Larrydip:
Some peoples who have very restricted diets are worthy of considering in an epidemiological context.
But it's just evidence, and it needs to be placed in a larger context. I've been reading the recipes
in my local newspaper. They have a food section each Wednesday, and it provides the nutritional
information. There are vegetarian recipes with feta cheese and pasta (obviously trying to play to
the "Mediterranean diet" crowd), there are fish, chicken, turkey, pork - you name - recipes. And
guess what? There is not much difference in the total fat or unsaturated to saturated fat ratios,
with few exceptions. So when people fill out a questionnaire, assuming they are being honest, and
also remembering correctly, exactly what does it matter. Unless you know exactly what they are
eating at each meal, there is no way to to know how to classify people according to fat consumption.
Add to this the fact that Mary Enig and others have taken foods to the labs and found that their
labels are often quite inaccurate, and it just shows how ridiculous it is to spend any money or time
on such endeavors. You have closed your mind however. I am writing this to those who have not -
perhaps a few will think it over, and realize that if saturated fatty acids were so bad, peoples on
the diets would be dropping dead like flies, whereas in fact it's the Greenland Eskimos who rarely
lived beyond age 40 on their high omega 3 PUFA diets.
And FYI (regarding your other moronic post), I do appreciate how much cholesterol exists in the
outer area of cells - that is why it is so important not to eat oxidized cholesterol, or to allow
the cholesterol to become oxidized by eating too much PUFAs or poor quality high -MUFA oils.