In article
>,
Roy > wrote:

> On Nov 18, 11:18*am, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > In article >, "Jean B." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can start he
> >
> > >http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
> >
> > > Note the "More Evidence" part. *You are really behind the times.
> >
> > Frankly, I'd rather be behind the times. *When I read this "new" stuff,
> > sometimes it seems like I can't even finish the article before somebody
> > comes up with something new that supersedes it. *So, I just don't pay a
> > lot of attention. *And after a few months, they're back to the old story
> > again.
> >
> > So, I read the article above:
> >
> > "suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit"
> >
> > "But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed
> > carbs and sugars"
> >
> > Not confidence builders. *Where does it say that the previous data about
> > saturated fats is wrong? *It doesn't, that I saw. *It just says that
> > maybe, some other things are worse. *Well, we need to watch ALL the bad
> > things, not just pick one. *

> It is a good article for sure.

Is it a good article because there was useful information? If so, what
was it? Or was it a good article because it said what you wanted to
hear, that you don't need to worry about saturated fat?

> I had an extensive heart scan a while back and after seven decades of
> eating saturated fats my heart performed like that of a young man.

Everybody is different. Congrats on a healthy heart!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA