WhiskeyClone said:

Great articles, thanks.  I'm going to go full speed ahead into avocado land.  Oh this is a great day...

---

I only read the first one, but I'll have to agree.


In your first post you alluded to the calories in sat. fat.  All fats have essentially the same calories per gram, the difference is negligible for all fats I'm aware of, so the sturated vs. unsaturated won't matter for that.

But like the first article says, unlike the conventional wisdom, unsaturated fat is actually healthy, presuming your total caloric intake and perhaps weight doesn't change.

Infact, the risk of heart disease and heart attack, which is much more relevant than blind stats like cholesteral numbers, is dependant upon the percentage of you fat that is unsaturated.  The higher the level, the less likely you are to develop problems.  And for people with a given saturated fat intake, additional fat intake in the form of polyunsaturated, and I believe monounsturated fats, is actually healthy.

So start thinking in terms more of the ratio of saturated to unsaturated fats.  Polyunsaturated are very healthy, and saturated fats/transfats unhealthy.  The ratio of the sat. to unsat. is actually more important then the total amount of fat, provided you keep your weight stable.

Kinda offends the conventional wisdom, but more and more evidence says it.  As long as your weight is healthy, you can eat pleny of fat, provided its not saturated or trans fat.


I believe all my statements are correct, but feel free to correct me, anyone, if they're not.  I read that study on the women nurses over decades where they found that the ratio of fats is far more predictive of heart problems than the total amount of fat for a given body mass index, and all the commentators and other research seems to think that applies to men too  

Interesting stuff given how much it is different than the "fat is fat" stuff I was taught in grade school.