It's ok to eat fat after all, says Michael Mosley

Gordon Bennett! And he's probably got a book out on the strength of that. He made loads of money from that other cobblers he spouted. About that fast and slow training. And Andrew Marr had a stroke.

The man's a money making idiot.

Just eat less.

AND he makes the money through going on Horizon with it. At our expense through licence fees.

You sure tell it like it is, jingl

But other people have been saying the same thing for some time, but very few people have taken any notice.

Jay Rayner wrote an impassioned article in last week's Observer saying the same thing. And I think thatbags has been saying it on this forum for some time.

The comparison with France is interesting; when we stay with our French relations there is no stinting on butter, creme fraiche, goose and duck fat and so on, but you never see people snacking on sugary sweets, and cakes are an occasional part of a special meal.

It makes sense really because a meal which includes protein and fat will not leave you feeling dreadfully hungry a short while later. And it tastes so much better.

Yes, this finding has been known for some time, but of course it challenges the medical establishment, food manufacturers and government gurus who fear the loss of face that will accompany any rowback from their current position.

Suddenly it will be discovered that scientists got it wrong, not because science has moved on and discovered more but because they failed to analyse the original findings properly and find out that the researcher had ignored all countries whose statistics challenged his pet theory.

It is the age old problem of most authorities jumping on a band wagon, once it is rolling because they fear to disagree from the status quo.

The fact is, fat is calorie dense. So, if you need to lose weight it's not gonna help to eat loads of it.

Everyone needs some fat. I will always believe there is good fat (seeds etc) and bad fat (animal). Nothing will change my mind on that, so the so called "experts" are wasting their breath as far as I'm concerned.

It isn't always about losing weight. Rather about eating what is good food or at least not avoiding what is good food in some misinformed effort to stay healthy.

PS I've never heard of Michael Moseley.

Whoops! Mosley.

Haven't heard of him either.

Jingl there is a natural limit to the amount of fat you can eat - it fills you up, and you feel sick if you eat too much.
It's another reason why so-called lowfat foods don't actually help you lose weight - they're unsatisfying, so instead of waiting till the next meal to eat again, the temptation to fill up with sweet or salty processed snacks is hard to resist.

But I agree with Bags that the real damage has been in people being told to avoid foods which contain essential vitamins and other nutrients.

Eggs, lean beef, lean ham, tinned tuna, salmon. Zero fat Greek yogurt. All low fat and all keep you going amazingly well. It's protein that fills you up in a lasting way.

Who wants to be full up on fat? Eurgh!

But you do need some.

Jingls, I agree with you about Michael Mosley. He is everywhere these days, spouting off as if he discovered all these amazing facts about nutrition and exercise.
thatbags, if you haven't heard of him, lucky you, he is everywhere telling us what we should be doing.

I remember that I had a book on nutrition by Adele Davis years ago; she discovered then that if people dieted and cut out fat that their weight loss stalled; add some good oil or fat to the diet and the weight would begin to come off again.

Too many low fat foods contain sugar to add taste.

One doesn't eat it as fat; one eats it as part of other foods. It's fine to eat the less lean cuts of meat, e.g. by buying the cheaper minced beef with its normal amount of fat instead of going for lean mince that has had a lot of the fat taken out.

However, as usual, we have the choice. If you don't want to eat meat that has all its fat in it, then don't, but it's good that the correct information is now becoming more widespread.

However, Jingls, we don't know what Andrew Marr's diet was like and whether that contributed to his stroke. He exercised a lot, but also had done a lot of flying when making his documentary series. All sorts of factors could have contributed to what happened. He is very determined to get fit again, and I hope he is doing well now.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9993366/Andrew-Marrs-stroke-caused-by-intense-exercise.html

Intense exercise is something that Michael Mosley was advocating not so long ago ]

Enjoying my Lurpak as part of a healthy diet! Phew!

Too much exercise can be just as bad for one as too little. Witness people dropping dead after running marathons.

Me too, lona, though I've recently discovered Waitrose unsalted butter which is cheaper but just as nice as Lurpak and which has the added advantage in the cool part of the world where I live of being spreadable at our usually cool ambient room temperature. Had to keep giving pats of Lurpak zaps in the microwave to stop it tearing up the bread, especially in winter.

Oooh, I like the sound of this man (hadn't heard of him either). Does this mean I can enjoy toast and dripping (well salted), cold lamb fat and crispy bacon fat again?

Yes.

Same as we can now enjoy eggs again after being told that they were bad for us

Aha, looked him up. The 5:2 chappie. Wonder what he'll come up with next.

I think this was brought to the forefront by Time Magazine where it stated 'In October 2013, cardiologist Aseem Malhotra rocked the nutrition world with his declaration that saturated fat is good for you.' It was also claimed that the experts got it wrong for 40 years. A British doctor had stated that it was sugars and not fats that were the culprits but he was shouted down, apparently.

www.examiner.com/article/saturated-fat-gets-vindicated-by-mainstream-media-on-stunning-time-cover

Thankfully, my mother detested margarine (or spreads, as they are now called) and she labelled it 'tasteless, soidified oil' so it has always been butter for us.

I can't help wondering if it was all nothing more than a 40 year trial going on!

No, it was the publication of bad science that caused the misinformation to spread – only a limited and adjusted set of badly designed experiment results were used to form the erroneous conclusions.

There is an analogous situation now with regard to unpublished result of medical trials. You don't get the full picture if only the positive results (in the case of medical trials) or negative results (in the case of the food fat studies) are published.