Pennyaline wrote:
> On 6/25/2012 3:39 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> The phrase "fat intake" is an oversimplification and ought not be
>> part of any conversation about cholesterol levels.
>
> Perhaps not for medical scientists and practitioners, but for the lay
> public it's just fine.

For the lay public to think the earth is flat would be less harmful.

It's fine to simply; it's not fine to oversimplify. It would be no
different if you were trying to call "food" bad or good for you - food
can be both, depending on what kind of food. Fat can be good or bad,
depending on what type of fat.

This is not a difficult distinction to wrap your brain around - if it
could be found in a food source 150 years ago, it's most likely a fat
that's good for you; if it's engineered, it's most likely not. It can
be tough to tell the difference from an ingredients list on the side of
a package, but the difference is your health.

>> There are fats that hurt
>> and fats that heal, e.g., hydrogenated fat is far worse than anything
>> you'll find in any unprocessed animal product. The new knowledge
>> has, indeed, erased the old but if and only if you care to pay
>> attention to the details - simply thinking of your food as being
>> either fat or carb just isn't detailed enough because both can hurt
>> and both can be heal.
>
>
> Where has the new knowledge erased the old? It hasn't, that I can see.
> It has been modified, several times, but not erased.

See above. The new knowledge is that certain fats are not only _not_
bad for you, they're good for you and you'll be healthier for eating
them regularly.

-S-