Cookaholics Bulletin Board

Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Kathy's Pete [ Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Cheeseburger lovers rejoice! ... ease-link/

"...a large and exhaustive new analysis by a team of international scientists found no evidence that eating saturated fat increased heart attacks and other cardiac events."

Author:  phoenix [ Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!

woo hoo! Bring on the butter, cream, bacon (hear that Darcie?) and lard!

Author:  Darcie [ Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!

Sorry, I've been too busy stuffing my face with meat to respond... :)

Author:  Kathy's Pete [ Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!

Bittman weighs in.

Butter is back

Author:  TheFuzzy [ Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!


Sadly, yet another case of media hyperbole, per the other thread: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3668

That being said, we're having a "saturated fat day" tommorrow: sausages, tater tots, mac & cheese, and ice cream cake! (it's my sweetie's 40th)

Author:  Kathy's Pete [ Fri Mar 28, 2014 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!

So you embrace the studies that say the "good" stuff (Kale, Omega 3) isn't really good for you but you have only skepticism for the (meta-) studies that say the "bad" stuff (bacon) isn't really bad for you?

Author:  TheFuzzy [ Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Cheeseburger lovers rejoice!


No, I check the actual study abstract as opposed to the news reporting on it, and consider it in the context of other studies which have been published.

The saturated fat study wasn't a study, it was a survey of studies. And it didn't say that saturated fat wasn't bad for you; it said that the results of the last 20 years of studies were inconsistent, both on the issue of the heart harm caused by saturated fats, and on the supposed heart benefits of polyunsaturated fats. Note that the survey did show that there was, in fact, some correlation between saturated fat consumption and cardiac mortality, but the correlation was less than expected and had a high degree of variance between the various studies. What that usually means is that there is some other factor not considered in the studies surveyed and we need to go back to the drawing board. There's been some recent research into oxidation of fats and specific molecules contained in some animal fats which looks promising.

What the survey authors were mainly challenging was the recommendations of the American Heart Association, which gives very specific gram recommendations for consumption of various kinds of fats, and I think the survey did a pretty good job of demolishing that as pure supposition.

To make things worse, the first folks to press with the results of this survey were Atkins fanatics, so they added their own spin. For example, one doctor who was not part of the survey claiming that the survey showed a correlation between carbohydrate consumption and heart disease, which wasn't something the survey even looked at. Sadly, other press outlets picked up this first report, completely muddying which things were the results of the survey and which things were people's commentary on it.

I get worked up about this because I constantly see the degree to which people's dietary choices are based on a USAToday knowledge of health research, or worse on the pronouncements of cult leaders. I have a regular dinner guest who gets all of her health news over Twitter, and is thus convinced of all kinds of faddish things about what she should eat, and I don't think she's that unusual.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group