Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
As evidence for mortality related to saturated fat, that AHA statement cites only three sources.

First, in the Oslo Diet-Heart Study, "there were fewer cardiovascular deaths in the experimental group by 27% (P=0.09)", a non-significant result.

Second, it cites the reduction in CHD deaths in Finland between 1972 and 1992, attributing 50% of the reduction to cholesterol levels. But similar reductions occurred in many nations at that time, largely due to reduced smoking, improved treatment, and other changes that should not be ignored. There is no clear link to saturated fat here.

Third, it cites the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, an observational study that didn't isolate PUFA intake, and is likely to be confounded by diet quality.

I would describe that evidence as weak-to-moderate at best.

The evidence regarding LDL is stronger, but that's a concern that should be measured and treated individually. People do not respond identically to diet, not everyone has high LDL, and there are many ways to lower it if needed. Personally, I don't worry much about saturated fat because my LDL is under 70.

What’s your background to describe this evidence as anything at all? Significant nutrition background? I’m not clear why you think you have standing to make any claims whatsoever, here, especially given the utter paucity of evidence you have cited.

This is typical Internet Nutrition Bullshit, just packaged in vaguely smart sounding words.

It doesn't require credentials to identify obvious ways in which a given study or paper doesn't show the thing it is being claimed to show.