vegetable oils are a lot worse than saturated fats for your health

scientists are humans too. personal agenda and ego is always there. this is bad for science.

so the minnesota coronary experiment, one of the largest experiment involving humans to prove whether saturated fat or vegetable fats are good for health.

the studies proved that replacing saturated fats with vegetable fats resulted in lower blood cholesterol. and this fact was touted as proof that saturated fats are bad for you. once and for all.

however, if you look at mortality rate, those consuming vegetable fats had HIGHER mortality than those on saturated fats.

again, lower blood cholesterol doesn't equal lower mortality.
in fact, lower blood cholesterol = higher mortality.

the research was done 40 years ago but the second conclusion of mortality rate was only discussed TODAY.


the best comment :
As usual, what stands in the way of progress is not science, but terrible human proclivities towards maintaining existing worldviews and status quos. You'd think scientists would be the very first to be able to acknowledge when the data shows they were wrong; it is upsetting that this is not the case, and not only that, it makes science look bad, period.


read about it here.

This study 40 years ago could have reshaped the American diet. But it was never fully published.

another paradox... yeah right

if you are trained in science, you will work this way.

you have an idea that A causes B, so you form a hypothesis.

then you test your hypothesis by looking for evidence that A causes B.

if all evidence points to A causes B and you could sufficiently explain why in some cases A does not cause B, then you will have enough data to prove that A causes B.

and now you form a theory that A causes B.

however, if new evidence start to show that A doesn't always cause B, then you start relook at your theory again. perhaps this "A causes B" theory is best relegated to being a hypothesis and you test it out again.

if you are rigorous in this approach, you are being scientific and objective. the way it's supposed to be done.

now consider this. we have been told for years that a diet high in saturated fat correlates to  high rates of cardiovascular deaths. so much so that cholesterol is a bad word nowadays.

everyone left and right is mouthing this, so much so that this has become more like a religious dogma. don't question it!

all this while, there have been evidence that prove that disproves this correlation.

if you are scientific, you would relook at your hypothesis, in light of new data.

but the mainstream medical science world would not budge from their viewpoint and just call this new evidence - "paradox".

french paradox - damn. the french eat lots of butter and cheese. yet suffer low rates of cardiovascular deaths.

the inuits - or eskimos, live entirely off fatty foods and almost no vegetation.

the masai - damn fit people, only eats milk, blood and beef.

israeli paradox - low consumption of saturated fat but high rates of cvd.

this goes on and on and on...

mainstream medical view also says if you lower your LDL (so called "bad" cholesterol) and raise your HDL (so called "good" cholesterol), this should reduce your cardiovascular death risk. but here is another paradox.

EMBARGOED UNTIL 8 a.m. CT, Sunday, April 3, 2016, Chicago: Cleveland Clinic researchers studying evacetrapib have shown that despite reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad" cholesterol) by 37 percent and raising levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or "good" cholesterol) by 130 percent, the drug failed to reduce rates of major cardiovascular events, including heart attack, stroke, angina or cardiovascular death.


so many paradoxes! these people are all wrong or is the theory full of holes?

lastly, here is an illuminating graph for you. saturated fat and the european paradox.