I believed "saturated fat" was "bad" for over a decade of my adult life. I didn't realize that the science behind this claim was worse than flawed. In fact, they had someone turned the scientific reality on it's head. How did it happen? Ancel Keys found that diets higher in SFAs raised total blood cholesterol levels. This is not entirely true, but most SFAs do raise TC a bit, depending upong your existing level (the body regulates this, except in those with liver metabolism and other rare conditions). Keys' conclusion, in his major publication, the book "Seven Countries," that the best cholesterol level for overall mortality was in the 200-220 range. You never hear this in the mainstream media, though they mention him quite a bit, yet there it is, in rich black and white, waiting for you to read it (I think it's on page 179, if I remember correctly). Since then, many researchers assumed that "saturated fat is bad because it causes heart attacks." Now it is known that this connection is TOTALLY wrong. Oxidized cholesterol is the only problem, as AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, recently announced. So as long as the cholesterol is not oxidized, you are better off having cholesterol levels around 210-220, and not under 200, as the "experts" now say. They should be telling you how to avoiid oxidized cholesterol, but they don't, which is why I've done so here. But there's more to it. Who decides what "saturated fat" is? There is no one agency or idividual who has the authority in this world to make such pronouncements. There is no nutritional Pope. Lard is classified by researchers as "saturated fat" even though it's less than 40% saturated. How can that be? Who decided that? How could this possibly be consistent with anything that could be called "science?" I have no idea. It doesn't make any sense, and so far, it's proven to be absolutely useless. Science that doesn't work is called pseudo-science, or just nonsense. And if "saturated fat" is so bad, why is it that the beef and pork eaters are indeed dropping dead of heart attacks, etc. at higher rates than most vegetarians, yet Asians who eat huge amounts of coconut oil, which is 92% saturated, have much lower rates of all "chronic diseases." You can go to the World Health Organization web site and see for yourself. As a trained, objective researcher, that's exactly what I did. Know what else I discovered? Many Mediterranean nations have higher rates of cancer than the USA, and heart disease rates that are similar. So much for the "Meditarranean diet." I contacted the authors of a study that claimed that animal fat is not associated with Alzheimer's diseases, but saturated fat is. Of course, "saturated fat" was never defined by these "scientists," but I wanted to know how they could come to such a strange-sounding conclusion, since the people in the study were not consuming coconut oil or palm kernel oil (which is about 85% saturated). I was told to submit my question and I would get an answer within about a week. I'm still waiting, more than a year later, even though I've contacted them and reminded them of my question. After more research, I figured out how they could make such claims. It works like this: they give the people a questionnaire, and from the responses, they try to determine how much "saturated fat" was eaten. They then feed that into a computer, and see that the more "saturated fat" that was eaten, the more likely the people would develop Alzheimer's disease. The problem is that they do not control for the other ingreients in the food eaten. It is now known that if you compare chicken to beef, for example, you will see that the beef (most common forms eaten in the USA) is higher in cholesterol, iron, arachidonic acid, and stearic acid. This is more than enough of an explanation as to why beef is less healthy than chicken, but there's also the social factor, meaning that those who are less likely to take care of themselves (such as getting enough sleep, drinking too much alcohol, etc., as well as just eating whatever they want, whenever they want it) are more likely to eat beef rather than chicken. And that's how it's done. That is the shell game that is going on that is designed to convince you that "saturated fat is bad." Until "saturated fat" is defined with any kind of precision, you can't say that it's bad or good, because right now it's just a phrase that means different things to different people, scientists as well as the "average person." And unless you then do an experiment that takes into account the other factors that could make "saturated fat" look like the culprit, you are not doing science. But this is the ediface upon which a mountain of lies has been created. All the evidence I have reviewed supports, directly or indirectly, Denham Harman's "free radical theory of aging," only now (30 years later) we have the experimental data to support this claim. Saturated fatty acids resist free radical degradation, whereas the more unsaturated the fatty acid, in general, the more susceptible to free radical degradation it is. What that means is that electrons are "stolen" from important molecules that your body needs to function. When this occurs beyond a critical threshold, you get "sick." For a more techincal discussion, see my post (coming soon) titled "The Scientific Foundation of Chronic Disease Has Been Found." Any questions, feel free to ask. Unlike the "experts" I am willing to examine evidence that appears to be to the contrary and to explain my position. I also explain, step by step, exactly what is going on in the body. I don't just cite a study, many of which are badly flawed or not on point, and act like something is "proven." Proof is a mathematical and logical concept. In science, there is only interpretation of evidence. The strongest kind is when you have conducted an experiment (using the scientific method, meaning that it's properly controlled) that can be, and is repeated over and over again, with the same result.