Start the new year out right! Don't fear the tasty fatty meaty goodness!

I would need more information than that; it barely skims over the topic. I'm eating or avoiding specific types of fat according to my doctor's orders. Olive oil yes, crisco no. My liver cranks out crazy amounts of cholesterol, so I'm on a statin. I eat eggs. I never did believe the BS about eggs being bad.

People are always looking for the easy, all-or-nothing solution when it's more complicated than that. Yes, recent research indicates that obesity and metabolic syndrome are probably more linked to over-consumption of carbohydrates than over-consumption of fats but that doesn't mean that now one can eat all the fat one wishes and be healthy.

Here's a good analysis: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/

rprussell2004 wrote: »

HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »

People are always looking for the easy, all-or-nothing solution when it's more complicated than that. Yes, recent research indicates that obesity and metabolic syndrome are probably more linked to over-consumption of carbohydrates than over-consumption of fats but that doesn't mean that now one can eat all the fat one wishes and be healthy.

Here's a good analysis: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/

That's a great article, thanks. I wonder when it was published - it doesn't talk about the different sizes of LDL particles, for example.

What frustrates me, though (and your reply falls into this category, alas) is the misinterpretation that "fats aren't bad for you as previously thought" means "eat all you want!" Who said anything about overconsumption?

It's at least a year or so old, I know that. Beyond that, I'm not sure, though.

The saturated fat section of that article bugs me, though. It massively downplays the conclusions from the meta-analysis, despite the fact that the combination of the studies results in one of the largest subject pools in nutrition science. If you can't be convinced by consistent results from studying the equivalent of 10% of the US population, then you probably won't be convinced by any amount of evidence.

I looked at it a while back in more detail, and as I recall, too, they used a lot of studies with a couple fatal flaws -- namely, combining saturated fat and trans fat vs unsaturated fats (then concluding that saturated fats are a problem), and/or lumping all kinds of meat together and treating them as equal, despite the fact that processed meats are known to have additives that can affect the outcome of the studies (there is a world of difference between a Vienna sausage and a fresh cut of steak from a pastured cow). Even the article itself states that most of the US's saturated fat intake "comes from cheese and pizza." Given that pizza is a combination food that can have any amount of ingredients that can add any kinds of fats, including trans fats, that's comparing apples and oranges, at best.

Then, there's the fact that polyunsaturated fats are heat-sensitive and easily oxidize when exposed to heat, yet the article recommends them as a replacement in cooking. If you want to insist on using unsaturated fats for cooking, then you're better off with monousaturated-dominant fat sources.

It also ignores the fact that while saturated fat raises LDL as measured by the standard test, it does so by converting the existing particles to "large, fluffy" ones, which are harmless. This has been verified by numerous accounts where LDL-P is measured in addition to "total" LDL.

The general tone of it still very much strikes me as sort of acknowledging that fats are necessary, but still trying to stay on the status quo side of the AHA/USDA ruling, especially regarding saturated fat, despite the lack of evidence for the current status quo. As a result, the article spends more time criticizing the wording of newpaper headlines than it does actually addressing the role of saturated fats in the diet.

So far, so Keto.
Which is great, I love butter, eggs, meat and cheese.

I could easily inhale lots of refined carbs (such as sweets, chocolates, bread and cake) until the packet is empty and go looking for more, but there are only so much steak, eggs or butter I wanna eat!

This would be the same Economist that was convinced oil prices would never again get above $40...?

I feel much better when I don't eat red meat or ice cream or butter. Im not missing out so I'll stick with foods that make me feel good.