Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot
Thanks for referencing this article, it's very interesting.
|
The article you refer to, The Science of Saturated Fat, is indeed interesting. But the all important question is: Does it really prove the point that it's trying to make?
They have to go all the way back to Ancel Keys in the 1950s to find a faulty study and then blame everything on that? Holy Cow!
To prove that a high fat diet isn't bad they point to the Masai Warriors in Kenya in the 1970s. The article says they ate meat, milk and blood. I saw the Masai Warriors in action on TV. They lived a very primitive lifestyle. They were thin and did lots of running etc. and the meat they ate was extremely lean NOT grain feed beef like we have here in the U.S. The article didn't mention anything about their lifespan. Why use them as an example with incomplete information? Did they die of cancer in their 50s?
India 1967 research: The article said 1 million railway workers ate 8 to 19% more fat than others but lived on average 12 years longer. 12 years longer than what? Under what conditions? Were the other railway workers (the control group) starving? Again, incomplete information, so it doesn't prove anything.
Inuits: The article said they ate seafood almost exclusively that was 70 to 80 percent fat. That's what we would call "good fat", not saturated fat. There was no mention of what their average lifespan was. Again, incomplete information. So what did it prove?
Then the article mentions The Lancet (1974). "Reducing fat in the diet might lead to an increase in carbohydrates." So reducing fat leads to eating more starchy carbohydrates? And that's seen as a reason to eat a high-fat diet?
This is what happens when people don't like healthful non-starchy vegetables. They have to eat high protein and/or high-fat to keep from filling up on starchy carbohydrates.