I'm not going to bother with reading this one because there is so much evidence out there that saturated fat consumption is not an antagonist in heart disease.
Like this http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_94941.html
Or actual empirical evidence that saturated fat improves a blood lipid profile. Or how about all of the examples of populations with higher saturated fat consumption having low instance of heart disease like France.
So I want to know why we are focusing on how much more/less saturated fat contributes to heart disease than polyunsaturated fats when saturated fat does not contribute to heart disease. I wonder what the cancer and CRP stats were on the polyunsaturated group. Gary Taubes in an interview said something about dozens of saturated fat vs polyunsaturated studies and in many there was no difference, many saturated fat was protective and many polyunsaturated was protective but caused more cancer. How about instead of picking and choosing random population statistic studies we evaluate the empirical evidence behind the effects of fats on known risk factors.
Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.
Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!