MangoMan wrote:
There is so much conflicting information on this topic, both here and elsewhere, it is very difficult to decide what to believe.
You have to follow the money trail so you can see who is funding the propaganda mouthpieces. A poignant example would be Coke, Pepsi, GM, Kraft, etc. funding the American Dietectic Association (oh I'm sorry these jokers now think they're nutrition experts so they've renamed themselves to the "Academy of Nutrition and Dietectics" and are actively trying to pass nutritionist licensing laws favorable only themselves). There is no objectivity in America -- everyone is a crony capitalist to one degree or another. Even me, although I have no financial interests in Big Farma, Big Pharma, junk food, dietary supplements or the sickcare system so I'm very relatively objective. And I care about my health as a #1 priority, not making a profit for myself, my family, my company, my cronies, my alumni network, my community or suppporting all the fragile, tenuous egos involved in public policy bureaucracy (I'm sure WiseOne can relate to that one!).
I've never said that saturated fats are pro-healthy. My anecdotal experience indicates otherwise. But not being heathly is not the same thing as being unhealthy or dangerous. The body is far more complex and context dependent than a simple universal "eat x and get y disease" shtick. The dietary saturated fat/cholesterol lipid hypothesis has no evidence that stands up to objective scrutiny**. Study the history of Ancel Keys and all the pieces will fall into place.
** Propaganda mouthpieces, undergraduates, journalists, publish or perish non-tenured academics doing meta-analysis of previously flawed studies and conflict-of-interest studies all declaring that "x causes y disease" are simply not credible. Unfortunately, the vast majority of published "scientific evidence" is now of this type. The real problem is a dearth of critical thinking skills, lazyness and a lack of time.
