The Food Police Were Wrong (Again)

I’ve gotten over feeling like I have to apologize for the way I cook, and what I eat. But every now and then I like to explain it. And mostly the explanation comes down to disagreeing with the current “conventional wisdom” about what we should be eating.

I spend a lot of time pointing to articles from the Weston A. Price Foundation, especially The Oiling of America. You can’t read that with an open mind and come away without questioning what you hear in the media.

But I think I’ve got a new “go to” article to point to:

The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that there really is no good evidence to support the widespread recommendation to reduce saturated fat intake for the sake of heart health.

I know, this just doesn’t match up with everything you’ve heard from the media, the government, most likely even from your doctor.

Many individuals will be familiar with the almost-constant recommendations that come at us with regard to what we should be eating to reduce our risk of heart disease. A central theme in this advice, though not everyone would agree with it, is that the diet should be low in fat and high in carbohydrate.

That sounds more familiar, doesn’t it? But believe it or not, there is no
clinical evidence
that cutting back on saturated fat is good for the prevention of heart disease. None.

Now I’m not going to use this to argue that anyone should change their diet. I’m more of a live-and-let-live kind of guy. But whenever someone looks at one of my recipes and says, “Boy, that sure looks good, but it’s so bad for you,” I like to ask, “Compared to what? And what is the evidence for that?”

And while they’re trying to find rigorous studies that show fat is bad for you (which they won’t) I’ll go wrap some more bacon around my steak.