kylix wrote:

> Why does it say "in the context of a controlled carbohydrate lifestyle"?
> Is there an increased risk when sat fats are combined with carbs,
> apart from the danger of carbs alone?


Consider this:  When you eat lots of carbs, your glycogen reserves are
almost always full, so incoming carbohydrate can't be deposited in
them.  Therefore a great deal of it must be converted to fat, and the
fat into which it is converted is almost all saturated.  98% palmitic
acid, in fact.  So if you are plenty of carbs and also a liberal amount
of saturated fats you are certainly bombarding your system with
saturated fats.  Your body will attempt to convert about half of the
saturates to monounsaturated fat, but overloading with saturates doesn't
make this any easier.

You see, when you eat the fat in meats, the animal has already done this
conversion.  The cow, for example, eats grass (and grains, no doubt) and
bombards *its* system with carbohydrates, large quantities of which are
converted to saturates, and about half of which is converted to MUFA.
So even if you eat the big chunks of fat on your prime rib, you're
getting about 50% SFA and 50% MUFA (very roughly, okay?).  When you eat
a plate of mashed potatoes, a great deal of that is going to go to SFA,
just as the grass and grain does in the cow.  But unlike the cow, if you
have butter on your spuds and prime rib too, you're taking in SFA in
addition to the carb that will be converted to SFA.

My conjecture is this:  mammalian metabolisms are able to handle a
liberal but not unlimited quantity of SFA with no problem.  You can get
this SFA by eating lots of carbs and little fat, and converting the
carbs to SFA.  Or you can get it by eating lots of fat and little carb.
But if you eat lots of SFA and lots of carbs you're just getting too
much SFA.

Just a theory.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]