If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Articles like this are I think an example of "two steps forward and one step back"
The first several lines of the article explain the scientific findings of an analysis study. I.E. Saturated fat is NOT causing heart disease.
The remaining 80% of the article goes on to explain why that doesn't matter at all and we should still follow a Mediterranean style diet with very little red meat and plenty of heart-healthy whole grains.
I think that these champions of the lipid hypothesis genuinely believe that if they just do one more study, they will find the smoking gun that proves saturated fat is responsible for heart disease.
It is like Taubes said in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and Tom Naughton reiterated in "Fat Head". Anything that supports the theory gets shouted from the rooftops. Anything that doesn't support the theory gets rationalized away.
The "french paradox" demonstrates this too. Why should a country that averages 3 times the saturated fat intake recommended by the AHA have such a low instance of heart disease? Well, we could espouse any number of silly and desperate rationalizations.....or it could be that saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease.
I also find it silly that no matter the evidence supporting the healthfulness of saturated fat, the simple fact that it raises "cholesterol" (as if cholesterol level was in itself a bad thing) will keep it demonized for at least another decade or more.