To ask what the consensus is on saturated fat?

[IntertwiningLeaves]

I tend to agree with science and our health authorities when it comes to dietary info, but over the years have noticed a lot of push back against the stigmatisation of saturated fat - typically animal fats.

There's a lot of divisive noise out there concerning food health, especially on sites like youtube, with all sorts of conflicting theories backed up by 'medical professionals'. Well, they can't all be correct!!

Personally, I prefer the less troublesome concept of a balanced diet, without excluding entire groups, being mindful to take factors such as allergies and gut issues into consideration.
I also realise that a balanced diet just isn't as sexy, nor will it sell so many books or rate highly on algorithms.

I tried to find some solid agreement out there regarding sat fats, but apart from the British Heart Foundation and other official bodies, it's one heck of a confusing mess. I would have imagined by now that there would be an established declaration from NHS etc if the link between sat fat and cholesterol had been debunked.

On one side, many people now think that such health issues are caused by agriculture/grain and genetics, whilst the governing bodies still insist a link to animal fats/obesity. Is there any reliable new science on this?

I did notice that a lot of the documentaries/adherents to the pro sat fat group also had some tentative links to anti vax, full carnivore diet, and getting women back into the kitchen...sorta thing. A sensible and measured bunch of data would be great but I can't seem to locate any. However, I do know that our knowledge of health is shifting all the time, so is there anywhere where these two opposing theories meet?
Hoping there are people much more knowledgeable than myself here who have some idea?

Food processing and the methods utilised to keep it cheap are fairly well understood now, yet faddy and exclusionary diets still exist. I just don't think moderation sells or gets as many hits in the online food obsessed culture wars.

Are we being lied to for profit? Of course! But both sides of the debate have money in the game, so bias is largely pointless. We make a lot of noise online yet no one really hears one another.

Whilst food stuffs were less adulterated in the past, taking a very close look at historical diets does reveal some pretty awful and unhealthy diets. Something isn't necessarily better because it is historical. Processed food is also 'old' (flatbreads, baking, alcohol, cheese and bacon), it's the ultra processed which is new.
Avoiding food because it wasn't gathered by hand or killed with one's own spear doesn't necessarily make us healthier. Avoiding frankenfoods might, though. A monthly treat of home-baked apple pie with cream (all processed, not just the crust!) probably never hurt anyone either.

Likewise, burning coal in your hearth isn't healthier than utilising a new, streamlined, efficient and pollution free electric system. It just looks nice.

It's always a good idea to ask ourselves why we have come to distrust 'new' things. No one seemed to mind when we adopted indoor toilets

I'm not so much disagreeing with you, just adding some ideas. I appreciate you sharing yours:)

A friend of mine had a health check and was told he had really high cholesterol and blood pressure and has a risk of of heart disease from his family. The advice was to cut out red meat and dairy as much as possible. So he did, including swapping milk for plant based and butter for marg.
He was really strict with it and when he went back for a follow up they were really impressed with how much he had reduced both. So the NHS at least still seems to be advising to cut them out.
Zoe isn't keen on red meat or butter either. Margarines seem to have a better score which is a little surprising given they are highly processed. Milk and cheese don't seem so bad.
I did a diet and exercise programme via a PT. I was encouraged to eat a wide variety of lean meat, along with chicken and seafood. But dairy was cut out altogether.

So the consensus seems to largely be the same as before. I think I trust these sources more than idiots on TicToc eating slabs of butter!

I don't often go down these rabbit holes but today was a lazy one and I found myself mooching around youtube. Found a sensible seeming young woman who presented scientific studies relating to the carb/high fat debate. Like many of the more articulate ones, her dialogue was very convincing - until after several videos she admitted to being vegan.
It became apparent that all of her research had set out with a ready-made bias, so was difficult to take seriously.
Likewise for those with an opposing view. It's all just grifting..

There is always a bias with online personalities, with a lot of the more vocal and energetic ones being the worst. And in all respects, no matter the nature of the content, comment sections are generally just huge car crashes chock full of misinformation and 'noise'.

No one cares to learn anything of tolerate varied opinions. People just shout louder and no one is even really listening.

@meganorks One commenter on youtube (a carnivore fan) turned up first beneath countless video's declaring how he had reached the age of 70 eating only high fat meat. He was proud to never having touched a vegetable in his life. Now, each to their own, but just imagine the constipation.....

The science world and the health authorities are often at odds.

Personally, it seems saturated fat might not be as bad as we thought but just in case I use cold pressed virgin oils, olive or rapeseed, and sometimes tiny amounts of coconut oil and butter.

I'm not sure YouTube is helpful but I like the authors giles yeo and gary taube. The later thinks sugar might cause high cholesterol but it's early days for that hypothesis.