The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
in 1800 in the 19th century 1909 we were eating tons of animal fat all we were eating was tallow and butter and lard and heart attacks were essentially unheard of unheard of macular degeneration very very rare it's incredibly rare all we were eating was animal fat the fat that is vilified today
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
130 years ago, Americans specifically eat exclusively or 98% animal fats. We're eating tallow, which is rendered beef fat. We're eating butter. We're eating eggs. We're eating not much ghee, but probably some ghee. And then lard, which is from pigs. And correlation, no causitive inference here, heart disease, vanishingly low. Vanishingly low.
So if anyone is going to argue that animal fats are causing heart disease, it's that's a tough thing because we have a really interesting historical experiment to say there's nothing going on here.