I wrote up a post for another newsgroup about this article, copied and pasted below:
An article with this title appeared on the site: http://www.menshealth.com/
in the health section.
Here is a passage:
QUOTE: "The message isn't that you should gorge on butter, bacon, and
cheese," says Volek. "It's that there's no scientific reason that
natural foods containing saturated fat can't, or shouldn't, be part of
a healthy diet." UNQUOTE.
Relative to overall calories, there are probably only a few people in
the USA who eat more saturated fatty acids than I do each and every
day. However, I do not eat bacon, and I only eat butter and cheese if
they are not cooked (sometimes I use butter in sauces at low settings
on the stove top, but not very often). Eggs seem to be a bit more
resistant to high heat cooking, but I only eat lightly boiled eggs
(this is a cholesterol issue, not an SFA one, but it's often brought
up by the "experts" in this kind of discussion). And obviously,
almost all foods with a fat content have some SFAs, so this passage
needs clarification. I do consume some gelatin, which is derived from
animals but contains no fat (I do this not because I'm concerned with
"animal fat" - as I point out below, such phrases are misleading a
good deal of the time).
Apparently, the idea is that the nutritionists' classification scheme
of "saturated," "monounsaturated," and "polyunsaturated" fat sources
is accurate. The scientific reality is that it is a misleading and
purely semantic construct. The problem is that nutritionists have
created a "science" that is often not consistent with actual
scientific evidence. An obvious example is to talk about
"cholesterol," when they may be referring a substance that has all
kinds of other molecules that have been modified by free radicals (and
which can be very dangerous, unlike non-modified cholesterol). They
often say "saturated fat" when referring to lard in an experimental
context, but lard is about 40% SFAs, and of course it makes much more
sense to refer to it as a "mixed fat," though this still does not
address the point that all molecules have to be accounted for if the
scientific method is to be followed. Obviously, few people eat diets
that are so specific, and thus this line of thinking can lead to all
kinds of claims that are unfounded. Lard contains cholesterol, which
may or may not be oxidized, for example. Coconut oil is about 92%
SFAs, but it contains larger amounts of shorter chain SFAs, which are
easier for the body to use (and so extracts of coconut oil are used
for people who have people with dietary fats). Some fat sources are
rich in powerful antioxidants (keeping free radical activity down),
whereas others have none (like lard). Again, all these factors need
to be taken into account before a scientific claim similar to the
usual ones made by nutritionists is made.
Is there an alternative that can lead to practical solutions?
Fortunately, yes. It involves understanding biochemistry, and
abandoning the nutritional dogma (so as to conduct an investigation
without bias). If you listen to nutritionists, you probably think
there is very little biochemistry evidence, yet what I found is that
there is so much (and it is so good, in general) that there is really
no need for qualified statements such as the one I quoted. The
evidence is strong enough now for an overall framework to be
constructed (and which allows one to formulate a practical, tasty,
inexpensive, healthy, and satisfying diet), without worrying about the
nutritionists' classification schemes (and also the failure of some of
them to act like the scholars they present themselves as). If you
want to know what this new framework is like, you can visit my free
web site:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-
Don't expect to understand everything within a few minutes. Take some
time, and read the essays that you find most interesting first. Don't
worry about the technicalities in the evidence I quote - you can
always ask questions in the two newsgroup forums on the site. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
