A month’s worth of saturated fat down the drain. I agree, what a waste.

I appreciate the compliment, but I hope you read Good Calories, Bad Calories. A film can only cover a fraction of what’s in a book.

Something no one ever points out is in the sat-fat hysteria is that if your body is room temperature, you have much bigger problems that the sat-fat being solid.

That’s what makes the video doubly ridiculous. Let’s heat up that pipe to 99 degrees and then see if the fat is clogging it.

Thanks for taking a look at the blog. Found your film when I got back from vacation with a 20 extra pounds. You led me to Gary Taubes book and lectures. That started a very interesting journey. My wife has lost 30 pounds on homeopathic hCG diet and has reset her metabolism after 40 years of yo-yo dieting (She’s tied with Oprah for pounds lost and gained back.) It is liberating to be able to understand the science of weight loss and gain and to be able to ignore the expert advice.

Chris

Our USDA Food Pyramid for example advocates six to 11 servings of grain, 2-3 cups of vegetables, 2 cups of fruit, and 3 servings of skim milk. Now that the American Heart Association says it’s probably a good idea to cut your sugar to 10 teaspoons per day, you would find yourself at 600+ grams of carbs once you took our government’s advice.

http://www.zdietworks.com/?p=656&preview=true

Considering that the American Heart Association has been putting its stamp of approval on sugary foods simply because they’re low in fat, I don’t know whether to laugh or scream.

Nice analysis showing how quickly the carbs add up.

PS I only bake very occasionally… like holidays and birthdays.

I remember making both plaster of paris and paper mache in school. It’s one of the reasons I stopped eating newspapers and starchy foods at the same meal.

I treat the American Heart Association’s seal of approval the same way.

One word: thanks.

I’ve had a reply from the ASA saying they have considered the objection but decided there are no grounds for further action.

“Our concern when assessing ads is how they will be taken by those who see them. ….We have viewed the ad a number of times and found that it says only that a build-up of fatty deposits in the arteries can increase a person’s risk of heart disease.
“As the emphasis of the ad is specific to saturated fat and the damage it can do to human arteries, rather than on the many and various causes of heart disease we would not expect the advertisers to identify every contributory factor within the confined space of a TV ad. The ad directs viewers to the FSA’s Eat Well website which gives further nutritional information…..On this basis we don’t think the ad’s focus on saturated fat alone is likely to cause harm or miselad consumers to their detriment.”

and here is that wonderfully unbiased advice from the Eatwell site.

http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/fss/fats/satfat/

Another load of bologna from the wise folks in government. The focus on saturated fat will indeed cause harm by scaring people into switching to frankenfats.

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/cracking-the-spine-of-libel/

Yee-ikes! I guess I’d better start calling it dumb science.

In the first episode of Penn & Teller’s Bull@#$%, they explained why they used that term: their lawyers informed that them all kinds of words can have libel implications (charlatan, quack, ripoff artist, scam, etc.) but not Bull@#$%. Go figure. I’m guessing libel attorneys don’t want to repeat that word over and over in court while trying to keep a straight face.