I am not particularly interested in a discussion of the virtues of saturated fat. It certainly seems like a bad example of scientists randomly making things up, though.
FWIW, here is a reasonably well-balanced analyisis of the 2010 study you mentioned:
“Study fails to link saturated fat, heart disease”
I was explaining a problem with studies like the one cited—in exploring the hypotheses that saturated fats are inferior to various other fats. Basically, they don’t bear on those hypotheses.
In this particular case, the authors pretty clearly stated that: “More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.”
I am not particularly interested in a discussion of the virtues of saturated fat. It certainly seems like a bad example of scientists randomly making things up, though.
FWIW, here is a reasonably well-balanced analyisis of the 2010 study you mentioned:
“Study fails to link saturated fat, heart disease”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61341020100204
If you look at guidance on saturated fat it often recommends replacing it with better fats—e.g.:
“You should replace foods high in saturated fats with foods high in monounsaturated and/or polyunsaturated fats.”
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3045790
Epidemiological studies no-doubt include many who substituted saturated fats with twinkies.
Where does the “guidance” come from? You can’t cite “guidance” as evidence against the proposition that dietary scientists were making stuff up.
I was explaining a problem with studies like the one cited—in exploring the hypotheses that saturated fats are inferior to various other fats. Basically, they don’t bear on those hypotheses.
In this particular case, the authors pretty clearly stated that: “More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.”