Preface: I have happily eaten Paleo for 2 months and plan to continue doing so... However...
There are 8 "modern" studies from 2008 to 2010 listed on the Wikipedia article titled Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy. Two of the studies (25%) show insignificant effects or no link between saturated fat (SFA) in the diet and cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the remaining six studies (75%) show a reduced rate of CVD or mortality from lowering SFA in the diet. Are the two studies that support the Paleo approach considered "good science", and the remaining six that don't support Paleo considered "bad science"?
I understand that there are infinitely many reasons or motivations for any particular study to be bad (confounding variables, poor sampling, politics, funding, etc), but is this a case where all the opposing studies do suffer from such problems and the supporting studies do not?
asked byBaleoNub (646)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on April 28, 2011
at 12:42 AM
All sat fat studies are confounded with PUFA's wheat and carbs.....therefore they are worthless studies. Next.