So, there seems to be a lot of conjecture online, whether evidence-based or not, that saturated fat should be consumed as part of every meal.
Conventional thinking seems to indicate that poly/mono unsaturated fats are beneficial and saturated fat should be eaten less and or in moderation.
But lately I’m hearing that ALL FAT is beneficial (everything in moderation) and any data saying otherwise is the result of the “evil” sugar industry demonizing fat in the 1950’s and 60’s to protect itself. Are the people who eat full fat dairy 3x a day, high sat. fat diets really less healthy?
We did a bunch of saturated fat feeding trials in the 60s and 70s to try to prove how bad saturated fat is and the trials generally failed. If saturated fat is truly bad, the effect is apparently so weak that we have to infer it from indirect evidence.
Guugle “studies Eskimo diets” or “studies Inuits diets” to learn how remarkable those diets are before they start eating Carb.
-
Now learn what happened when they start eating “carbohydrates and sugar”
-
>https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673
>Markedly increased intake of refined carbohydrates and sugar is associated with the rise of coronary heart disease and diabetes among the Alaskan Inuit
-
>The Alaskan Inuit also had a much milder form of atherosclerosis compared with that found in the Western world. Feldman et al2 noted, ‘These postmortem studies, however, also disclosed the fact that about 10% of the Eskimo population did have a significant degree of atherosclerosis.
-
Does this prove anything? Pre Zero Carb vs Post FULL Carb? You be the judge.
-
IMHO, it has nothing to do with “Saturated Fat vs Unsaturated Fat”, but everything to do with CARB.
-
Even worse, since modern day Carb all comes with Unsaturated Fat, by copying “Pro Unsaturated Fat” Groups’ Fake Science “Sat is Evil Scheme”, now we can point the finger at “Unsaturated Fat” ignoring Carb’s role totally.
-
BUT we are TRUE scientists, we can not do Fake Science “Consensus of Science” by collecting signatures.
-
-
Consensus of Science: Galileo(proves it, earth circles around sun) vs. the Catholic Church(Just Believe it, Opinion Based, sun circles around earth)
-
Consensus of Science: Politic/Religions biased Scientists “sign the signatures” vs “Prove it and repeat it”.
-
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6557026/
>Consensus in Science
>Consensus has no value in a scientific argument; only experimental evidence matters. As stated already by Galileo Galilei,5 “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Physician, producer, and writer Michael Crichton formulated:
>>[T]he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.6