Dr. Donald Layman

So the issue is it's really been used to demonize foods.

If it's really biochemically dangerous, there should be a number to it.

Like with minerals, we say parts per million.

It's safe above this or below this.

uh so why why can't you do it and the problem with it is if they put a number on it the hypothesis it would be proven wrong and so as long as it's a vague number like 10 it's a very vague thing to try and track you track it with these survey studies and it kind of looks like saturated fat makes a difference but when you put it into an actual controlled study it doesn't ever seem to make a difference

And so that's why the science is softer than what they would like to imply.

What about now?

I, for one, certainly lobbied for it to be gone.

You know, I think this is where politics comes into play in the food system.

And I think that was just a leap too far that people weren't ready to totally abandon that.

But I think when people read the guidelines, what they're going to see is that there's a lot of statement about you should eat healthy fats.

And at the top of the list are animal fats.

That you should actually go out and in search of that or just allow that to be.

Allow it to happen.

So, again, prioritize your protein foods.

and let them be natural, and then decide where you're at.

If you have a quarter pound hamburger that's 85% fat at lunch, that has a certain amount of saturated fat, but it's well below the guideline.

It probably only has six or seven grams in it.

So if your goal, let's say a 2,000 calorie diet, 10% would be 22 grams of saturated fat.

So if that's the number, let's use it.