butter possesses health-boosting properties. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., US Secretary of Health, has publicly advocated for dietary recommendations that include more saturated fats like butter, stating, "Protein and healthy fats are essential and were wrongly discouraged in prior guidelines."
Druker, a 59-year-old woman with a family history of cardiovascular disease, felt compelled to investigate. Her initial blood test revealed a total cholesterol level of 6.5, which is considered concerning by the NHS. Despite her apprehension about increasing butter consumption, she proceeded with the experiment. She swapped her usual extra-virgin olive oil for butter, using it to sauté vegetables, coat pasta and stir-fries, and baste chicken.
After five weeks, Druker's follow-up blood test showed a slight increase in LDL cholesterol (from 3.77 to 3.89) and a decrease in HDL cholesterol (from 2.72 to 2.32). However, a doctor analyzing the results deemed these changes "not clinically significant." Her weight remained stable throughout the experiment.
This outcome aligns with research suggesting that concerns about butter's unhealthiness may be exaggerated. Professor Jules Griffin, a food researcher at the University of Aberdeen, states that while olive oil is generally better, "butter is not nearly as bad as many people make it out to be."
Butter contains palmitic acid, a saturated fat that can hinder the body's ability to clear LDL cholesterol, whereas monounsaturated fats in olive oil do not have this effect and may even raise HDL levels. However, experts note that studies linking high butter intake to premature death often involve extreme consumption levels. They emphasize that moderate amounts of saturated fats are necessary for energy and provide essential nutrients like vitamins A, B, and B12, as well as minerals such as zinc, iron, and iodine, which are crucial for thyroid function. Some research even suggests that insufficient saturated fat intake may be linked to negative health outcomes, including an increased risk of diabetes.
Professor Griffin points out that while online influencers have seized upon the benefits of saturated fats, they often overstate the case. "A diet that includes excessive amounts of butter will almost certainly increase the risk of heart disease," he cautions, "but people who have a relatively healthy, balanced diet have nothing to fear from eating butter."
Druker's personal experience has led her to reassess her view of butter, moving from seeing it as a "guilty treat" to recognizing its potential place in a balanced diet. She plans to incorporate moderate amounts of butter into her meals, acknowledging that while olive oil remains the healthier choice overall, the fear surrounding butter may be disproportionate.
The experiment also brought to mind her grandmother's diet from the 1970s, which consisted of fresh, unprocessed foods and included ample butter and cheese without any calorie counting or saturated fat concerns, yet she remained healthy into her 90s. This recollection further supports the idea that a balanced, less anxious approach to food, incorporating natural fats, may be more beneficial than strict dietary restrictions.