saturated fat causes body: Interesting... - Healthy Evidence

Healthy Evidence

3,059 members437 posts

saturated fat causes body

madmadmadmadworld profile image

Interesting double-blind findings that could find no direct cause between saturate fats and heart disease. But the statement made in conclusion was indeed puzzling. It stated, or words similar, that it might still be worth avoiding saturated fat has consuming it might make you fat and that could lead to heart disease.

Can anyone explain please how a molecule of fat in food could transpose itself into a molecule of body fat. It could never happen in my biology book. Maybe, someone might have another book where this does?

Written by
madmadmadmadworld profile image
madmadmadmadworld
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
2 Replies
Trekkiemaiden profile image
Trekkiemaiden

This article came as a link in my inbox this morning! I trust Mercola's viewpoints and information (not his sales pitches tho - ignore them!)

articles.mercola.com/sites/...

The tide is turning - at last!

ChrisPrice profile image
ChrisPrice

These concluding statements are standard in clinical studies - they commonly state something like "but we don't really know if this is correct" or some variation, or " more research is needed".

The first example is often used when the research contradicts the received wisdom, i.e. it shows the established view is wrong. Of course, the 'established' view is often just the public face of the issue; among colleagues, a different view may well be prevalent. It is generally convenient to leave the public perception in place for a while after it has been destroyed within the profession in order to allow for prior positions and previously published statements (that will appear wrong, or even ridiculous) to disappear gradually from view. When it is convenient for all to acknowledge the facts (it generally takes about twenty years), then the profession moves over to the new opinion seamlessly and appears to have always been right.

There are some hilarious examples of this, starting from the 1850's when the medical profession believed disease was caused by miasma (foul air) and were forced to accept other causes including bacteria by , among other things, John Snow's actions against cholera. The Lancet engaged in vicious and hysterical attacks on Snow for daring to suggest that miasma did not cause disease (it's still a comic today).

Currently the same thing is happening with nicotine. Actually you can guess the year, close enough, by the U-turn the medical establishment is making at the time. Gaining knowledge is, apparently, a painful process.

You may also like...

What's the truth about fats? Daily Mail article 23/09/14

65715/How-butter-cheese-slim-ward-diabetes-Saturated-fat-long-demonised-doctors-evidence-suggests-he

If sugar is bad for you, Is there any evidence to suggest low fat milk is healthier than full fat?

lactose we consume, is there evidence to suggest low fat milk is healthier than full fat?

Study finds no evidence that Gardasil vaccine caused health problems

Are carbs \"destroying your brain\"?

ece In his new book, neurologist David Perlmutter claims that the origin of brain disease such as...

Sugar tax - a good idea or nanny state nonsense

I do find it disturbing that, if reports are right, David Cameron has dismissed the findings of the