> very consistently, all the data say butter and lard are bad for our hearts. such a lie also. in 2012 or 2014 there was a great meta study that looked at the evidence of sat fat and heart disease. what did they find? literally no correlation. lots and lots of people in the health community seethed of course because nobody likes to be proved wrong after 40 years of lying. eventually the cope from them became "ok, sat fat in itself is not technically bad, but if you're eating saturated fat you're still getting empty calories and therefor if you replace sat fats with something more nutrient dense and heart healthy, then we can still technically say that sat fat is bad for you because you could eat something else instead". it was such a fucking joke.   71648/ also this   es/pmc9794145/ > "the idea that saturated fats cause heart disease, called the diet-heart hypothesis, was introduced in the 1950s, based on weak, associational evidence. subsequent clinical trials attempting to substantiate this hypothesis could never establish a causal link. however, these clinical-trial data were largely ignored for decades, until journalists brought them to light about a decade ago. subsequent reexaminations of this evidence by nutrition experts have now been published in more than 20 review papers, which have largely concluded that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality."
Canada