On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:17:13 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:58:41 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:
>
>>On 6/17/2014 1:14 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On 17 Jun 2014 23:11:13 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-06-17, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Baloney. The link between saturated fat intake
>>>>> and cardiovascular disease was established by
>>>>> studies in humans. Nothing has "reversed" the
>>>>> data from those studies.
>>>>
>>>> No more bolagnos than yer unsubstantiated claim to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> Another article, out last week, is the Time magazine story on fats,
>>>> with a huge picture of a curl of butter centerpiecing the mag's cover.
>>>> It is much better researched and highlights doctors and their studies
>>>> which refute the long standing "anti-fat" diet campaign that has too
>>>> long dominated this country's diet dogma.
>>>>
>>>> http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/
>>>
>>> Now that such an article has appeared in 'Time', now suddenly it has
>>> credibility in many people's eyes... sigh.
>>>
>>
>>I don't buy into all these butter backlash. Butter is bad!
>
>Let's hope we're both here to discuss this topic in another ten years.
>Just amazing how... never mind.
>
>>You can take that to the bank right there. :-)
>
>LOL, you would too. As though a bank is some sort of pillar of
>integrity and security

Don't forget about the benefits of lard compared to butter and/or
vegetable oil products. Less saturated fat compared to butter. More
monounsaturated fats. Less polyunsaturated fats . . . I've never
used margarine except for that one taste of the Crisco-like stuff. I
always figured butter and lately lard are natural products and I'll go
with that.
Janet US