Larry, Larry, Larry...
How many times do I have to tell you? These are epidemiological studies, meaning statistical. That
means if they don't get their facts straight to begin with, the study is often worthless. These
people think "saturated fat" is lard, for example, when lard, even according to the USDA database,
is less than 40% SFAs. And you should know that SFAs don't get metabolized like unsaturated fatty
acids, so they have little biochemical activity in comparison. It would be an Alice in Wonderland
world if SFAs did what some of these idiots are claiming - they just don't know their science. And
it's basic, textbook stuff. SFAs have different physiological effects even amongst themselves,
though this is minimal compared to the what PUFAs do, and diets are complex. Only a very controlled
experiment, perhaps on monkeys, would provide some sort of reasonable epidemiological study, though
if the biochemistry is well known, as it is (do your own www.pubmed.com search), I don't see the
point. Would you like me to post this same point every time another one of these moronic studies get
published? What is the point? Go eat your PUFAs Larry, eat plenty of them. You are one person I
recommend consuming a large bottle of flax or fish oil each day.
LH posted:
" "mfg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:On October 4 the British Medical Journal published a study of diet and stroke by Walter Willett's
group on Harvard. Their conclusion was that saturated and polyunsaturated fats are not associated
with the risk of getting a stroke.
And nickwit has not a word to say on this?
Pity.
Lar"