Hi GT

There is a reason for that. You've been misled.

I'm not an expert, but I'll try to put the point of view
that I formed by reading these newsgroups and many other
sources, and then acting on my distillation of that
information.  The nature of this newsgroup is that the
experts will promptly chime in and correct all of my
errors:-)

In my opinion ALL foods eaten to excess are bad for you.
However, where I differ with your "endocrinologist,
cardiologist, American Diebetic Association, American Heart
Association etc." is that I see very, very few foods as bad
for you in moderation. Where we would also differ is in the
definitions of moderation. Further, not eating adequately
from ALL the major food groups is just as bad for you. Like
the range on your lab reports - many items have a minimum as
well as a maximum; including fats, carbs and protein.

The difficulty is that all of those experts and
organisations have made the assumption for fifty years that
patients are too dumb to understand complex answers. Or they
assumed that we are like children who will eat the bad
things because we like them anyway, so by saying "no" they
really intended to reduce it, not delete it completely.  So
they made it simple. All fat is bad, and saturated fat is
worst. Grains are good, grains are carbohydrates - so eat
more starches, they are good for you. Protein is something
they got a bit vague about, so they tried to ignore it,
apart from muttered dire warnings that too much was bad for
the kidneys - without seeming to precisely define "too
much". Or noting that wasn't necessarily true if you had
healthy kidneys.

Unfortunately, like almost everything to do with the human
body - it just isn't that simple.

The folk you mention neglected to say that some fat is not
only necessary - but good for you. I won't get into all the
details on sat fats, mono-unsaturated fats, poly-unsaturated
fats, trans-fats (even some of those are OK - see the
current discussion). Others here can do that much better
than I.

Nor did they seem to notice that excessive carbs are bad for
you - and the level at which they become excessive is less
for a diabetic. Your meter will show you that for yourself.
Try a test tomorrow an hour after breakfast.

This has got too long. I'll let the others continue.

Let me put it this way. After I changed my breakfast from
cereal, bread, juice and toast to bacon and eggs (and
started testing and a few other things), I lost over fifty
pounds, reduced my HbA1c to under 6% from over 8%, dropped
triglycerides from 2.7(240) to under 1(90) and increased my
HDL from under 1(39) to 1.5(58). It's an old saying, but a
wise one and apt here: the proof of a pudding is in the
eating.

YMMV. Feel free to stick to your cereal; I'll continue to
eat the occasional pork chop, steak and chicken skin.

In moderation. Now it's time to have a scotch:-)

Cheers Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg

This post not CC'd by email
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 23:50:09 -0800, Greatime
<realcotton222@yahoo.com> wrote:

G'day G'day Greatime,

Interesting.  We observe the internet almost inadvertently because we
are part of it.  You obviously have.  I could offer you my explanation
yet I'm a the sort of bloke who is curious about the intent of posters
and about whose responsibility is to meet various needs.

You have observed the internet.  I know that because you have formed a
generalisation that it is COMMON for there to be a lack of attention
given to saturated fats which is less than the amount of attention you
commonly give to saturated fats.  OK, so I accept as a fact that you
think a lot about saturated fats. You have the word of many eminent
people in your life emphasizing that need to keep saturated fats "way
down."    Yet somehow you are wondering why so many other people don't
appear to be pushing that message with a fervour you think
appropriate.

How about a smorgasbord of possible reasons.  
You pick the one that makes you feel better.

Personally I don't believe there is a single reason.

1. People see statins as a the answer. Take the statin ... reduce the
risk of heart attacks. It's easier and less stressful for most people
to pop a pill than to change diet and obsess the way you appear to be
doing over food.  

2.  Many people think the saturated fat-cholesterol-heart attack
hypothesis chain is faulty. The steps might well be provable. The
chain rattles.

3.  Only one diet, the Portfolio diet has successfully produced
a lowering of cholesterol comparable with first generation statins.
It's key feature wasn't low saturated fat though it met that
requirement as did other diets which didn't do enough.
It's key feature was high soluble fibre foods.

4. Some intervention trials have produced 50% reductions in heart
attacks WITHOUT reductions in cholesterol levels.

5.  The WHI study showed low fat was a failed fad, at least for women
who started it in middle age.  It was done in earnest.  There were
over forty follow ups to ensure compliance. It was large, involving
about 50 thousand women. At eight years it was long.  Put simply when
it comes to proof, the sort of things all those eminent people should
be basing their recommendations it was Rolls Royce, gold standard
stuff and the best it could come up with was that it didn't do worse
than the feral Americans who have read the internet, read the diet
books, heard the words of wisdom of many diet gurus and escaped back
into the wild to carry on doing what they do.

Have I answered you question?  Maybe.  

The other maybe is that none of us can. You believe in low saturated
fat as the answer and although you haven't stated it as an aim you
might well like others to do so as well.  Unmet expectations,
especially if hidden, are the cause of many a relationship failure.

Well welcome to the world of inertia.

Those who believe will continue to believe and those who continue to
believe otherwise will continue to do that.

Best wishes in the wilds of the internet.