Apologies if it wasn't very clear, but it seems the main conclusion was that the mixing of carb and fat consumption together caused insulin resistance in both cases, but it was more increased with saturated fat consumption. Insulin resistance is, of course, never a good thing.

Yeah, the question seemed to imply something that you didn't actually mean. My understanding is that it is the over-consumption of saturated and trans fats that, primarily in (genetically) susceptible people, results in insulin resistance for the reason I outlined. Of course, I refer to type 2 diabetes because type 1 is another genetic problem that can be treated but not cured, whereas type 2 can be cured if you don't wait too long.

I believe some oils are referred to as fruit oils rather than seed oils, olive and avocado for example. Perhaps this is why they are more mono-unsaturated fats rather than the polyunsaturated fats. This is why I listed the 8 in the second paragraph that are generally referred to as seed oils. I have to agree that it can be confusing to use this description, because then people will often take this to mean all oils from plants and as you say, they are all different in their composition.

Yes, fruit oils but a lot of people, as you said, get it confused and assume that every cooking oil is a seed oil. You could add low-erucic-acid rapeseed, walnut and sesame, along with others if you really want to make it clear for people. By a similar token, as I mentioned, some people are being tricked into believing that low-erucic-acid rapeseed/Canola oil is the same as the machine lubricant colsa oil. I cannot comment on the relationship between the types of fats and the source, and I doubt it's an across-the-board tendency for one group to lean toward MUFAs and the other toward PUFAs.

I would also say that we are all different in how our bodies react to and metabolise different foods, which is why I try to gather as much information as I can and feel everyone should make their own decisions from there. I may not agree personally with their choices, but it's their choice in the end.

Absolutely! We are all humans but we are all different! Personally, I don't think that it's a good idea to have unfettered marketing of products that destroy health, especially as I've seen sufficient evidence that points to the deliberate "poisoning" (i.e. ruining health by selling dangerous food) of the masses combined with highly manipulative marketing to increase the inflow of capital in other industries, but that's a story for another day.

I struggled to find much that wasn't promoted by companies with a vested interest. Do you have any sources you could point me to? Part of my posting this was to see if any readers would have more information and sources they could point me towards. That's what I like about the community aspect here.

I generally use Google Scholar, but you could certainly research which are the most trustworthy journals. I also turn to certain YouTube channels that I've learned do a good job, like the 3 I mentioned. I've eliminated ones like Diary of a CEO (he doesn't screen out the con artists from the legit experts; he's making money, after all!), Joe Rogan, Zoe Science and Nutrition, and several others because they engage in shilling, lie, don't vet guests, etc.

I'm glad you brought this up. I did come across something about how trans fats can occur with the oils, but couldn't find much more on it other than it being when they process the oil to make it solid, like they did with Crisco back in the day (I believe this process is now banned for the most part). I was planning to delve into that further for another post. I've also come across mention of them developing as the oil peroxidates in the body after consumption, but haven't found anything to back that up and I don't like to make statements that can't be backed up. It's hard enough to know for sure what is happening in the body as things are metabolised anyway and it will be different for all of us.

Crisco's process that adds trans fats into oils has been banned, but it doesn't stop the process from being used in certain products, the introduction of them through refining and/or heating, the addition of mono-, di- and triglycerides that contain small amounts of trans fats, etc. Foods from bakeries, restaurants (including grocery stores that source directly from such sources) don't have to follow the same rules, so eating out a lot, especially if you're eating fried food, is a terrible risk. There's a lot of data out there. I'm not sure what you mean about perioxidates in oil developing in the body. It seems to ring a faint bell for me but I can't remember why. Biochemistry is a terribly complicated topic, so I sympathize!

Any oil that is solid or semi-solid at room temperature is high in saturated fats and bad for health, including butter and margarine.
I'm starting to wonder if there is nuance here again. I gather even the FDA has dropped its recommended cap on them. Is it more dependent on how our bodies are metabolising them and inflammation levels? You have some people with a genetic predisposition to producing cholesterol at a higher rate than average, for example. I am seeing the suggestion more often that it's the combining of high fat and high carbohydrate that seems to be the most problematic for all chronic disease, yet when people consume on the low fat or low carb ends of the spectrum (wholefood not ultra processed that is) they both have good outcomes despite the opposite approaches. What are your thoughts on this?

Yes, there's definitely nuance. Cocoa butter, for example, is better for you than palm/coconut, but how much better I have yet to discover. Do the benefits of the polyphenols in chocolate outweigh the cons of the saturated fat in the butter? I don't know.

Whatever the government says now is largely ruled over by Trump, and he's not a scientist, doctor, medical expert, dietitian or in any way someone who should be tearing down the NIH and related institutions because of that quack, RFK Jr. If the FDA has dumped those recommendations, that's bad news for MAHA because it's going in the wrong direction and it's most likely motivated by the livestock industry's massive power and unwillingness to pivot to something better. In other words, greed and laziness. Anyone who says that animal fats are better for us than plant fats (with exceptions) is a fool or a liar.

Yes, we have many genetic mutations that cause high cholesterol, gout, CVD, hyper-metabolizing of anesthetics and other pain-killers, and so on.

I haven't seen anything that says that high fat AND high carbs are driving all chronic diseases, and that would, I feel, be a gross generalization, don't you think? The reality is that there is no one solution that will work for everyone (even assuming they all miraculously decided to stop eating foolishly and only ate what is truly good for them), but most people would do best on a plant-based diet. As an example, the amount of toxins you'll find in plants is much lower than in animals, with freshwater fish being one that is pretty high in toxins. When I say plant-based, I mean the whole spectrum of vegetarians, vegans, pescetarians, ovo-lactarians, etc. with a whole-food lifestyle. Heck, even many fake meats are safer to eat than real meat (especially ruminants).

There is a big difference between low-fat and low-carb. If you look at the study sponsored by Virta Health, a keto diet company, and various industries with a vested interest, you'll see that most people do not do well, long-term, on a keto diet. Add to that the fact that the keto diet was developed to reduce epileptic seizures (and it's been discovered that it also helps with certain other neurological diseases), and that pretty much sums it up. Low-fat diets are more likely to have positive results, especially if the fats are from plants because of the lower toxins, trans fats, etc. Again, there's no one solution for us all, and a infinitessimally TINY number of people need a carnivorous diet. A lot of diets are mostly nonsense or are really only beneficial in the short-term. Do Keto and as soon as your biomarkers start reversing toward "worse" and then stop. And, of course, the more restrictive a diet is, the more likely that the person will fail, especially if they don't have support from family and friends, or they are weak-willed.

Metabolism plays a role, that is true, but I believe that's separate from inflammation levels (at least that's my understanding). First, we metabolize and then our body reacts. If we consume a lot of pro-inflammatory things, it's generally a bad idea, but I think some people may have an edge.

A high-fat, high-carb diet doesn't really sound ideal to me, but I guess it also depends on the types of fats and carbs.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate you taking the time to delve into this with me!