He is indeed an idiot. I also posted in his comments. My comment was:

Looks like your biases show:

2 randomized trials suggesting PUFAs --> Cancer:

1. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2871%2991086-5/abstract

2. http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/158/11/1181

One of numerous epidemiological studies suggesting PUFAs --> Cancer (and SFA do not):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2005.00084.x/full

For further reading, note that dairy fat is usually associated with less cancer. Funny given that dairy fat is highly saturated. Take a look at the EPIC study. Could be the vit K... But even if so, the palmitic acid doesn't seem to be so bad then.

Try to be a little more objective in the future.

My response:

Others have already pointed out that you are basically just cherry-picking epidemiological evidence when not all studies support your conclusions, and no correlative data could actually support a conclusion anyway because of confounding factors, which you seem to be aware of. Perhaps confounding factors are only relevant when they support your beliefs.

But the diabetes study is different. There is basically no evidence that dietary saturated fat causes insulin resistance in humans, and there have been randomized controlled trials that falsified the notion http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/02/saturated-fat-and-insulin-sensitivity.html.

Even just reading your source it is hard to say that the phenomenon described implicates saturated fat, as they noted that EPA was preventative of the JNK downregulation. It should not be interpreted as 'saturated fat bad, EPA good" but as "EPA is necessary for the proper regulation of palmitic acid's role in regulating insulin sensitivity". Indeed, most of the studies in rats that claim to show that saturated fat in the diet is bad do so in the context of an omega-3 deficiency, if you add some fish oil there is no damage done http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3303333

It strikes me as nonsensical that the body would be designed to harm itself on exposure to saturated fat, natural selection doesn't create organisms that induce pathology upon encountering a nutrient just for the heck of it. The reason why palmitic acid has a role in downregulating JNK is not because natural selection wants us to die, but because palmitic acid in the cell is often a sign of a glucose shortage. When glucose is short, we do not want our skeletal muscles to take up glucose, because we need it more for the brain. The muscles can run on fats, but certain parts of the brain can't. So palmitic acid induces a reduction in insulin signaling to prevent the muscles from leeching glucose from the blood stream. It is adaptive, and not pathological, because in healthy people you will only ever get this insulin resistance in the context of low serum glucose, and so there will be no hyperglycemia associated with insulin resistance and once glucose is more abundant in the body insulin sensitivity will be restored http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/09/physiological-insulin-resistance-and.html Peter showcases here how downregulation of glucose transporters by saturated fat is adaptive and conserves glucose, and so is downregulation of anything else that causes glucose uptake into the cells.

Also I must add that his "zomg saturated fat causes diabetes" study was part 1 and in vitro study, which can't be extrapolated to the normal functioning in vivo and 2. A "zomg we gave mice tons of lard and they got sick!" study which I already explains is flawed.

He's an idiot. I posted so in his comments....

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

This analysis put together data from 21 different studies that included nearly 350,000 people tracked for an average of 14 years, and concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke.

The cancer links he posts all have easily spotted flaws which I'll respond to later if nobody has beaten me to it. feel free though...

He disputes the hunter-gatherer argument supporting high sat-fat diets...

"Regarding those ingenious people, they lived in toxin-free environments, ate entirely natural diets and exercised huge amounts. Could it be that they were healthy in spite of the saturated fats?"

But then goes on to cite the Kitvans.

Thus, you could say...

Could it be that they were healthy in spite of the high carbohydrate intake?

This is not my particular stance, but it highlights the weakness of his logic.

The human body stores energy as saturated fat, we also have rather elaborate systems in place for maintaining a particular, tightly controlled range of blood sugar, thus it is unlikely that either is "bad". I believe that how one responds to any "whole food" diet comes down to genetic variation and epigenetic environmental factors.

I think that we can all agree, however, that processed "franken-foods" are the devil :)

Also, I think that he has conflated "ingenious" with "indigenous".

So the alternative is....? PUFA's, grains? People have to eat something. As far as I know there has never been a study that [claims saturated fat is bad, and] differentiates between feedlot animal fat and pastured animal fat, so until I see a definitive study I'll be sticking with what seems to be making me healthy: ruminant tallow, coconut oil, and fatty pork.

The pollution argument makes me crazy too, they try to replace "how" with "what" is healthy. Just because we've f'ed up the food sources we need, doesn't mean we don't need them.