Pass the butter, Baby!

walker1world

As every one in the Low-carb Keto world knows we were mislead to believe that saturated fat was bad. In this article by time magazine it apears that the general science now supports what we have long known to be true.
http://time.com/4386248/fat-butter-nutrition-health/

JeromeBarry1

The article says that low-fat turkey meat is worse for one than butter. Huh? How's that happen?

MelaniaTrump

The article means PROCESSED turkey meat:
“Processed meats may have different effects on stroke and heart disease, not because of the saturated fat, but because of sodium and the preservatives,”

"Research is mounting that saturated fat is better for you than processed carbohydrates like sugar and white bread"
Well, duh..

cee134

I wouldn't change my beliefs on one article.

However, one problem with saturated fat is it is found in high calorie low nutrient food. So if you want to maintain/lose weight, you won't get the nutrients your body needs if you eat a diet high in saturated fat.

Plus there is an "easy" way to see if this works for you. Get a blood test yearly and see how your body is affected by your diet. If your blood presser/ triglycerides/ sugar / cholesterol / and other markers are all good, go for it.

walker1world

cee134 wrote: »

I wouldn't change my beliefs on one article.

However, one problem with saturated fat is it is found in high calorie low nutrient food. So if you want to maintain/lose weight, you won't get the nutrients your body needs if you eat a diet high in saturated fat.

Plus there is an "easy" way to see if this works for you. Get a blood test yearly and see how your body is affected by your diet. If your blood presser/ triglycerides/ sugar / cholesterol / and other markers are all good, go for it.

I like the way you wrote your note.

I agree that weight loss should not be the only marker to weight loss. You should also include the health markers noted. I do note that doors trained in medical school before 2010 my need a refresher on cholesterol. What they are etching today dosent emphasize on the total number but the composition. There are alot of doctor putting people on statins when it isn't necessarily going to benefit them.

I do bring issue with the assertion that this is one article, this is one in a series of drip articles that are walking back the low fat mantra. The science in the 70's was never conclusive and they spread it like the gospel. Now they are realizing they hurt more people then they helped and they are trying to walk it back with out taking ownership in thier role in misleading people.

This year's edition of government health guide lines is another example of this. The took the restrictions off cholesterol and eggs, and but some on sugar. Thry know what since is now saying but know they csnt say they made a mistake and change it in one report. In 5 years they will go further to lift the curtain.

lemurcat12

The advice hasn't changed that much. The restriction on total fat (vs. warnings to moderate sat fat) is gone, and of course replacing sat fat with refined carbs isn't what was recommended. Suggesting that it's all "the government" is wrong too. Here's one example of the current advice:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/

Sloth2016

lemurcat12 wrote: »

The advice hasn't changed that much. The restriction on total fat (vs. warnings to moderate sat fat) is gone, and of course replacing sat fat with refined carbs isn't what was recommended. Suggesting that it's all "the government" is wrong too. Here's one example of the current advice:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/

Thank you for posting this!
(and I'll still pass on the butter)

MelaniaTrump

"Research is mounting that saturated fat is better for you than processed carbohydrates like sugar and white bread"
^^^ Strong point.
I guess eating whole foods is not part of the picture.