One of the greatest hoaxes is the near religious fervor about how supposedly bad bad fat-especially the saturated variety-is. The public has been getting wise to the scam for a number of years now, but official institutions continue to promote the fat phobia with a straight face. Some of it is probably due to industry influence, but I believe that most of it is that our leaders are too proud to admit that they are wrong. When leaders publicly invest in a cause, they tend to be reluctant to have a admit that-yes after all-they were wrong. Too much pride and ego is at stake, as well as money and fiefdoms to maintain. So, incorrect theories continue to be championed with straight faces, long after abundant evidence surfaces to contradict them.
Global warming is another idea that the public increasingly doubts or does not consider a priority. And yet among the elites, global warming is uncontested, and accepted without a peep of criticism, almost like a religious faith. Going to a New York Times cocktail party and daring to mention anything that contradicts the theory of Global Warming is just not done. It is like farting in church. It is just not kosher, and everyone knows it. When the topic of global warming comes up people nod their head in support, or risk becoming social out casts within the power structure.
Back to fat phobia. The article below is very interesting, and worth the read if you have the time.
Basically it tells how fat phobia became religious dogma among health agencies in America. The anti fat crusade was driven more by a belief system than by good science. When people want to believe something they tend to do so. One of the errors was to compare heart disease rates between northern Finland and Crete, and conclude that saturated fat consumption was the exclusive cause of health problems in Finland. But was it the higher fat or the virtual absence of fresh produce in the Finnish diet that caused health problems? I would say the latter.
Other issues brought up in the article is the evidence that having cholesterol above 240 is unhealthy, but that having it below 160 is ALSO unhealthy. Ultimately the article concedes that trying to disentangle dietary factors is complicated, and that people have different nutritional needs. For instance, what part of the Med. diet is really so healthy? The fish, olive oil, fruits and veggies, beans, bread? Or all of them? No one entirely knows.
Another point in the article was that when they decided to reduce fat in our diet, they hoped that people would substitute it with more fresh produce. Instead, Americans have gorged on simple carbs, and sugars, much to our detriment. When we prohibit something we have to keep in mind what will replace it, and could what fills in the gap be even worse?