The big fat lie: what we should really know about saturated fat

For decades, we were told that saturated fat was the villain in our diet. Butter, lard and high-fat animal products were seen as precursors to heart disease. But what if everything we thought we knew about fat was based on shaky science?

A turning point in fat science

In 2010, Dr Ronald M. Krauss, one of the leading nutrition experts in the USA, shook the foundations of nutritional science. After a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, he came to a surprising conclusion: there is no robust evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease. A later Harvard-Cambridge study confirmed this finding.

The origin of the fat myth

It all began in the 1950s with one man: Ancel Keys. His ‘Seven Countries Study’ had a lasting impact on our dietary guidelines. However, his research had a crucial catch: he specifically selected only those countries that supported his theory. He simply left out countries such as France or Switzerland, where people lived healthy lives despite eating a high-fat diet.

What nature teaches us

History has many examples that disprove Keys' theory:

The Maasai in Kenya: subsist mainly on meat, milk and blood - without heart problems

The Inuit in the Arctic: 80% of their diet consists of fat - they were perfectly healthy

Indian railway workers: those who ate more fat lived on average 12 years longer

The real culprit?

When we started to avoid fat, we replaced it with carbohydrates. Muesli instead of fried eggs, pasta instead of meat and highly processed vegetable oils. The result? Rising rates of obesity and diabetes. Recent research suggests that excessive carbohydrate consumption - even from ‘healthy’ wholemeal products - may be more harmful than a high-fat diet.

What does this mean for us?

It's time to rethink our fear of saturated fat. A balanced diet doesn't have to be low in fat. Perhaps we should be more concerned about our sugar and carbohydrate intake instead.

Conclusion

The saturated fat story is a prime example of how single influential voices can dominate the scientific debate for decades. It reminds us that we should always question even seemingly certain scientific ‘truths’.