This seems to go against everything I've been reading in the last year. Anyone have an opinion as to what's going on in this study? It looks like the "risk" factor was the ratio of total cholesterol : HDL, and replacing SFA with PUFA resulted in a better ratio.
EDIT: Oops - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=20351774
asked byFred_B (1023)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on June 15, 2011
at 12:44 AM
This meta-analysis bothered me too when it was first released. I asked the Paleohackers for perspective, and received some great responses.
Stephan Guyenet also weighed in on his blog.
To quote HealthRediscovery, "This paper is a breathtaking example of how far a person will go to confirm his own pre-existing ideas."
on June 14, 2011
at 11:49 PM
Maybe a link to said study?
Without looking at the study, SFA can affect total cholesterol levels. So replacing SFA with PUFA in a short term study, may give you a better 'number', but did people actually develop less CHD?
Chris Master-John made an observation on Chris Kessler's podcast that it appears to take around 8 years for cholesterol studies to start producing useful results.