Adrienne Smith wrote:

>According to Fallon
>and Enig, the fat people are trying to lose is predominantly monosaturated -
>
>

I would imagine that human body fat is similar in composition to beef
and lamb fat from feedlot animals, since it is produced in much the same
way.  Using the USDA as a guide, selecting "beef, raw, composite of
retail cuts", the fat content per 100g is about 13g of saturates and
about 14g of monounsaturates.  So Fallon and Enig may be right that
there is slightly more MUFA than SFA in body fat.  The excess
carbohydrate that we eat is almost all (98%, I think) converted to SFA
initially, but some of that is then converted to MUFA, which is how that
ratio is reached.  But I think Rosedale also says that SFA is "harder to
burn" than MUFA, and I really don't know what to make of that.

The arguments for limiting SFA consumption seem to come down to two claims.

1.  High SFA consumption increases insulin resistance by making altering
the properties of cell membranes, making them less permeable.
2.  SFA (certain SFAs, anyway) tends to increase LDL cholesterol, by
downregulating LDL reuptake in the liver.

Regarding the second claim, a Nobel Prize was awarded for the research
leading up to it.  But since LDL is just one factor affecting
circulating LDL--another being the rate of LDL production in the
liver--it doesn't entail that circulating LDL will go up on a paleo diet
(assuming one is concerned about that).  As for the first claim, I'm
uncertain how well supported it is.  I haven't done the research.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]