The Truth about Saturated Fat, Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Total Mortality | Dr. Tom Brenna

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (0:00)
If you start substituting high Omega-6 oils for your dairy fat, that's when things really go off the rails. When you feed those oils to pregnant animals, you can look in the brains of the offspring, and they are screwed up.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (0:16)
I mean, I've never heard that as a technical term. So... Is it a mistake for pregnant women to avoid fish?

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (0:25)
Absolutely a mistake, no doubt. A hundred percent. People that eat the most fish in the world do not have kids who are mentally challenged. They just don't. I always invoke iodine deficiencies. You see nothing like that, but kids just get smarter.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (0:42)
Is pregnancy that one time to build the brain versus post-pregnancy into childhood?

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (0:48)
Breastfeeding is so important. Kids are getting Omega-3, they're getting DHA in breast milk. We are not just the heart. We have lots of other organs, the most important of which, in my opinion, is the brain.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (1:02)
Omega-3 fatty acids, DHA are necessary, amazing for brain development, important for pregnant women. Is there something else also on the horizon? You're thinking, this hasn't been developed enough, and it's going to come out.

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (1:17)
The story of precision nutrition is an under-told story. It is one that...

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (1:34)
Most people assume nutrition advice is cautious for a reason, that if something is warned against, it must be dangerous. But what if the opposite was true? What if one of the biggest nutrition warnings of the last few decades didn't protect people at all, but quietly removed something the developing brain depends on? For years, pregnant women were told to be careful with fish. Many, including myself, stopped eating it altogether. And almost no one asked what was being taken away. My guest today is Dr. Tom Brenna, a scientist who has spent decades studying brain fats, pregnancy nutrition, and the real population data behind national dietary guidelines. His work forces an uncomfortable conversation. How do well-intentioned warnings turn into long-term nutritional gaps?
What happens when fear drives policy instead of evidence? And how many people are living with the downstream effects without ever knowing why? This conversation isn't about food trends. It's about how guidance meant to keep people safe can quietly shape brain development, attention, and cognitive health for, you guessed it, an entire generation. Welcome to the show.

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (2:55)
Well, thank you, Gabrielle. Thanks for having me.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (2:58)
Like I said before, I'm a huge fan, which makes me a little nerdy, but I am a huge fan. And you and I met in DC at the HHS building where they were about to announce the new dietary guidelines.

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (3:14)
Right.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (3:14)
And there you were. And what was so interesting is each one of you, there's nine of you on this committee, each one of you had your own specialty, should I say.

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (3:25)
Yeah, that's right. We each worked on a rather narrow section of the, well, the concepts that were being considered.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (3:34)
And you worked on the 2015 So you're 2015 and these last 2020, I guess they would be considered 2026

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (3:43)
This is as well, yeah, it's 2025, 2030 I was also an advisor to 2010

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (3:48)
Okay.

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (3:48)
So you've got a lot of- I'm kind of a rut.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (3:52)
So you've been doing this for a long time.
And as one of the nine people there, there, I just want to get a sense of there's a lot of noise on the Internet about all of what transpired. And frankly, I just want to say one thing. I think you guys did a great job. I think that, and when I say you guys did a great job, I know that there is a different interpretation of the outcome of what you guys provided. But the questions that you asked and the answers provided, I think, were exceptional. And it is also available for people to read where you guys got your science and how that was all developed. Is that fair to say?

**Dr. Tom Brenna** (4:31)
That's right. Everything we did really is posted and publicly available. So if you really want to dig into it, it's all there.

**Dr. Gabrielle Lyon** (4:42)
Now, I want to read something that I was quite surprised to see.
One of the things that I've learned from you and others on the committee is that there is not necessarily a rhyme or reason in that every five years, there's no unifying process behind how the questions are asked and what is answered. And when we were at the HHS, it was very exciting. I got to hold a sign of a steak. They did pick that for me. And the American Society for Nutrition, which is one of the most well-respected societies, and it really focuses on excellence in nutrition research, published a commentary and the title is, and this is news from the American Society for Nutrition, which anyone can look up, which we'll link. RJ, we can link to the bottom. This is American Society for Nutrition calls for strong science in national nutrition guidance. And I want to read one more thing. And again, I was surprised at that statement. And then reading this says the following, the American Society for Nutrition supports, ASN supports the broad eating pattern in the newly released dietary guidelines for Americans, which are the DGAs, that emphasizes minimally processed nutrient dense foods and limits added sugar, sodium and saturated fat, which are linked to an improved long-term health outcomes. Dietary approaches that focus on whole foods and reduce reliance on highly processed foods and sugar sweetened beverages have demonstrated health benefits. That was a very nice statement. At the same time, ASN is concerned that departing from the established scientific review process undermines confidence in the DGAs and nutrition science, contributes to confusion and distrust, and obscures the opportunity for meaningful scientific discourse.