Okay, I know that PUFA is more readily oxidized than MUFA, and MUFA more so than SFA. SFA is revered because it is stable (i.e. less prone to oxidation). IN my mind, this just means that it is harder for the body to burn SFA as energy as opposed to MUFA or PUFA- you are a better fat burner when the diet is composted of mostly MUFA/PUFA over SFA.
My own n=1 experimentation would show that I feel, perform, and look better with more MUFA emphasis as opposed to SFA emphasis. Also, several studies show you MUFA and PUFA are better used as fuel for the body than SFA, which is most readily partitioned into fat storage. For example, this one: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n12/full/oby2003202a.html
I think people hear oxidation and they immediately think free radical damage. Of course you are going to generate free radicals, but those occur no matter what you're doing as long as you are burning some form of energy.
Could someone please tell me where my reasoning is going wrong?
Thanks for the help.
EDIT: don't get me wrong. I do eat saturated fat from what is in red meat, small amounts of coconut oil or butter to cook with, and the occasional bit of whipped cream. I just don't make it the majority of fat calories- which comes from beef and avocado and almonds + fish oil.