← Back to context Comment by EForEndeavour 2 years ago Where could I read more about this? 4 comments EForEndeavour Reply staringback 2 years ago https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34547017/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14739118/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9327759/ EForEndeavour 2 years ago Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then? staringback 2 years ago > Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Well, beef used to mean the actual animal in old English. The point here is that saturated fat is not the enemy.> Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then?Compared to the saturated fat theory of the 1960s? 1 reply →
staringback 2 years ago https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34547017/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14739118/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9327759/ EForEndeavour 2 years ago Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then? staringback 2 years ago > Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Well, beef used to mean the actual animal in old English. The point here is that saturated fat is not the enemy.> Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then?Compared to the saturated fat theory of the 1960s? 1 reply →
EForEndeavour 2 years ago Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then? staringback 2 years ago > Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Well, beef used to mean the actual animal in old English. The point here is that saturated fat is not the enemy.> Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then?Compared to the saturated fat theory of the 1960s? 1 reply →
staringback 2 years ago > Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.Well, beef used to mean the actual animal in old English. The point here is that saturated fat is not the enemy.> Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then?Compared to the saturated fat theory of the 1960s? 1 reply →
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34547017/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14739118/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9327759/
Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.
Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then?
> Paper 1 focuses on a biomarker of dairy fat, not fat "from beef" as in from eating meat.
Well, beef used to mean the actual animal in old English. The point here is that saturated fat is not the enemy.
> Sources 2 and 3 studied 37 and 58 individuals in 2004 and 1997, respectively. How has the field evolved since then?
Compared to the saturated fat theory of the 1960s?
1 reply →