More studies find saturated fat is not bad for us.

[uart]

I'm not sure if this has been posted here already, but I've noticed that quite a few news stories in the past few days have been touting the headline that "butter is not so bad for us after all".

The summary of the latest "meta studies" is that butter consumption does NOT increase rates of heart disease, however its consumption is definitely linked to a moderate DECREASE in type 2 diabetes rates. The latest opinion seems to be that butter is neither good nor bad for you, however replacing dietary calories from butter with an equivalent from starchy carbs is generally a negative. So pretty much what most of us following LCHF already knew.

EDITED link due to mistake in original posting
See for example: http://time.com/4386248/fat-butter-nutrition-health/

So far most reports seem to be restricting this conclusion to butter, and not necessarily generalizing to all saturated fats, however I suspect that in time this will also happen. Anyway, slowly but surely mainstream opinion is starting to see the fallacy of the low fat high carb dietary advice that we've been collectively fed for so many years. And evidence is mounting that, as many of us T2 LCHF advocates already feel, this flawed dietary advice may have contributed to our own diabetes situation.

 

[Dark Horse]

A good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the study:-http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/06June/Pages/stop-demonising-butter-say-researchers.aspx

 

[SunnyExpat]

'Not bad for us'?

Well ignoring that it is bad for some.

Why is the fact the it isn't bad seen as a wonderful thing?
So it's no worse than the processed carbs that replaced it?
How can the fact one poison isn't worse than another be seen as good?

A headline, 'saturated fats add 20 years to everyone's life' and I'd be in there.

But it pushes my cholesterol up, and that's not what I'm happy with.

 

[donnellysdogs]

Dr Aseem Malhorta who has been writing these articles is a leading cardiologist and is speaking out against the NHS advice. He does lean more towards the meditereanean diet and does say less than 50g of carb to lose weight.
I think his angle is more leaning towards some fat not everything fat... Certainly he does state about meditereanean foods and olive oil more than cream...

 

[uart]

Why is the fact the it isn't bad seen as a wonderful thing?
So it's no worse than the processed carbs that replaced it?

I would dispute that. The finding coming from these latest studies is definitely that replacing butter with refined starches (processed carbs) is worse for us.

How can the fact one poison isn't worse than another be seen as good?

TBH, I would dispute that either is a poison, but particularly that a natural food like butter is.

Our bodies are designed to store excess energy from times of plenty as fat, and largely saturated fat. Why would our own bodies store energy as poison?

But it pushes my cholesterol up, and that's not what I'm happy with.

Yes I understand that you're concerned with cholesterol levels and hence your concern about saturated fats. However if the latest research shows that butter is not significantly related to heart disease, yet it may raise your cholesterol, then perhaps the whole idea that cholesterol causes heart disease is wrong?

Also, don't dismiss the finding that increased butter consumption was linked to lower T2 diabetes rates!

UPDATE. Please note the correction of the link in the opening post: http://time.com/4386248/fat-butter-nutrition-health/