Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by KempyKolibri 595 days ago
Ok, I don’t share that heuristic personally. That said, if that’s yours, then I encourage you to compare Teicholz’s output with, say, Walter Willett’s (who would take the position that SFA is a risk factor for CVD).

Teicholz is considerably snarkier than Willett so, even by that metric, you should lean in favour of Willett’s position that SFA is unhealthy, I guess?
1 comments
norswap 593 days ago
A heuristic is a heuristic, and we can do some of our own research too. I was just defending the OP.

As for my personal position, I remember looking into things a while back and just coming away with the conclusion that nobody really seemed to know. If there's a truth here, it's either considerably more complex than "SFA good" / "SFA bad" (all these interacting pathways, man), or it just makes little enough difference not to matter at all in a way that we can meaningfully measure above the noise.

It seemed clear SFA are clearly not that deadly. Whether you'd be more healthy or live slightly longer if you chose to consume less of them, I have absolutely no clue.

link
KempyKolibri 593 days ago
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that replacing SFA with PUFA leads to a 20-30% reduction in cardiovascular disease incidence. Considering this is one of the top killers in the western world, this is massive.

I’m not sure how you’re determining that it’s otherwise?

link