Thanks for taking the time to provide those citations.

1 - This study has a tiny sample size of 9 sedentary, slightly overweight people and did not seek out to exonerate a low-carb, high-fat diet. Rather, it compared a paleolithic-type diet (30% of calories from proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from carbohydrates.) to SAD - the standard American diet - not exactly a high standard to beat.

2 - It's clearly written right in the study: "results of this study do not address the occurrence of rare adverse events, nor can they be extrapolated to all patients seen in general clinical practice." Again, an n=13 sample size is just insignificant. Let's bring out some meta-analyses and systematic reviews, not case reports and case-crossover studies.

3 - I am familiar with this Patty Siri-Tarino et al. paper - it gets cited all the time by fat apologists. I don't have time to go into all the details, but you can watch this short presentation pointing out its faults - https://www.youtube.com/embed/a-Tx9dCbv-g. Let's also not forget Patty works with/for the animal agriculture shill Ronald Krauss - a guy who gets massive paychecks from the beef industry, Monsanto and Coca Cola to downplay the risks of unhealthy food.

4 - "Assuming that the inverse association between SFA and stroke mortality is causal, it would nevertheless be inappropriate to recommend an increased consumption of SFA-containing products to the general Japanese population, because it might increase population levels of total cholesterol and the risk of IHD"

5 - Read the article replies. Here is one from Frank Sacks of Harvard: "The meta-analysis of dietary fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease by Chowdhury et al. contains multiple errors and omissions, and the conclusions are seriously misleading [and should be disregarded]." Uh oh!

6 - Wow, this one is quite brazen. "Nutrition Impact is a small consulting firm that specializes in helping food & beverage companies develop and communicate aggressive, science-based claims about their products and services." Still, the only reasonable conclusion they were able to squeeze out was: "Thus, policies that prioritize the reduction of SFA [saturated fat] consumption without specifically considering the replacement nutrient may have little or no effects on disease risk, especially as the most common replacement in populations is often CHO [carbohydrate]." Sure, replacing saturated fat with straight table sugar is probably not a good idea, this is a no-brainer and doesn't lead me to the conclusion low-carb, high-fat diets are superior in any way.

7 - "This study suggests that to prevent CHD, SFA intake should be replaced with PUFA intake rather than MUFA or carbohydrate intake. However, the effects of substitution of carbohydrates may vary depending on the quality of the carbohydrates consumed. [...] In this study, only type of fat, not type of carbohydrates, was considered" Well, isn't that convenient! Let's lump all carbohydrate-rich foods into one category! No way that'll bias the results!

> I don't disagree with your conclusions in general, but do think it is a bit over-dismissive.

You're right and I apologise. I'll try to do better next time. Obviously, this is a topic I feel very heated about.