Karl McKinnon wrote:
>
> --
> >Now what does this mean for us? I have no idea how much saturated fat I
> >eat percentage wise, probably easily under the 46%. Were the nurses just
> >not eating more than that so they couldn't test anything higher, or were
> >risks increased as fat intake increased? I am concerned that I am eating
> >more saturated fat than ever( much before the study ). I've stayed away
> >from trans-fats for a while now eating mostly mono and some poly.
>
> There is a link on the paleolithic homepage
> (http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/) that deals with the different types of
> fat.

I saw a couple of titles that dealt with trans-fats there. I've been
pretty aware of trans-fats and the dangers thereof for a while. I have
eaten only cold pressed, non-heated above a certain temp, non-chemical
extracted, organic and etc oils for many years now.

But I don't know about *saturated* fat. The study says it contributes to
heart disease. Many other studies seem to concur. I'm reading the _Not
By Bread Alone_ book, but it doesn't get too specific/technical about
how their health changed on a diet of meat and fat. I eat maybe up to
1/2cup a day beyond meat contents. I was eating *zero* beyond. If it
weren't for pemmican, I'd be staying as far away from the stuff as I
could. But now I enjoy beef fat.

here's worrying,

Micke