Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo
|
I just spent the past two and half hour reading that article, the comments, and most of the links posted by users. I also spent a while researching myself.
The article itself was rubbish, as far as I'm concerned, for a few reasons:
1) It contained zero scientific references.
2) It was a quote taken out of context from a book, and even the book author noted this in his comments. As such, the contents of the article are way out of touch with reality. For one, the human body manufacturers it's own saturated fats, so dietary intake is not really "needed" for proper bodily functions even if it may be beneficial. Secondly, it neglects to show any negative benefits associated with ridiculously high fat/red meat diets. In this sense it's not a reasoned approach at all, and it really has very little merit from a health standpoint. Chemotherapy has shown to help people lose weight, reduce cholesterol, lower triglyceride levels, and improve blood sugar. When you look at it in context, however, it's a ridiculous treatment for these conditions. Same goes for a diet that proposes an all-meat diet: it's just a ludicrous marketing ploy to make you read and buy the book. I'm not saying he's wrong in everything he says, but using that argument to support an all-meat diet is retarded.
3) As I mentioned above, the article you linked was an advertisement for said book (note the affiliate link). The book itself is an Atkins-style fad diet book that promises huge weight loss in 6 weeks. It has the usual sensationalist title and promises huge changes in your life. I'm not really going to get into the debate on the Atkins diet itself; it has many critics and many followers. There's definitely merit to the concept but there's also a massive pool of research that questions it's ability to succeed long-term (not to mention the related health affects).
HOWEVER... that being said, article aside, there's some interesting links in the comments. I read a lot of different opinions on the subject of saturated fat, and it's clear that there is evidence to support both arguments.
That being said, I'm certainly not going to go as far as to admit I'm wrong. The science on both sides is neither convincing nor conclusive. But I could not find a single respected organization or research institution that did not suggest limiting intake of saturated fats.
I did find, however, a variety of those who posted specific recommendations on limiting saturated fats: the University of Oregon, Cornell University, the World Health Organization, the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, University of New Hampshire, Ohio State University, University of Michigan, University of California, the American Heart Organization, the American Diabetes Association, Penn State University, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, the National Health Organization, the University of Wisconsin, the American Association of Kidney Patients, Health Canada, the European Food Control Information Council, the American College of Nutrition, the University of Winnipeg, Stanford University, etc.
Because all of these organizations represent the brightest and most dedicated nutrition researchers and scholars, it seems outrageous to throw all of their advice out the window. They have analyzed the research and concluded that it is most prudent to advise that people moderate their intake of saturated fats.
Unless you want to argue that they're ALL wrong, that mainstream science is completely out to lunch, and that you're smarter and more able to analyze what research is quality and what is not... then there is absolutely no reason not to follow their advice for the time being.
In summary, my point is this: it's a two-sided debate, but the most reputable research organizations continue to argue in favour of limiting saturated fat intake. Disagreeing with their combined intelligence and analytical abilities seems illogical and unwise even if there are a few vocal critics.