Just a quick note on Ronald M. Krauss, which is mentioned in this article. He has been working for the National
Cattleman's Beef Association and the National Dairy Council since 1990, so his "research" is heavily biased towards his sponsors. https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/mar/140300.pdf
Okay, I suppose it is possible that Krauss does "research" as opposed to research. This is what the article says about it: "The [meta-]analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease."
So do you dispute this result? I was in fact under the impression that recent studies say saturated fat is not really bad, especially if it is not paired with highly processed carbs. Trans fats, OTOH, are extremely bad. Trans fats occur in small quantities in meat, FWIW.
Note that the Scientific American article cites several different studies and scientists, e.g. "Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health" (is Stampfer also in the pocket of the beef industry?):
> A 1997 study [Stampfer] co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluated 65,000 women and found that the quintile of women who ate the most easily digestible and readily absorbed carbohydrates—that is, those with the highest glycemic index—were 47 percent more likely to acquire type 2 diabetes than those in the quintile with the lowest average glycemic-index score. (The amount of fat the women ate did not affect diabetes risk.)
I suppose you could accuse McDougall of bias; after all he does run a business around his diet. I wouldn't go that far, though.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/161/7/672/70862
"The Nurses' Health Study was initiated in 1976 when 121,700 female registered nurses aged 30–55 years completed a mailed questionnaire about their lifestyle"
The same for the other paper done with the male population - mailed questionnaire.
The problem with both - these are population studies, you don't have a control group for correlation and people can report whatever they want.
> The health effects of specific types of fats depended on what people were replacing them with, the researchers found... people who replaced saturated fats with unsaturated fats—especially polyunsaturated fats—had significantly lower risk of death overall ... People who replaced saturated fats with carbohydrates had only slightly lower mortality risk. In addition, replacing total fat with carbohydrates was associated with modestly higher [my emphasis] mortality. This was not surprising, the authors said, because carbohydrates in the American diet tend to be primarily refined starch and sugar, which have a similar influence on mortality risk as saturated fats.
This analysis is also based on the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Apparently, Stampfer finds the Nurses’ Health Study credible enough to support his conclusions.
So do you dispute this result? I was in fact under the impression that recent studies say saturated fat is not really bad, especially if it is not paired with highly processed carbs. Trans fats, OTOH, are extremely bad. Trans fats occur in small quantities in meat, FWIW.
Note that the Scientific American article cites several different studies and scientists, e.g. "Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health" (is Stampfer also in the pocket of the beef industry?):
> A 1997 study [Stampfer] co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluated 65,000 women and found that the quintile of women who ate the most easily digestible and readily absorbed carbohydrates—that is, those with the highest glycemic index—were 47 percent more likely to acquire type 2 diabetes than those in the quintile with the lowest average glycemic-index score. (The amount of fat the women ate did not affect diabetes risk.)
I suppose you could accuse McDougall of bias; after all he does run a business around his diet. I wouldn't go that far, though.