[bmcusick]

Sigh. I mean, they're right, but they're also still missing the concept of "What kind of fat?". Different kinds of fats effect you differently. This has been known for a long time.

One my favorite blog posts summarizing some research on this point, on Butter vs Margarine, is 8 years old now, and it still hasn't penetrated the mainstream.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/10/butter-vs-marg...

[swsieber]

Golden quote from the comments there:

Re: [comment] touting margarine as a healthier choice.

One thing I've learned is that looking at intermediary effects of food - for instance, lowering LDL cholesterol - is not a good indicator that something is good for you or prevents heart disease.

If you look only at intermediary effects, you might miss some other effects of the food/substance that are harmful. (Cancer lowers cholesterol, but no one advocates getting it.)

I feel like that touches upon one of the problems in diet studies pretty well.

[vanderZwan]

> It's worth mentioning that this study was conducted from the late 1960s until the late 1980s. Artificial trans fat labeling laws were still decades away in the U.S., and margarine contained more trans fat than it does today. Currently, margarine can contain up to 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving and still be labeled "0 g trans fat" in the U.S. The high trans fat content of the older margarines probably had something to do with the result of this study.

[xzel]

You sure thats not mainstream? NYC banned trans fats starting in July 2007. I learned about them in middle or high school 10-15 years ago.