There are many examples of how research results can be ignored when they do not conform to the latest expectations in nutrition thought of the time. The following old study appears to be one of them. The study was conducted in the beginning of the dietary fat hypothesis frenzy – about 40 years ago. The results were not totally published at the time but indicated that there were no differences in heart disease mortality between two large groups of participants, whether they ate diets high in the polyunsaturated fat, linoleic acid, supposedly thought at the time to lower heart disease risk, than those who ate a more liberal saturated fat and cholesterol diet, i.e., the typical American diet.
Bottom Line: The whole saturated fat/heart disease hypothesis may have been misunderstood when studies are ignored or not thought to have merit. It is no wonder that nutrition information is so conflicting and confusing. And it does no favors to compliment the scientific process or method, once considered with a great deal of respect.
Although this study supports recent dietary advice that saturated fat may not be the villain it was once thought to be, epidemiological evidence strongly supports plant-centered diets that seem to be the best bet in preventing chronic disease and increasing longevity.
For more details on the study, CLICK HERE.
For a more editorial assessment, CLICK HERE.