Posted on 09/13/2019 8:13:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Newly unearthed data from four decades ago contradicted gospel that animal fats are worse than vegetable fats — and was ignored. All those climate alarmists who proclaim that they "believe in science" fail to understand that science is created by flawed human beings who are susceptible to ignoring findings that don't confirm their hypotheses. Or generate future grants for more research in the field.
Today, the "settled science" of nutrition as it stood decades ago is being questioned, in part because Americans have become obese after decades of following federal guidelines that turn out to be poppycock.
In The Scientific American, which is all in on global warming as settled science, renowned science writer Sharon Begley chronicles the rediscovery "in a dusty basement" of a rigorous study from 40 years ago that contradicted the dietary wisdom of the day.
[Christopher] Ramsden, of the National Institutes of Health, unearthed raw data from a 40-year-old study, which challenges the dogma that eating vegetable fats instead of animal fats is good for the heart. The study, the largest gold-standard experiment testing that idea, found the opposite, Ramsden and his colleagues reported on Tuesday in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).
Despite the quality of the data and study, it went almost completely unnoticed:
The Nixon-era experiment had produced only a single journal paper, in 1989, which concluded that replacing saturated fats found in meat and dairy products with vegetable oils did not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease or death. But it had few quantitative data and little statistical analysis, and was silent on many of the questions the researchers told NIH, which funded it, they intended to answer.
Ramsden wondered if there was more data from the study somewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Back in the 50s, french fries tasted a lot better than now.
They were fried in lard.
Now they use vegetable oil because it’s much “healthier”.
Gary Taubes, in “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” nailed this several years ago.
Grass Fed beef had a different Omega-3 to Omega-6 profile.
Go into the grocery store, and if the fat on the beef steak is hard and white as paper, that is grain fed and the fats are not good for you. If the fat is semi-cloudy white and softer to the touch, it’s grass fed, and the O3 to O6 ratio reflects it.
The studies about beef being bad - are done with the “hard fat” variety. Grass fed beef is as healthy or healthier than the fat in avacados.
Thanks, I didn’t know that.
OMG - next theyre gonna tell me to stop eating high fructose corn syrup ...
Isolating a variable does not always produce valuable information, and it can promote misleading studies.
What are animal fats? From which animal? Was it grass fed or not?
What are vegetable fats? From which plant? Was it whole and fresh, with its natural antioxiadants, or was it denuded, and rancid? Was it rich in Essential Fatty Acids or not?
this also helps to spot when somebody labels something grass-fed when it’s not. If the fat is hard, and white - nope, it’s not grass fed.
I am the 6th generation of cattle ranchers - I left the ranch and went to university and am a Computer Science guy. But I know more about beef than most folks.
Also, the beef you buy in the grocery store (or even the expensive steakhouse) is CRAP. You want at young heifer of about 1600-1700 lbs grass fed and take her to the slaughter house, and get it cut and wrapped to your specs.....The mass market (where the grocery store and the steakhouse buy their beef) is trying to get he max LBS per head - so it’s not a tender!!!!!
The way to a healthy heart is to run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.