> The findings are completely invalid except as an
> invitation to more precise study, as there are too many variables left open
> in the way it was done.

Of course. That's the standard argument concerning statements like "Japanese
immigrants in the US have a higher incidence of CVD than people who stay in
Japan". There are too many variables. But notice that this kind of arguments has
been used by Barry Sears in "The Zone" and Micheal Eades in "Protein Power",
when they say (roughly): "we are eating more carbohydrates than in the past, yet
we are overweight; therefore, obesity is due to an excessive intake of
carbohydrates".

Other remark: the article I mentioned was about PRE-ADOLESCENT CHILDREN, not
aduts. Perhaps at that age, insulin resistance is not yet a big problem.

> All this study says is that
> saturated fats seem to cause more trouble in the standard American diet.

Not exactly. The study on children and obesity shows that, regardless of the
type of fat, it is correlated with obesity.

>  And again, I ask what relevance does this have here?

A statement convinces me only when I see arguments from both sides. Usually,
there isn't a clear-cut truth, and the truth is more complicated than you would
it like to be.

JL