It sounds like his familiar tune, look to the whole food, and not isolated components to see the real story. Animal foods promote disease, plant foods promote health. Trying to pin it on fat, or a kind of fat wasn't quite accurate, and for many didn't work because the food industry found clever ways of manipulating those components. Plus, currently the LC and paleo crowd are making the same points as defense of eating high fat animal foods. Campbell's position is that while they are correct in their interpretation concerning saturated fat, they are wrong to promote animal foods, and that is why he prefers to use animal protein as the marker, not saturated fat.
One of my takeaways is that eating plant-based saturated fat does not cause or exacerbate coronary artery plaque. Do you agree that the article at least implies this conclusion, or am I misinterpreting or stretching too far?
I don't think he made this point. Certainly they are safer, as he pointed out, if they are in whole food form because they are protected by the fiber and antioxidants of the plant. Going further is an extrapolation. Dr. Greger has a few videos on coconut that suggest its saturated fat content makes it a dangerous food.
I ask because, probably like many of you, I avoid high saturated fat, whole plant foods (coconut, avocado, nuts) on the recommendation of Dr. Esselstyn at least and perhaps others (Novick? McDougall?). Now I am wondering, because of Campbell's piece, whether there's disagreement among the WFPB gurus on the level of hazard from eating whole plants with a high saturated fat content for people like me who have diagnosed heart disease.
In such matters, I would side with Esselstyn for the addition of practical clinical experience as well as research.
Absent from the discussion is the issue of calorie density, which make such foods impractical for most people for more than an occasional treat.
