• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Saturated fat

Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't read it but saw the plate. Coul dit be saturated fat with a CROISANT ??? Fat + carbs = disaster!
 
Personally, I find it really hard to believe that a food humans have been eating for as long as we've been around is somehow dangerous. I'm much more concerned about sugar and processed acellular carbohydrates and their omnipresence in our current diet to be a far more likely culprit in modern health issues. Eggs and saturated fat? Very unlikely IMO.
 
Last edited:
Indy51 said:
Personally, I find it really hard to believe that a food humans have been eating for as long as we've been around is somehow dangerous. I'm much more concerned about sugar and processed acellular carbohydrates and their ominpresence in our current diet to be a far more likely culprit in modern health issues. Eggs and saturated fat? Very unlikely IMO.
Click to expand...
What they said!
 
I cannot believe that natural saturated fat is unhealthy!
And eating eggs, well, if that's the case, I should be dead!

Vegetable oils, have an effect on my blood glucose levels believe it or not!
Saturated animal fats help because of no rise and help my body digest slower, so my initial insulin response is lower and more controlled.

I believe this so called expert is an activist in his own mind to try and sway people in not eating animal products.

But I'm weird because I exist not eating vegan and vegetables that are cooked.
I'm not anti vegan, just my body won't be healthy if I do!
 
Indy51 said:
Personally, I find it really hard to believe that a food humans have been eating for as long as we've been around is somehow dangerous. I'm much more concerned about sugar and processed acellular carbohydrates and their omnipresence in our current diet to be a far more likely culprit in modern health issues. Eggs and saturated fat? Very unlikely IMO.
Click to expand...

True but keep in mind that an abundance of food is only recently available. The portions we're eating of any single substance has increased drastically over the last decades. In the first video he mentioned excess callorie consumption high in saturated fat, so more than the body needs and high in saturated fat. Dairy and meat are fairly high in saturated fat but i didn't hear him mention that you should avoid any single food. Furthermore the evidence is compelling: you introduce saturated fat, test beta cells and find that a lot have been killed off. In repeated studies they found the same results. Anyway you look at it that's a result worth mentioning and taking into consideration.
 
well I dot really know... there must be a reason why vegans only do get 1/3 the rate of diabetes than do non vegans..

I am not vegan ,and okay maybe Michael Greger, M.D is wrong in some of his claims, but as I have followed his seminars , it seems to me that he is almost always building his viewpoints on scientific research, maybe not always the best and totally indicusable science, but still it seems to me that he tries to base his informations to others on at least some kind of science...

just before I became diabetic I did eat extremely much saturated fat... and a lot of sugary fuzzy drinks... so I really do not know which of those two options was causing my diabetes...or maybe they both did it together.. combined with that medicine I took at the time which also had me gaining about 1 kg every month.....
 
Last edited:
and besides the very used argument that humans always have eaten a lot of saturated fats even before being farmers ,I think that that agument is very hollow, I do believe that most animals that humans did hunt the last many hundreds of thousands of years were not animals with a lot of fat on them... maybe eccept the fatty fish caught in autumn, just before the salmons were breading...
 
One has to differentiate between 'doctrine' and fact based science. I would sooner believe my meter rather than the loudest quacking from any Dr. Duck. :) ;) D.
 
lindisfel said:
One has to differentiate between 'doctrine' and fact based science. I would sooner believe my meter rather than the loudest quacking from any Dr. Duck. :) ;) D.
Click to expand...

yes... if this is not discussing long term effects ... and the initial reasons to type 2 diabetes...
 
still I am left with wondering why vegans only do seem to get 1/3 of the rate of diabetic conditions as do non vegans..
 
Wild game (fed from grass) and sea mammals and fish had a lot of omega 3 within the tissue. This was the staple for the hunter gatherers before 10,000 year ago. Before agriculture! We have to be fat selective not fat universalist. It was different before 'civilsed' man fouled up our food supplies. Prehistoric ancient tribes often lived near lakes and the sea, in some areas there are banks of shells created from the spent shellfish eaten. D.
 
Last edited:
lindisfel said:
Wild game (fed from grass) and sea mammals and fish had a lot of omega 3 within the tissue. This was the staple for the hunter gathers before 10,000 year ago. Before agriculture! We have to be fat selective not fat universalist. It was different before 'civilsed' man fouled up our food supplies. D.
Click to expand...

yes but that is not saturated fat as far as I am concerned...I am not aginst fats...I am just not sure that saturated fats in huge amounts are healthy..
 
Last edited:
Freema said:
still I am left with wondering why vegans only do seem to get 1/3 of the rate of diabetic conditions as do non vegans..
Click to expand...

One thing I note in this thread is that there are many claims like this being made, but no evidence offered to back them up. We had a very similar discussion on another thread about Michael Greger and his thoughts on diabetes, and that too had very poor backup being offered, The proponent in that thread was clearly an activist, a point raised by several posters here already. I do not wish to say any more on this topic, since IMO it was trashed 'ad absurdum' in the other thread.
 
Oldvatr said:
One thing I note in this thread is that there are many claims like this being made, but no evidence offered to back them up. We had a very similar discussion on another thread about Michael Greger and his thoughts on diabetes, and that too had very poor backup being offered, The proponent in that thread was clearly an activist, a point raised by several posters here already. I do not wish to say any more on this topic, since IMO it was trashed 'ad absurdum' in the other thread.
Click to expand...

yes but the statistics of the rate of diabetes in vegans do you also think that has been tampered with..?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top