Mon, Apr-29-19, 16:26
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
|
|
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
|
|
Naw. Taubes is still fat-friendly. Still animal-fat friendly. The paper used as a reference for Taubes giving in--it's a consensus piece, people agreeing (sort of) on what's resolved and what isn't.
Quote:
Key messages
For cardiovascular health, substantial evidence supports the importance of the type of fat consumed, not total fat intake, and the elimination of industrially produced trans fats
Much of the evidence suggests that the risk of coronary heart disease is reduced by replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats (including plant oils) but not when carbohydrate is the replacement nutrient
Controversies remain about long term health effects of specific plant oils and of high fat, low carbohydrate diets, and research is needed to resolve these
The focus of dietary advice must be on the consumption of foods and overall dietary patterns, not on single nutrients
|
That replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate is not an improvement is a bit of a concession, Krauss and Taubes are liable to have pushed for that. Notice plant fats aren't just swell here--evidence suggests plant fats, that will be Willett's contribution since the only thing his sort of epidemiology can do is suggest. Evidence suggests, but controversies remain versus plant fats. Low carb controversy--well, Taubes has pushed for these kinds of studies, gotten some done, and continues to push for more.
It's about what they can agree on--and they don't all agree on low carb and high fat diets, so even though Taubes is and remains in support of these, it doesn't make it into the paper, and Dr. McMacken is either lying or needs to do her homework about Taubes admitting anything, he's entirely unrepentant. Thank God.  |