Saturated Fat Myths

[raw-al]

Saturated fats have been dissed by very bad science and politics
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm

This could also have been called "How Big Pharma Makes A Living By Marketting"

Funnily enough, the new hypothesis says that cholesterol is not the villain but the repair team at the scene of the crime, just like AV said about bacteria being the mop up crew at the scene of a disease.

[Dr. D]

This is great and a start. But they (the article) nails it perfectly within itself. As long as the media pushes low-fat, it'll stay that way. As long as advertising companies can hold that seal of government approval, by gosh by golly we've got ourselves "heart healthy grains in a low-fat diet!"

Dr. Oz needs to get off his ass about fats and relearn some of his shit. I've heard him be so damn hypocritical and people (women especially, sorry ladies, your gender does) latch onto him like he's Moses. They take every supplement and do every little thing he says. Even to the point of having things working against themselves. Al, you're into Ayurveda, I don't know if you've seen Dr. Oz, but I've seen him talk about herb/supplements from Ayurveda that are not really accurate. I don't remember what he said but I just remember sitting there with my mouth open thinking "he's clueless."

One more thought. This whole message is most likely concerning cooked fats. If they can prove that cooked fats such as these aren't even the culprit then we are even on to something. Raw fats are in a world of their own. I know when I was eating a cooked fat heavy diet I enjoyed it and got great energy, but I did always get a crash for about 45 min after eating until it digested. Cooked fat is hard to digest. Raw fats; I can eat my meals and keep going, feeling great the whole way.

[ys]

Here is another one

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/does-butter-still-deserve-a-bad-rap--controversial-doc-says-no-002203701.html

[TylerDurden]

This should go into the Hot Topics forum. The amount of scientific evidence against cooked saturated fats is so large that attempts to deny it are ridiculous, imo.

[raw-al]

This should go into the Hot Topics forum. The amount of scientific evidence against cooked saturated fats is so large that attempts to deny it are ridiculous, imo.

No argument from me on moving it, but I do believe that most science is based on cooked foods. You'll find precious little on raw foods.

Did you actually watch the initial vid?

[TylerDurden]

No argument from me on moving it, but I do believe that most science is based on cooked foods. You'll find precious little on raw foods.

Did you actually watch the initial vid?

I am not going to waste half an hour watching a vid concerning dud claims made years ago already by Taubes and Eades.  At any rate, there are  tons of scientific data proving the harm done by cooked saturated fats. Eades and co are NOT talking about raw saturated fats but the cooked fats.

[raw-al]

Tyler, as I mentioned, can't argue about the cooked part, but re: the speakers, they are not fools. I know Stephen Sinatra is a well respected cardiologist and I believe the others are the same. The interviewer is also a Doctor. Not that I am in love with Allopaths, but you have to give the 'devil their due' LOL

The thing is that  PPL are not likely to accept the raw food thing. That's my experience generally, however getting them to understand that eating foods coming out of a box (grains generally) and produced in a factory (margarine) is  very poor choice contrary to the government propaganda machine is a no-brainer.

Then once you have ppl realizing this shift in thinking, then it is an easier leap into a raw diet. The ones who are not interested in that initial jump are probably not going to make the raw jump.

BTW it is not really apropos to dismiss something you did not even bother to read/watch. That's one of the reasons why regular folks don't try raw.

[TylerDurden]

The thing is that  PPL are not likely to accept the raw food thing. That's my experience generally, however getting them to understand that eating foods coming out of a box (grains generally) and produced in a factory (margarine) is  very poor choice contrary to the government propaganda machine is a no-brainer.

Then once you have ppl realizing this shift in thinking, then it is an easier leap into a raw diet. The ones who are not interested in that initial jump are probably not going to make the raw jump.

BTW it is not really apropos to dismiss something you did not even bother to read/watch. That's one of the reasons why regular folks don't try raw.

The trouble is that the pro-saturated fat  "experts" often recommend highly artificial foods. Ray Peat is a typical  example.  And highly processed foods rich in saturated fats are actually worse than just standard processed foods. It seems that heating animal fats causes the highest burden of toxins in the form of AGEs etc.
Plus, it is perfectly natural for me to dismiss something that has no value. I have already read  many previous comments by Eades and Taubes et al on the subject of saturated fats, all of which turned out to be bogus. We live in a time-poor environment where we naturally demand decent proof, not meandering rubbish lasting half an hour.

[raw-al]

You posted as I was about to.

I did not notice them mentioning anything about highly artificial foods, indeed the opposite if anything.

They mention that inflammation is the problem, not the cholesterol. My guess is that cooking fats makes it more likely to increase inflammation, as well as other factors like not grounding ourselves by walking on shoes and insulating ourselves in other ways unlike our ancestors did.

Once again I must say that commenting on something you didn't bother to read/listen to is bogus. If you are that time stressed then don't comment.

[raw-al]

I didn't notice any mention of "highly artificial foods", indeed they mention that these are the culprits and they give examples of how politics and money has influenced the "heart industry" to suggest a very poor diet to combat heart diseases.

They mention that inflammation is the problem, not the cholesterol. My guess is that cooking fats makes it more likely to increase inflammation, as well as other factors like not grounding ourselves by walking on shoes and insulating ourselves in other ways unlike our ancestors did.

If time is really an issue, then it makes sense to avoid taking the time to dis something you haven't bother to look at.

[TylerDurden]

I have already read up on the bogus claims of saturated fat "experts" so I have a right to comment. The blurb at the bottom made it clear that they were simply recycling dud ideas from the likes of taubes et al, not providing anything really new. Taubes has already been discredited and Ray  Peat is a joke.