The New York Times strikes again.
In an editorial in yesterday’s paper entitled “The Great White Way” Nina Planck decries the fact that markets even in the poorest districts are promoting 1 percent milk. And that schools are doing the same thing with their school lunches.
Ms. Planck makes the point that whole milk is a whole food containing, among a host of good nutrients, vitamins A and D, both of which require fat for their absorption. If you drink 1 percent milk, whatever vitamins A and D you do get, won’t be absorbed.
But what about that awful saturated fat that is in whole milk? Says Ms. Planck:
Scientists are increasingly finding that whole milk and saturated fats have been given an undeserved bad rap. Many experts say the evidence blaming saturated fats for heart disease is surprisingly weak. Indeed, the main effect of eating saturated fats is to raise high-density lipoproteins, or H.D.L., the so-called good cholesterol. And with H.D.L., the higher, the better.
Then she writes the words I’ve been waiting to read:
What about recommendations that we should drink low-fat milk to prevent heart disease? A federal study released last week, the largest study of its kind, found that low-fat diets do not prevent heart disease.[my italics]
I’m eating this with a spoon. The ink is barely dry on these studies, and they’re already being quoted as gospel.
No more can the low-fatters lord it over us with their condescending sneers of, ‘Well, sure low-carb diets make you lose weight better, but at the expense of clogging your arteries.’ Now all we have to do is invoke THE STUDY. It will be like shoving a cross in a vampire’s face. If they can’t figure out on their own that these are fairly crappy studies, I’m not going to tell them.