Give me a quick rundown on saturated fats: are they really as bad for you as the ---scientific community--- claims?

>Unsaturated fats
Healthy fats, the shit you want to eat a lot of.
>Unsaturated fats
Limit them. They are scientifically linked to heart disease.

Veeky Forums is full of mentally retarded idiots. They will ignore scientific fact just because it doesn't fit their beliefs or lifestyle.
These idiots think scrambling 12 eggs in a gallon of bacon grease is healthy but eating a soy bean will turn you into a woman.

You can still eat your meat and cheese, just don't overdo it. Stick to lean cuts of meat if you can.

*Saturated fats for the second one

Saturated fat is good. Just stay away from the carbs if you're cutting, and stay away from processed shit, especially processed sugat, in general.

And obviously no estrogen-filled shit like non-fermented soy, tap water or industrial crap.

>Use placebo effect to your advantage and just believe what you want!
This but unironically. Take the subjective idealism pill and do what thou wilt OP

sfa's are bad for you. Only ketoniggers tell you otherwise because their head is full of bullshit.

science is never concrete you brainlet, it's ever fluid and ever changing based on incoming new evidence/studies/research. you're a fucking idiot to trust your life 100% to science, especially something so elusive as biology and nutrition

Classifying "fats" into these two groups isn't enough to determine what's "good for you". There's generally good consensus that artificially hydrogenated fats (artificial trans fats) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There's also solid evidence that significant consumption of palmitic acid (the majority of fatty acids in meat and cheese) can increase metastasis of cancer as well as strongly increasing serum cholesterol levels both HDL and LDL. In the same vein, consuming excess omega-6s in reference to omega-3s (including ALA, not just EFAs such as DHA) induces inflammation from eicosanoid release.

If you ever do long term keto, or keto in general, it's probably advisable to eat as little palmitic acid and artificial hydrogenated oils as conceivably possible. This is probably not met by most people who do keto who eat ludicrous amounts of heavy cream, cheese, bacon, and not so lean beef, so in general the way most ketofags eat is not optimal. Avocados, nuts, and fish are the best sources of fat.

Linked doesn't' mean a whole lot. Correlation does not equal causation. If the study involves comparing vegetarians/vegans to meat eaters, well, meat eaters subsumes people following the SAD which is unhealthy as shit.

Is it 'cause of the cholesterol? The original study purporting that cholesterol is bad is involves herbivorous animals which rarely, if ever, eat meat.

Is it based on the fact that people with arterial disease have a lot of plaque and cholelsterol? Once again, correlation does not equal causation, that cholesterol is a bandage and is not the not the root cause of damage to blood vessels.

Saturated fats are actually excellent before exercise. I always put a scoop of coconut oil in my oats pre workout. Have much more sustained energy that way

fat is the natural fuel for humans
you wouldn't put unleaded in a diesel car

Glucose in the blood reaches toxic levels before ketones do.

>Vegetable oil
Cheaply made mystery goop not found in nature anywhere and cannot be created without complex mechanical and chemical processing that no human can do alone
>Animal fat
found on animals and eaten by humans for millenia
Gee I fucking wonder which one is better for you and which one (((scientists))) push on the general population aka livestock.

usually nuts, seeds, and avocados are pushed as the healthiest sources of fats buddy. what are you getting at?

>44524710
Those are fine. Hydrogenated vegetable oils are not.

>Everybody says something different, it's a goddamn informational free-for-all out there
Well no. Every authority agrees on major points of nutrition, including saturated fats being unhealthy and unsaturated fats being healthy. The people saying different things are random bloggers, diet book authors, and other laypeople and con artists.

> The original study purporting that cholesterol is bad is involves herbivorous animals which rarely, if ever, eat meat.
You realize there's been about a century of research since, right?

Sure, but a lot of that research is based on and attempts to build on the conclusion of the original study.

Argument from authority. They might be right, but just because they are "experts" doesn't mean that they are right in these circumstances.

>Sure, but a lot of that research is based on and attempts to build on the conclusion of the original study.
Do you know how science works? Most research attempts to disprove theories, not support other scientists' theories. It just happens that the vast majority of evidence supports the cholesterol theory.

>Argument from authority. They might be right, but just because they are "experts" doesn't mean that they are right in these circumstances.
Someone claimed "everybody says something different" which isn't true. The people who study this stuff professionally and are most likely to understand it agree unanimously. The people who say something different are not known for their credibility. It's a fair point given how the post tries to paint the situation.

>it's ever fluid and ever changing based on incoming new evidence/studies/research

Anything that's 'low fat' usually just has a shit ton of sugar to make up for it. Thanks to (((them)))

What does that have to do with OP?

I was always trying to avoid saturated fats and only ate cashews, peanuts, walnuts, pecans, etc. For some reason whenever it got cold outside the skin on my hands kept cracking. Now I started eating more saturated fats from cheese and high fat milk and the skin on my hands is not drying up like it used to...

Disproving theories isn't sexy.

How a lot of research works is that it is an attempt to build upon the articles of other people. Research on topics such as the wage gap, has one or a few initial studies that "prove" that the wage gap exists. Then those articles are cited, which create new articles to be cited, which create layers upon layers, generations upon generations of works which all derive from the original conclusion.

There are three primary types of research. There is descriptive, experimental, and correlational. Experimental studies are the only ones that can really *prove* whether something is true or not. Correlational suggests relationships, and descriptive is just about gathering data and painting a picture. Legit experimental data on cholesterol would probably be unethical--if people believed that it was truly bad for you--and impossible do to the number of confounding variables involved. Not only that, but studies involving lab conditions do not mirror real life. You might be able to induce cancer in some cells by providing a sat-fat solution (or a blend of macros and micros that have specific levels of sat-fats) as nutrients, but that fails to take into account the variety that is consumed in our diets. Not only that, but what we eat is not going to be the exact same food every time. To universalize those trials is nigh impossible, and if they are universalized, then they do not actually represent real-world circumstances and are not really applicable.

Body needs fats. Myelin sheaths, natural oils for skin protection, lipoproteins for cell walls.

That is true. I think it was Art Of Manliness that did a pretty good post on it. He got his T levels checked before and after chaining his diet to high saturated fats.

He doubled it
artofmanliness.com/2013/01/18/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/

>Disproving theories isn't sexy.
It's the sexiest thing that a scientist can do. Where did you get the idea that scientists aren't trying to challenge ideas and published groundbreaking research? That's the whole point of science. That's what big journals want to publish.

>Experimental studies are the only ones that can really *prove* whether something is true or not
>Legit experimental data on cholesterol would probably be unethical--if people believed that it was truly bad for you--and impossible do to the number of confounding variables involved.
The best way to study this is by using Mendelian randomisation to avoid confounders
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24474739

This isn't science. Not only is it a single unpublished, unverifiable anecdote, the author doesn't even understand what he's trying to say. He thinks nuts contain cholesterol.

He just recovered from long term stress and sleep deprivation. Probably had a zinc deficiency or some shit too.

>scientific
your barking up the wrong tree here.
Veeky Forums is literally 100% broscience. i know because people here keep telling me what i have achieved is impossible.

lmao is there salmon in both pics

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24474739
Interesting study, it's too late for me to look at it now and respond, but I'll check it out later.

The conclusion states there is a link between triglycerides and heart disease, but uncertainty with high density lipoproteins. Now, does eating fat cause triglycerides to rise? It's not something that I've looked into, the AHA says that high-carb diets (60% or more calories from carbs) cause triglycerides to rise. As I have already said, it's too late to really dig into this stuff.

I agree that debunking shit is sexy as hell to me, personally. But the scientific and academic environments are also political in nature. That, a good chunk of research grant money comes from public sources, and there is no end to political corruption. If someone disproves that sat-fat induces cancer and is bad for you, then all of those researchers conducting research to prove that sat-fat is bad are out of work.

All I am saying is that I am very skeptical--as one should be--of a great deal of claims about what is healthy or unhealthy. Sat-fats being bad for people is one such claim that I am skeptical about, especially as the recommended diet (food pyramid) has also been representative of where government subsidies are going.

Look further than the conclusion text and you'll see that both trigylycerides and even more strongly, LDL cholesterol, are both associated with heart disease. HDL, not so certainly, which reflects other studies and is becoming a mainstream view
health.harvard.edu/heart-health/rethinking-good-cholesterol
But yes, the best evidence indicates that LDL cholesterol, which increases when you eat saturated fat and cholesterol and decreases when you eat unsaturated fat and fiber, is causal in heart disease.

Yeah, I hear that. Cholesterol and heart disease are linked with one another. What evidence is there to support that eating fat raises LDL serum levels? 'Cause I know that the liver makes cholesterol too, in higher quantities than most people consume in their normal diets.

No, it's not bad
Proof:
youtu.be/nhzV-J1h0do

>What evidence is there to support that eating fat raises LDL serum levels?
Hundreds of metabolic ward experiments, which are very tightly controlled feeding studies. Here's a meta-analysis of almost 400 of them. Saturated fat specifically raises cholesterol, polyunsaturated fats lower it and monounsaturated fats don't seem to do much either way.
bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long

>'Cause I know that the liver makes cholesterol too, in higher quantities than most people consume in their normal diets.
There are receptors in your body that are meant to remove excess cholesterol from your blood. Saturated fat downregulates the activity of these receptors so that LDL builds up instead.
circ.ahajournals.org/content/circulationaha/76/3/504.full.pdf

This stuff has been studied a lot in the last 100 years. It's likely that every objection you have has already been research thoroughly.

No reasonable person would consider this "proof."

What does this post have to do with the OP?