Some points on recent discussions:

1) I remain confused at the assertion that glucose is the obligatory fuel
for the human brain.  Research has shown that the human brain uses ketones
preferentially over glucose when it has the opportunity.  I've posted
references on this point before.  I don't understand why the claim that
glucose is required for the brain to function is so often repeated (and I
read it quite frequently in much popular literature, and hear it fairly
often from dietitians) when research has shown that the human brain uses
fat as fuel just fine.  Other major organs, such as the heart and kidneys,
also prefer fat to sugar.

2) On the matter of high-meat diets: I run another mailing list for medical
doctors, researchers, and others interested in low-carbohydrate diets as a
treatment for diabetes, obesity, epilepsy, and other serious medical
conditions.  One of the things a number of physicians and individuals in
our group there has noticed is that in some people, high saturated fat
intake does not seem to raise LDL cholesterol.  Indeed, in a high-protein,
low-carbohydrate intake dietary pattern, many have repeatedly documented
reductions in LDL cholesterol (in some cases very dramatic reductions, in
others more minor reductions), increases in HDL cholesterol, and lowered
serum triglyceride levels with diets loaded with large quantities of
butter, cream cheese, eggs, steaks, and other supposedly dangerous and
unhealthy foods--some documenting intakes of well over 3000 calories a day
of food intake, with the majority of the caloric intake in animal fats.
This is often accompanied by substantial body fat loss (in some cases well
over 50 kilograms), substantial -increases- in lean muscle mass, decreases
in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and other positive health affects.

Some members of that list are professional researchers already working on
research for formal publication but who are not yet finished, so I can't
say much more--but what I -can- say is that what we have seen, over and
over again, is that there are numerous individuals like Todd who seem to
fit the pattern currently predicted by most nutritionists (that high
saturated fat intake will increase LDL cholesterol and possibly other
problems), but other individuals who respond quite favorably to the same
kind of diet that causes people like Todd problems.

It does seem that those individuals who respond favorably to high-fat diets
tend to be people who have have not responded well to the current
high-carb, low-fat, low-cholesterol diet most often recommended as healthy.
I wish we had more concrete data on that but at this time we don't.

One thing that has long bothered me is that much research on nutrition
seems to posit that if a group of subjects has an "average" response to a
certain dietary pattern, that any individuals within the test group respond
differently, those who respond differently are merely calculated in as part
of the standard deviation.  There are, in fact, individuals who eat lots of
saturated fat and never see increases in LDL cholesterol--just stating this
fact seems to really upset some people, but it's a plain truth that many
physicians can tell you from what they see in their own patients.

Researchers who test drugs always assume that whatever drug they are
testing will have negative affects on some individuals and will just plain
not work on others, because after all humans are all individuals.  Some
people become suicidal when given certain (usually very useful)
antidepressants like fluoxetine; some people become nauseated when given
antibiotics like erythromycin that most people have no trouble with.  Yet
if you suggest that, for example, saturated fat may not be poisonous to
every human on the planet, some people seem to become quite agitated and
sometimes even angry.

I once asked a friend of mine who knows a great deal more about nutrition
than I do a pointed question that he never gave me a straight answer to: if
a specific individual eats a lot of saturated fat--eats more saturated fat,
in fact, than most Americans ever do--and that individual has perfectly
good lipid profiles (great LDL, high HDL, low triglycerides, etc.), what
possible justification could there be for telling that person he was at
high risk for developing heart disease if he keeps eating lots of saturates?

It seems to me that nutritional researchers ought to start treating food
like drug researchers treat drugs, by not assuming that a general positive
or negative reaction to any specific dietary measures will work universally
the same on every single individual.

But that's just my opinion--I could be wrong.  :)

-=-
   Anger will never disappear so long as thoughts of resentment are
   cherished in the mind. Anger will disappear just as soon as thoughts
   of resentment are forgotten.

                Buddha (B.C. 568-488)