I have read that the fat of typical feedlot cattle is about 50%
saturated.  That's the muscle fat, which we are likely to find on
our plates.  I have also read that wild animals have much less
muscle fat than feedlot animals.  Furthermore, I recently read
that in humans at least, fat deposits tend to resemble
(chemically) the main dietary fats.  That is, autopsies show that
the fat deposits of mediterranean people are chemically more
similar to olive oil than the fat deposits of other people.

So, given all these rumors, what I am turning over in my mind is
the probable composition of the 50% of cattle fat that is *not*
saturated.  And might it be that the difference between wild and
feedlot animals is not just the amount of fat, but its
composition?  Perhaps Ray Peat is right to maintain that what is
problematic about dietary animal fat is not its saturated fat
content, but its polyunsaturated fat content, which may be more
like corn oil.

If this is correct, it would explain why pemmican is a health
food, since suet is not muscle fat, but the hard fat deposit from
around the kidneys.  Since it's so hard, it's probably highly
saturated and therefore relatively unaffected by the
polyunsaturates in the corn-rich feed.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]