<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Brian Manning Delaney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:listsb@infinitefaculty.org" target="_blank">listsb@infinitefaculty.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
El 2015-08-27 a las 10:50, Jason Resch escribió:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Brian Manning Delaney<br></span>
<<a href="mailto:listsb@infinitefaculty.org" target="_blank">listsb@infinitefaculty.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:listsb@infinitefaculty.org" target="_blank">listsb@infinitefaculty.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm not saying dietary SFA is evil; rather: we don't know. If I had<br>
to guess I'd say one would be better off with complex carbs and lots<br>
of MUFA and some PUFA.<br>
<br>
Based on what evidence?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Well, the "we don't know" part is based, of course, on a LACK of evidence. If you're wondering about my guess, that's based on epidemiological studies (those of long-lived peoples, and those conduct on people around the Mediterranean -- very weak evidence in both cases, thus "guess").</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That study was terribly flawed. Their survey about what corsican's ate was taken during lent when they weren't eating meat. They also ignored the fact that Corsicans ate extremely low levels of grains in their diet. There were also very large biases between countries in the diagnosis of cause of death. This study took place between the 1950s and 1960s. Many hospitals at that time lacked the ability to diagnose heart disease as the cause of death.</div><div><br></div><div>Correlational studies are never evidence, at best they can only be used as a justification for funds for to run a controlled experiment. Here is my theory:</div><div><br></div><div>Ancel Keys's study looked at correlation between consumption of animal protein (as an aggregate in the country) and heart disease deaths. However consumption of animal protein is most correlated with wealth/levels of industrialization of the country. Had Key's choose to look at the correlation between ownership rates of cars, and heart disease, he would have seen a strong correlation. That would not have meant, however, that owning cars causes heart disease. Since wealth of a country is correlated with so many other things: consumption of fast food, stress, sedentary lifestyles, sugar consumption, meat consumption, smoking, etc., what is to blame? There's a hundred different possible causes, and no epidemiological study can pick out which.</div><div><br></div><div>This page elaborates on the issues with Ancel Key's study:</div><div><a href="http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/">http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/</a><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
(It's also likely that SFA is a problem only above a certain chain<br>
length.)<br>
<br>
Why do you think so?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Take a look at some of the work here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=dietary+saturated+fat+chain+length+cholesterol" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=dietary+saturated+fat+chain+length+cholesterol</a><br>
<br>
(use "Review" and "Human" filters).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see 14 articles using the review filter and those search terms. But none stood out as indicating long chain saturated fats were harmful. What was the particular study?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Although BELOW a certain chain length there could also be probs! --<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23616516" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23616516</a><br>
<br>
(Telemore length per se might not be as important as people think, though.)<div class=""><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Interesting. The other confounding factor is that any calorie taken from some source, means some other calorie not taken from another source. Since protein calories, on a percentage basis, represent a small fraction of total calories in the diet, it means that typically an extra calorie from a fat source means one less calorie from a carbohydrate source and vice-versa.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div></div></div></div>