On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, romper wrote: > My quest to get info on the dangers/benefits of saturated fats hasn't > been going so well. So here I am trying again. > > > Does anyone having any info as to why saturated fats are ok? It seems that at the current time there is little evidence to support the assertion that saturated fats are okay. The evidence against such a claim seems overwhelming at this point in time. However, it is important to be clear what it means to say that SFAs are not okay. Mainly, it means that not everybody can safely ingest them with impunity; it certainly doesn't mean that nobody can. Some people, such as myself, respond to dietary SFAs with large-scale worsening of cardiovascular risk factors, except for triglycerides, which appear to be more closely correlated with refined carb intake anyway. Others, such as Grant, respond very differently to them. I don't think there's any way to predict the response for an individual. The mechanism by which SFAs worsen cardiovascular risk factors is not yet understood. At the current time, it appears that myristic, lauric, and palmitic acids are the problematic ones, but the picture is far from clear. Palmitic acid, for example, seems to promote the retention of dietary cholesterol, but if dietary cholesterol is low to begin with, this is not a problem. Stearic acid seems to be at worst neutral, but possibly beneficial. There is also evidence that saturated fats increase insulin resistance. In one is permanently on a very low-carb diet, this may not be a problem. On a moderately low-carb diet, it could be. My opinion is that the best thing one can do is respect the metabolic and biochemical individuality of people and not expect that all will respond to the same foods in the same way. Clearly, Stefansson and Andersen in 1928 did not respond to the all-meat diet in the same way. This fact should not be dismissed. Mike Kurilla's article, "The Skinny on Fats," at www.netrition.com, is recommended. Todd Moody [log in to unmask]