From Elizabeth: A new meta-analysis.
Generally I hate meta-analyses. It's usually very difficult to go through all of the references that a group has assembled to support their hypothesis (usually that saturated fat is bad). Even harder to find out what studies they have excluded. I tend to re-title them as "A meta-analysis of all statin/PUFA/low fat studies supportive of the lipid hypothesis shows marked support for the lipid hypothesis". At least someone has done the footwork for the opposing view of saturated fats this time.
It reminds me of this commentary, unfortunately associated with Nestle (the food giant), which sets out the basic concept (six years ago) that there is no evidence of harm from saturated fat and that efforts to reduce it throughout the food chain might be mistaken. Very mistaken.
Krauss has been more and more open as a supporter of saturated fat after his very cautious and mixed beginnings. This sort of publication is useful when confronted with the garbage from the Food Standards Agency condemning saturated fat. Cordain might be going the same route.
There is a general feeling in THINCS and the Nutrition and Metabolism Society that 2010 could be a good year for saturophiles and the rest of mankind too of course, should they care to listen.