I just plowed through this long and inconclusive piece in the journal
Science. This journal is widely read and quoted, so this is a big deal.
Basically the piece says that the link between dietary fat consumption and
heart disease is not proven despite all the rhetoric.

However, in spite of trotting out a lot of evidence to the contrary, the
author, one Gary Taubes, lamely concludes by simply stating that the latest
guidelines still recommend limiting saturated fat intake "even if it does
nothing to extend the lives of healthy individuals" because it "might delay
tens of thousands of deaths each year" (my emphasis), and that limiting total
fat consumption is "simple and easy to understand," and it "may limit total
calorie intake," (this last in spite of speculating that a reduction in fat
intake may result in an increase in carbo consumption!)

The article does bring out a couple of interesting points. Apparently the
countries of southern Europe, which would be Greece, Italy, Spain and
Portugal, are showing a decrease in heart disease rates with an increase in
meat consumption. Ha..and this is regarded as a mysterious puzzle.

Also countries with the same meat consumption show different heart attack
rates. The tentative conclusion drawn from these apparent "paradoxes" (of
course they're not paradoxes), is that it is the different consumption of
fresh vegetables that is the reason. As usual, the author fails to point out
the obvious, even though he mentions it elsewhere in the article, and that is
the role of carbohydrates.

Obviously what is happening with the southern European nations is that as
they become more affluent, they consume more meat, but they consume less
carbohydrate. Such as pasta, for example.  This is a peasant dish from the
south -- as you get richer, you will eat less of it. Pasta is used as a side
in Italy, and you probably won't even find it in restaurants in Milan.

What they are not doing is loading up with sugared soft drinks, take out
pizzas, super size french fries, donuts, grande latte frappachinos, etc.,
(did you know that the ratio of milk drinks (that is lattes, mochas, etc.) to
straight coffee in Starbucks in the US is nine to one, whereas in Italy,
where the concept originated, the ratio is reversed? Now is it clear why the
US heart attack rate is so high?).

He also mentions the Scots and the Finns, who both have very high heart
attack rates, and quotes speculation that it is the lack of fresh vegetables
that is the cause, again failing to investigate the role of carbohydrate.
Anybody who knows the Scots can tell you why their rate is so high -- where
were fish 'n chips invented? Mountains of fried potatoes ("chips"), fish
fried in batter, pappy white bread, tons of sugar in the tea, candy bars, and
probably now large amounts of soft drinks, pizza, fast food etc.  The "worst
diet in the developed world,"- probably true.

As for the Finns - this is a bit odd. I think Atkins mentions this - I think
they consume a lot of milk (reindeer milk, perhaps?). It must be some
carbohydrate source.

He also analyses a porterhouse steak, and comes to the not very surprising
conclusion (to us, at any rate), that it "suggests that eating a porterhouse
steak rather than carbohydrates might actually improve heart disease risk...."

I don't know whether this article will change anything -- probably not.  It
does show a chink in the establishment's defenses, though. But it wouldn't be
any fun if they agreed with us, would it....!

Charles
San Diego, CA