Particurlarly in dairy. I’ve always relied on dairy as a good source of calcium.
Conventional wisdom is that it’s not something in which you should overindulge; it’s believed by many that eating a lot of saturated fat can raise your cholesterol level.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/tc/types-of-fats-topic-overview
That said, as with a lot of theories regarding diet and health, there are those who disagree with this. IANAD, but I’m sure that there’ll be folks weighing in on both sides of this. 
Keep drinking your milk. No food is “bad” for you, but, everything in moderation. Well, there is one type of fat that is bad for you and which you should completely avoid: trans fats. Note that many products no longer contain “partially hydrogenated…oil.” A few products still contain partially hydrogenated oil, but advertise 0% trans fats. That’s because FDA allows one to claim 0% if the product contains 0.5 grams or less of the ingredient.
Fully hydrogenated fats, incidentally, are not trans fats, but sat fats.
Just because you like the calcium in dairy does not mean you must take in heavy amounts of saturated fat. Low-fat dairy products are sold everywhere.
Some saturated fat is also needed for optimal testosterone levels.
Lowering dietary saturated fat intake may lead to less heart disease, but it’s far from clear. The impact of reducing dietary saturated fat may depend on the nature of the foods which replace the saturated fats.
Here is a recent review (free full text) by some pretty big names in the area. The bottom line, “more research is needed”!
As an aside, Surreal once pointed out this very interesting result concerning DAIRY saturated fats.
Oh what review ever does not end with that as a bottom line?
This much they can state with confidence
PUFAs are high in nuts, seeds, and a particular class of PUFAs, the omega 3’s, in some fish.
Also from your cite, relevant to the issue of dairy, the package that the SFA comes in may be a key feature:
So dairy good; it is possible that it would be better to use nonfat or low fat rather than full fat, but not proven. And if you are going to have dairy, you may want to consider including some fermented dairy, especially with active cultures. (Yogurt, kefir, buttermilk, etc.)
And hey, throw some blueberries in your yogurt while you’re at it!
I also add a few walnuts and a sliced banana. I eat that in the morning, sometimes, with a hot cup or two of java. I like the Greek yogurt (which, although the whey has been removed, has more protein). My favorite yogurt, though, is Brown Cow, because it has a high fat content.
Sorry barbitu8 for not providing the link. It was a reference to anon11’s last in a series of Are and Is nutrition questions, asking if blueberries are the only food that have the antioxidants that protect the brain.
(I like Greek yogurt too. Removing the whey also takes out most of the lactose so I can tolerate it much better. I also mix in a host of other stuff, chia seeds, hemp, ground flax, sunflower or pumpkin seeds, dried cherries, cranberries, nuts, cereal … depending on the day and what is in easiest reach that morning.)
That certainly wasn’t what was observed in this study:
True, but (and meaning no respect for what was a truly admirable effort for the era,) it’s not a very rigorous study. One centre, small numbers of patients, not blinded, not intention-to-treat analysis, multiple comparisons (yet still not of statistical significance), inadequate and incomplete presentation of baseline characteristics of volunteers (smoking, blood pressure, etc.), i.e. were the groups even balanced? Bottom line is that it’s probably uninterpretable.
I forgot two of its most important liabilities: 1. The authors (admit that they) cannot know just what the patents were eating and whether they were even taking the allocated oils. 2. The drop outs seem excessive, i.e. four for ‘medical reasons’ and another six for unknown reasons, meaning ten out of 80 were lost. BUT, their table III (done on patients “STILL IN THE TRIAL”) totals only 43. It seems, then, that almost half the subjects dropped out or were lost to follow-up. Such numbers definitely make a study uninterpretable.
Your point is well taken, but there is certainly other research that suggests that excess n-6 may be harmful:
Dr. William Lands has a good overview of PUFA biochemistry here:
Great advice, thanks. Strangely never thought of that.
[quote=“DSeid, post:10, topic:603572”]
Sorry barbitu8 for not providing the link. It was a reference to anon11’s last in a series of Are and Is nutrition questions, asking if blueberries are the only food that have the antioxidants that protect the brain.
I have gone a bit OTT with the personal nutrition drive. It was a doctor that told me, out of the blue, to eat lot’s of blueberries.
And much that it is not. Which is why the research needs to be evaluated in aggregate with emphasis placed on actual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when available.
This 2009 science advisory from the American Heart Association reviewed all the evidence for and against the oft repeated claim that more n-6 may be harmful. The conclusion:
In particular the evidence from RCTs is that
Overall the evidence supporting the claim made in the review linked to by KarlGauss is very strong.
And much (more) that it is not. Which is why the research needs to be evaluated in aggregate with emphasis placed on actual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when available.
This 2009 science advisory from the American Heart Association reviewed all the evidence for and against the oft repeated claim that more n-6 may be harmful. The conclusion:
In particular the evidence from RCTs is that
Overall the evidence supporting the claim made in the review linked to by KarlGauss is very strong.
Just don’t try nonfat half-and-half. It’s beneath vile.