It’s catching up on the nutrition science:
High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.
It’s a epidemiological study, but it matches most recent research.
Your link got a “no such page” reply from Lancet.
However a search (on epdemiological study carbohydrate fat) did turn up this:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext
Interesting study. Now we must see how much weight it is given by guideline builders.
I’ve known most of this, but “saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke” has me shocked.
I think the war on fat was entirely aesthetic. A greasy, wobbly, mottled mass of gelatinous goo – it must be bad for you. And, fat people have heart attacks (never mind that their girth is often a symptom of larger mental and physical health issues rather than a cause). So, anyone can see, fat is bad, right?
“Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke.”
OK, I accept this. Other research has produced similar findings. But this brings up the question, if fat and cholesterol do not cause hardening of the arteries and heart disease, what does?