@actofdog Yeah, I lived in & around Montreal for over a year in the '70's.

Not really, read below.

salt your bacon, that's HC

@metalhead222 HC ??

@MojoDave hardcore

Fats that are liquid at room temperature are considered safe (although fattening) but animal fats like lard and butter that are solid at room temperature aren't considered safe.

Back in the 70's ALL fats were considered unsafe. Now we can take comfort in chugging olive oil.

Petunia insists on her bacon anyway and I fry it up for her but I won't eat it.

@WonderWartHog99 Science continues to improve. Saturated fats, solid at room temp, are not all bad. What this study [health.harvard.edu] doesn't say is that saturated fat from grass fed beef is good fat. Trans fats (the ones they used to tell us we're good!) are actually the worst. My recommendation - The Big Fat Surprise:
[amazon.com]

@MissKathleen That's what I got from 'The Big Fat Surprise'. To my knowledge that's the latest research on fats, no?

@MissKathleen I followed Dr Loren Cordain ret prof from Colorado State for many years, until his retirement. He's an expert in the evolutionary diet of humans (aka the real Paleo diet, not always the one most widely promoted.) Many scientific papers & books. [amazon.com]
Currently I believe Jason Fung, a kidney specialist in Toronto, is on the cutting edge in human diet info. His obesity & fasting books are top notch & full of the latest science.
[amazon.com]
I've read much on the subject over the last 20 years. I'd be happy to exchange info with you. No mirrors involved! LOL!!

@MissKathleen Somewhere in Dr Cordain's work, he says there has never been any evidence of a culture that has been completely vegetarian. But in the not too distant past, all meat was pasture-raised & pasture-fed.

@MissKathleen Prior to westernization, the Inuit ate almost nothing but protein and fat. At that time they were quite healthy. They've since declined, like native Americans.

@MissKathleen How do we know that? Just asking. ?

@MissKathleen You are exactly right. I keep thinking it's more than that. Have you read Wheat Belly by Dr Davis? He provides some interesting evidence that genetically hybridized wheat doesn't change according to the usual genetic rules and the offspring contain proteins that humans have never encountered before. Nor have they ever been tested since wheat is assumed to be safe. Interesting book!

@MissKathleen What evidence exists that excess protein is unhealthy? re: my earlier Inuit example

@MissKathleen I wouldn't think of criticizing anyone's food choices. I'm not always too certain of my own! LOL!
The only item I'd question is that glyphosate is a proven carcinogen. Like you, I value the integrity of information, so here's some background. I apologize for length.
I've been in different segments of the horticulture industry for 35+ years. Between 1998 and 2013 I worked for the University of Fla as an Extension Agent teaching, among others, pesticide applicators their CEUs, (continuing education units) and potential applicators what they needed to know to obtain their state pesticide license. I'm familiar with pesticide licensing requirements, safety issues and many pesticides including Roundup (glyphosate). The controversy surrounding glyphosate has existed since the mid '70s. For better or worse, I've had to keep up with both sides of the controversy. Unfortunately, most of the glyphosate news that reaches consumers is fake news, cherry-picked, twisted and expanded by small groups of well-intentioned people out of fear and a misunderstanding of science. Despite thousands of studies over 30+ years of research by every developed country in the world, there is no proof that glyphosate is carcinogenic. Following this issue has become a habit, even tho I've been retarded, oops, I mean retired for 6 years. The recent case in California was a farce. Monsantos defense attys appeared clueless. Any experienced, educated applicator could have shown the defendant to be dumb as a bag of rocks about safety requirements and procedures. Don't get me started! ?
Here's a Wikipedia article on the website, The Genetic Literacy Project
[en.m.wikipedia.org]
Here's an article questioning the validity of IRACs decision to label glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic.' The IRAC did NO new research. It was a metadata study, meaning they only studied other, previous studies.
BTW their definiton of 'probably carcinogenic' means that under some unknown conditions, using some unknown dose of glyphosate, it's possible that cancer could occur. Not exactly a smoking gun. Yet this was the strongest statement anyone had come up with against glyphosate in decades. Needless to say the fearmongers and lawyers jumped on it. Here's one rebuttal:
[geneticliteracyproject.org]
Here's a rebuttal to another important opposition article:
[geneticliteracyproject.org]

Again, I apologize for going on and on. This is an important issue that's been twisted until the truth is almost unrecognizable.

I'm glad you enjoy bacon. Life wouldn't be quite the same without it. ?

Dr said I had a bacon deficiency. I'm working on that!