Tuesday, 12 December 2017

Goose stew and living with a racist

It's water fowl hunting season and the bird of choice, because they're by far the biggest and most numerous and therefore the easiest to shoot, is the magpie goose. Also known as Anseranas Semipalmata by bird geeks and Gurrumattji by certain Aboriginal tribal groups in Arnhem Land.
Prehistoric bird, apparently
Magpie Geese are an important food source for Aboriginal peoples of Northern Australia and also fill up the freezers of many non-Aboriginal people of Darwin and its surrounds. Traditionally, they are plucked, gutted and thrown on the coals and that's about as technical as it gets. The problem I have with this method is directly related to the fact that magpie geese are the leanest animals you are ever likely to eat. Tasty, sure, but invariably tough and chewy if you aren't a little inventive in terms of cooking method. The only thing you can conceivably do with the leanest part of the lean bird, the breast, is to slice it thinly across the grain and marinate it for flash frying. 

You may be thinking that you could cook it like like a duck breast, but you'd be forgetting that ducks have fat and these birds do not. None. Whatsoever. 

A box of geese...sleeping

a bag of giblets

My wife, an Aboriginal woman, grew up eating geese regularly and is more than a little set in her ways when it comes to preparing and eating them. They must be plucked, not skinned, and a goose stew is typically based on a soy and oyster sauce and vermicelli noodle concoction that tastes fine, but doesn't really float my boat.

While I would do many unpleasant things for my dearly beloved, plucking many large birds, when the skin is not something I consider a prize component, is not one of them. It's a shit job and I won't do it. Similarly, if I'm going to spend hours hunting and cleaning geese, I'll damn well cook them the way I want to. 

Well, not always, but I'm in the mood for exaggeration. 

On a recent Sunday afternoon, I retrieved a bag of geese limbs from the freezer and began preparing dinner. On observing me, the first and only question my wife asks is "are you cooking it white-man way or black-fella* way?" The inference, of course, being that 'white-man way' is clearly inferior.

It is so hard being a white man these days. The oppression and ridicule is barely bearable. But I pushed on, ignoring the racist remarks, and produced a meal that I was reasonably happy with. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but the meat was tender and the sauce had flavour. When you consider that magpie goose is often some of the toughest and most unforgiving protein you can attempt to use, I was more than a little pleased.

So, I was silly enough to ask my Black Queen - "what do you think, was it alright?"

Her reply "uh-huh, yeah, it was OK." The tone in her voice easily translated to "white-man cooking is shit". 

Ignore the racist** woman, if you've stumbled on to this page, looking for nothing more than a cooking method that will turn your lean goose limbs into edible food, here is the short answer:

Cook them in a pressure cooker for 75-85 minutes. 

75 minutes seems to be a sweet spot. I'll sometimes throw in some potatoes for an extra ten minutes. Whether you throw white-man or black-man ingredients in the pot is entirely up to you, but this is what I added:

Garlic, ginger, onions, carrots, chilli, anchovies, tomato paste, chicken stock, soy sauce, Worcestershire sauce, red wine (after reducing by at least half) and some frozen veggies at the end because veggies are compulsory, apparently.
spot the fat

onion, garlic, chilli, ginger, anchovies

I did take a picture of the final dish, but it looked about as appetising as a tofu burger. All that matters is my trustworthiness and that I give you my word that it tasted fairly good and the meat was falling off the bone.

Here's a photo I took of a rock, instead.

*in this part of the world, black-fella is often black-Asian-fella due to the history of Chinese and other Asians' interaction with Aboriginals over the years. Hence the soy and oyster sauce and vermicelli noodles. No, I have no idea how the noodles worked their way into the recipe.

**the fact that I have to confirm that I'm not being serious here is more than a little depressing. The term 'racist' is one of many words that has lost its meaning due to over-use. A bit like "hilarious" and "best ever" and "news". In all honesty, I'm more prejudice against white people than my wife. 

White people are no good. Don't trust any of them.

Saturday, 25 November 2017

The brevity of life and first world problems.

I have problems. 

Everyone has problems, but on a scale of one to ten, with one being "I hate my job and I can't seem to save money for a holiday" and ten being "I live in real and daily fear of having a bomb dropped on my head and have no access to clean water and food", then my problems are about zero point six. And even that's probably an exaggeration.

I don't love my job, sure, but it pays well and I'm not digging ditches in the sun or bored out of my mind. And yet small talk in the office kitchen or elevator inevitably involves a comment from someone about how close it is to the weekend. We're all either full of shit or wishing our lives away without acknowledging how truly fortunate we are to be functioning human beings without real problems.

Mornings in my house used to be stressful because it'd invariably end in me yelling at my kids to hurry the hell up and get ready for school. I'd be stressed, the kids would be sad and it was all for nothing - because I had this inexplicable 'need' to get to work earlier than necessary. What an idiot.

I'm trying to make a concerted effort to live more 'in the now'. It's a work in progress, I admit, but I think I might get there one day.

When it comes to what I put in my mouth, I know for a fact that my body runs efficiently on animal flesh and the fat that comes with it. If I regularly eat bread, pasta, grains, my body lets me know that it's not happy by adding a few kilos to my waist and letting colds and flu past my immune security system. It doesn't matter how careful I am with portion sizes or exercise, that's what happens and that's why I don't do it. 

Luckily enough, I'm healthy and I don't suffer serious adverse effects from eating particular foods. We also have access to a wide range of tasty animals. Eating good food is a priority in our house so, once in a while, it's nice to let loose and eat something that I wouldn't normally. Like pasta. 

But not any shitty pasta with shitty ingredients. 

Some of the ingredients. 

Prawn heads in boiling water = easy prawn stock

bacon, onion, garlic, chilli, white wine, stock
Hairy fish = umami

Drinks break
Cream and parmesan cheese
Another drinks break
and served, of course, with:

Life is short. I have no real problems. In fact, I'm exceptionally fortunate to be able to live a little and indulge, once in a while. Monday will come, I'll go to work, and I'll still have no real problems.

Saturday, 11 November 2017

Leaving money to the Heart Foundation in your will - are you sure? Really?

What people plan to do with money after death is clearly none of my business, but I wonder if they've really put much thought into the value-for-money side of things when deciding to leave money to charities, as opposed to, I don’t know, leaving it to family, friends or their cat.

Maybe I'm just a selfish, self-absorbed pessimist, but my observations tell me that the number of people, businesses and charities asking for money is beyond a joke. It pains my perpetually-oppressed white man sensibilities that I can’t walk into the bloody supermarket without first avoiding eye contact with the smiley young person asking if they can “ask me a quick question”.

Of course that 'quick question', that follows the first question, is nothing of the sort. It’s a scripted monologue about how the kittens with leprosy in Barbados won’t last another brutal West Indian winter without my monthly automatic credit card debits. Or some other vague but altruistic cause for which I’d be a heartless prick to say no to.

The ‘quick question’ eventually comes and it is simply “what is your credit card number?”

Fuck that. Fuck the smiley young person and fuck the cats. Yes, as a matter of fact, I can hear the little kitties screaming and I’ll still sleep very well tonight, thank you very much.

Which brings me to the Heart Foundation. It's my favourite charity. The very name sounds so noble and heroic. So what if their Heart Foundation 'tick program' is a transparently ridiculous sham? They need to charge food companies for it, otherwise they won’t have the funds to conduct research to save our hearts.

Our hearts, damn you!

Heart disease is responsible for more deaths than the US military. You’d be a sociopath to say no to such a wonderful cause. There's just that unfortunate fact that almost everything the HF espouse, is based on a massive pile of stinky, necrotic nonsense. In my opinion.

The Heart Foundation is one of our more well-known charities, operating for many years and with a string of greatest hits including Fat Clogs Your Arteries Like Sludge in Your Sink, Vegetable Oils Make Squeaky Clean Arteries, Salt, Salt, it's all your Fault.

One of the Heart Foundation's converted faithful - who is quite proud to be poisoning their customers

The HF have also formed partnerships with altruistic food companies to spruik wonderful new food stuffs with plant sterols that are no doubt slowly saving the population.

throw away your statins and eat this

a very interesting question

And so people hand over their money and add the foundation to their list of beneficiaries in their will. They participate in HF events like Jump Rope for Heart and MyMarathon. Yes, they even torture themselves to raise money for the cause.

But I have this feeling in my gut that a lot of these people don't really know where that money will end up. Funnily enough, the HF are not shy in telling us.

Is that true? Well, according to the 2016 Annual Financial Statements:

The HF did quite nicely in 2016, with a $22.4 million surplus for the year. They pay no tax of course, and had just under $34 million cash in the bank - as at 31 December 2016.

Of the $64.7 million they received in fund-raising for the year, $44 million was from bequests. 68% of their fund-raising comes from people who leave money in their wills.

That would be a fantastic statistic if you thought the Heart Foundation was spending that money wisely (i.e. good research), but when you consider their consolidated revenue was $81.6 million and $12.33 million (15.1%) was spent on research - it doesn't sound so crash hot. Especially considering they spent $15.5 million on fund-raising. 

Yes, they spent more on fund-raising than they did on research - surely you saw that in the bar graph above? They haven't tried to hide it.

But it gets worse. They spent $27.9 million on health programs. This might be great news if their health programs made sense, and I certainly agree that encouraging people to quit smoking and exercise is a good thing, but their major push in the area of nutrition is a massive counter-productive mountain of bullshit. 

$27.9 million or 43% of fund-raising dollars (or 63% of bequests) goes to funding, in my personal opinion, shit. It's not just a waste of money, it's encouraging people to avoid animal products in favour of sugar (digested carbohydrates) and vegetable oils.

Personally, if I were so inclined to sideline my children in my will, in favour of a bunch of obtuse clowns, I'd like my money to be going into valuable research. I admit to being sceptical about any research the HF consider worthy of investigating, but I was impressed with the microbubble clot busting thing. What else they've contributed to the world of cardiac health, is not so clear.

Rounding this up - I'm not saying we should all hoard our cash and not give it to good causes or those in need. I'm just saying that we should think before handing it over to a massive marketing machine that spends a significant amount of your contribution on their self-interest.

This is the world we live in now, and the HF has a lot to do with it:

Surely life would be so much easier if we all just used butter

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Study: The hypothesis that early man deep fried food is not supported by evidence.

A new paper has just been published. You read it here first.


Evidence of early humans using the deep fry cooking method is bordering on non-existent and anyone who says otherwise is high. Further studies involving the preparation of intensely flavoursome morsels of protein may be required.


Credit where it's due, if it weren't for the efforts and ingenuity of archaic humans, we would not be here today.  But as progressive as homo erectus and neanderthals were, there is no documented proof that these 'cavepersons' regularly deep fried their meals in animal or coconut fat. 

For starters, the whole process is time consuming and messy and monitoring oil temperature is vital in serving a meal that is cooked evenly and that family members are happy enough to eat. Then there is the clean up, which, to be completely frank, is a fucking pain in the arse.

Materials and Method

To test how time consuming and messy the deep frying process is, a used (once) deep fryer was purchased on Gumtree and a few cows' worth of dripping procured from the local supermarket.

Chicken nuggets ensued.

As did salt and pepper squid.

And to finally dispel any remaining doubt, I pulled out a recipe that is as fiddly and laborious as it is delicious...Thai stuffed prawns.
all these prawns appear to be female

prawn stuffed with more prawns that have been blended with delicious stuff

a school of stuffed prawns


The food was crispy and delicious and the whole family enjoyed it immensely. The clean up process was annoyingly lengthy, involved many rolls of kitchen paper, and not something I would bother with on a regular basis. My outdoor table is covered with globs of cow fat.


To my knowledge, no one has ever unearthed proof of neanderthals using rudimentary temperature monitors or crafting filters from the ballsack of woolly mammoth so the used oil could be cleared of impurities and stored for subsequent fry ups. 

This speculation* that neanderthals had the time, inclination and mental ingenuity to cook nuggets of meat in oil is up there with the fairy tale about them farming potatoes and grinding wheat to sprinkle on their salad.


The deep fryer, when used with natural animal fats and not poisonous and unnatural seed oils, is a modern cooking tool that produces delicious morsels of nutrition. While it is possible that the neanderthal had the intelligence to render animal fat, heat it to high temperature, and immerse protein until the surface is crispy and tasty, the likelihood of them doing so is almost zero. 

*speculation that I made up because I was bored.


Tefal Filtra Pro User Manual

Thai Stuffed Prawns recipe from the cooking class we did on our honeymoon in Phuket.

Friday, 5 May 2017

Remembering the clowns on ANZAC Day

I have the utmost respect for anyone who has been tasked, voluntarily or involuntarily, with participating in war. I can't imagine what that must be like and I never want to find out.

April 25 is our national day of commemoration for all those that have served in our armed forces - ANZAC Day. ANZAC being the acronym for the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps and the date being a reference to the day in 1915 when our troops landed on Turkey's Gallipoli Peninsula. 

On April 25 we honour the soldiers and their families who have been affected by their service in war or peacekeeping efforts (except our Indigenous peoples during the British invasion, but that's a tangent for another day). We may choose to do this by attending services at dawn, watching ANZAC parades that operate down almost every town and city main street or by wearing a red poppy. It is said that during the First World War, red poppies were among the first things to grow in the devastated battlefields of France and Belgium.

The respect shown to the diggers and their families on ANZAC day is fantastic. My Dad is one of the unlucky sods who's birth date was pulled out of a hat in the late 1960's and won a trip to Vietnam in 1968. The acknowledgement and respect he receives on that day, after almost 50 years of suffering its psychological fallout, is priceless. When he returned home in 1969, he was simply expected to forget about his tour and get on with life. 

Those scars don't heal.  

So, it's tricky to word a post about the negative aspects of ANZAC Day without looking like an ungrateful prick; an accusation easily thrown at those who are quite happy about the acknowledgement aspect, but not so thrilled about the media, retailers and the major sporting bodies celebrating the financial benefits that inevitably go hand in hand with 'remembering'.

Then, of course, there are the politicians. 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a sane person who doesn't think war is shit. Despite it being shit, a lot of people also view it as sometimes being necessary. In my experience, that viewpoint is typically a prelude to vague and tenuous reasons as to why the war is justified and why our country had to be involved. 

So, what are the reasons we, as a country, should participate in armed conflict?

  • to help out a country that's been invaded;
  • in an effort to stop a lunatic from slaughtering lots of people;
  • because one of your allies says that you should;
  • to prevent an apparent lunatic from developing nuclear weapons, the same weapons that you or your allies have shitloads of;
  • to stop communism;
  • to stop terrorism;
  • to provide the wonders of democracy to countries that don't currently enjoy it;
  • because you're an elected politician and your popularity will improve;
  • to prevent all the helicopters, jets, ships, subs, tanks and soldiers, that you've spent billions on, sitting idle.
Politicians of many countries use these reasons, despite most of them not having any logic whatsoever. But, being politicians, you never know the true reason and it certainly seems to me that the reasons for Australians being involved in any war, ever, can be summarised as follows:
  1. because the UK and/or US asked us to; or
  2. we volunteered to, so that we were seen to be supportive of the so-called democratic West.
Since the Korean War, if the American Government decides to pick a fight with someone, our democratically elected clowns dutifully tag along. 

I'm not saying there will never be a good reason to participate in war, I'm trying to point out that the decision to do so is inherently clouded by the fact that the people elected to make that decision are corrupt liars with more than one agenda, which is further complicated by the corrupt liars in the mainstream media.

How on earth are the average people meant to commit to an act of war when they are being fed blatant lies by scumbags who don't have any skin in the game? The scumbags are not the ones who have to don a helmet and risk their lives. They're not the ones who are left physically and psychologically damaged for life. They're the ones who benefit from death and destruction and then gather 'round on days like ANZAC day and piously lay wreaths as if they had nothing to do with the deaths of all those people, both in our country and the countries we effectively trespassed on.

As Paul Hogan once said (or the writer of a certain TV show in the 80s) - the politicians belong in B Company. They'll B here when the troops leave and B here when some of them come back.

Our schools teach kids about how many lives were lost in war, where they were lost and selected tales of bravery, but the reasons for joining the war are usually fairly light on for details.

Why did we join the Vietnam War? The official line is that "Australian support for South Vietnam in the early 1960s was in keeping with the policies of other nations, particularly the United States, to stem the spread of communism in Europe and Asia".

That's it. Because communism.

Which sounds very familiar to recent wars that are fought because terrorism. Because we don't like the ruler of another country or we don't think they should have the same weapons that we do. Don't we, especially our soldiers, deserve a better reason than that? 

I don't know why it is any of our business what social system another country rules by. Why does it matter for some countries and not others? Why can the US Government continue to do whatever they want, international law be damned?

US exceptionalism is maddening; it's like the world is one big school yard and they're the over-grown bully. The Australian Government is the skinny weakling, hanging on to his back pocket, taunting the other unpopular kids who, one day, might decide to throw their considerable weight around. We're really that confident that the bully will help us out, if it does come to that.

I have so many questions and the only answers that make any sense to me, get so little exposure. 

I'll continue to have mixed feelings about ANZAC Day. I'm grateful that my Dad came back from war in one piece and I'm proud of his strength to battle through life with mental scars he didn't deserve to receive. But until the day comes, when after the last post is sounded and the soldiers are acknowledged, we take a minute to remember the clowns who sent them all off to war...I'm not sure I'll be able to wholeheartedly get into the spirit of the day.

Maybe that makes me shallow and spiteful. I can't help it...it shits me that so many people are forgetting to ask some very important questions.

Why? And who decided why?

Wednesday, 26 April 2017

Low density lipoproteins cause heart disease. Fo' sho'.

Clearly, there is no shortage of people who believe that LD lipoproteins are evolution's booby trap for those of us silly enough to trip over it with our pharmaceutical free eating habits and you could waste an extraordinary amount of your life reading every paper and blog post and watching every vegan YouTube video that purports this to be true. I wouldn't advise it, but every now and then something comes along that is both bemusing and breathtakingly ballsy, and is worth a look, if only for entertainment value.

Case in point:

TLDRCGAF: Drugs will save everyone from the LDL booby trap and the earlier you fools take them, the safer you'll be. LDL is causative. Not correlated. Not a risk factor. Not an innocent bystander. CAUSATIVE. 

Some highlights:
skeptics be damned

It doesn't matter how you lower it, just lower it.


I know it's usually poor form and lazy to point out conflicts of interest, but the list of conflicts in this paper were impressively lengthy. And I can be lazy because I'm not seriously trying to counter any of their arguments, because...well...I have a certain amount of self-respect. 

Propaganda dressed up in nice formatting and pretty graphs is still bullshit, just that little bit funnier.

Tuesday, 7 February 2017

The Toddler Paradox - Nutritional Guidelines for Infants

Nutritional Guidelines for Infants – a little drop of sanity in a cesspool of nonsense, or simply further proof of the conflicted and confused world of the nutrition expert? 

From the 2012 Australian Infant Feeding Guidelines:

“Low fat diets are not recommended for children under 2 years of age. Babies and young children grow very rapidly and need the fat supplied in whole milk, cheese and yogurt, and in foods such as eggs and meat, to give the energy they need for growth and development. Young children also need some fat in their diet to provide the essential fatty acids required for healthy brain development.” 

But, unless you are new to this planet, you will be very familiar with the recommendations made for anyone who lives beyond their second year of life:

“Enjoy a wide variety of nutritious foods from these five groups every day:
• Plenty of vegetables, including different types and colours, and legumes/beans
• Fruit
• Grain (cereal) foods, mostly wholegrain and/or high cereal fibre varieties, such as bread,      cereals, rice, pasta, noodles, polenta, couscous, oats, quinoa and barley
• Lean meats and poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds, and legumes/beans
• Milk, yoghurt, cheese and/or their alternatives, mostly reduced fat.”

You may be thinking "yeah, so what?", but I've had a hard time grasping the rationale behind the conflicting advice for members of the same species. 

Maybe I'm just slow, but I'm not aware of another species who instinctively, and almost universally, believe that babies and infants require specific nutrition for optimum health and growth, but then, in the very early stages of their offspring’s development, behave as if those same food sources are harmful.

Of course I'm talking specifically about dietary fat, which is essential, but then quickly becomes 'atherogenic' and something to avoid.

I guess there may be animals that do this, but even if there are, I'm well aware of the dangers of transferring what happens in one species, to what happens in humans. Nonetheless, in an attempt to get my head around the logic, I can't help but imagine an African Wild Dog providing its newly-weaned pups with the internal organs of an impala for the first few weeks, and then deciding it is no longer suitable and instead giving them the lean muscle meat of the impala’s rump. Or stuffing savannah grass into their mouths.

Mate, what the fuck are you talking about?
In the age 2+ recommendations above, I've emphasized in bold those two areas where the adult African Wild Dog is removing the impala’s internal organs and visceral fat, dragging them out in the open and away from her pleading pups, to where the vultures can eat them. 

“Let the vultures have a heart attack”, I imagine her thinking.

But no, those dogs clearly aren't as intelligent as humans, so it would be ridiculous to suggest that you’d ever hear David Attenborough describing such a scene.
If my Mum did that, I would bite her. Really hard
Pointless animal comparisons aside, we’ve all had enough exposure to Nutritional Guidelines to understand that they’re a bit like reading a text book entitled “Ethics in Investment Banking” - both have almost zero relevance to what actually goes on in the real world and there is an inherent pious grandstanding by the authors in terms of what they advise is the route to Valhalla and what worth their nonsense has to the human race.

So, springing from a platform that presumes expert committees who produce nutritional guidelines are a special breed of conflicted, I would like to repeat their, unarguably, excellent advice for little kiddies:
  • Babies and young children need fat for growth and development. 
  • Young children need essential fatty acids for healthy brain development.
  • Babies and young children need the fat supplied in whole milk, cheese and yogurt, and in foods such as eggs and meat.
Cue applause.

If you’re in the habit of feeding your brain the fatty acids it needs, regardless of your age, I'm guessing there are a few questions that should be popping into your well-fed head by now, namely:
  1. Do these people really believe that body and brain development ceases at age 2?
  2. Why are humans given the all-clear to eat fat for the first 24 months of life when the rest of us are told it will lead to inevitable destruction?
  3. Do they hate babies?
  4. Wooah, did they really just say that vegan parents are child abusers? That is so politically incorrect. But yet so true.
  5. If French people are considered by some ‘experts’ as a nutritional paradox, does that mean French infants are a paradox inside a paradox? Enigma wrapped in a paradox’s swaddle cloth? A paradox squared?
Stupid jokes aside, and while it’s quite easy to imagine the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells chairing the guidelines working committee, it still doesn't explain why they've decided to pick this subset of 0-2 years, the population of which, they provide a completely contradictory set of rules.

I like to think I'm not silly, potential Dunning-Kruger notwithstanding, but when I decided to have a closer look at their reasoning, I wasn't expecting to find any intelligent answers. 

But did I find any? Maybe. Maybe not. 

This is so fucking exciting. Read on!!

From page 73 of the Australian Dietary Guidelines (click to zoom):

You only have to look at the titles of their references to understand that the rationale for low fat foods at age 2+ is because they think that dietary fat will result in heart disease. There is no other plausible reason for them using these papers as supporting evidence, and if there is, they haven’t explained it even remotely well.

Bugger brain development, these people clearly want us to believe that the tenuous, and I believe incorrect, hypothesis that eating fat causes heart disease, is more important than the need for appropriate physiological and neurological growth. 

If that makes any sense to you at all, then I feel a great depth of sorrow for your dearly departed ability for cognitive reasoning.

From reference 719 - "it is increasingly clear that cholesterol concentrations can be elevated during childhood and adolescence and that increased concentrations in childhood are associated with increased risk of atherosclerosis and CVD in adulthood."

"For children between 12 months and 2 years of age for whom overweight or obesity is a concern or who have a family history of obesity, dyslipidemia, or CVD, the use of reduced-fat milk would be appropriate."

So, now it's from age 12 months that low fat foods are appropriate. Fascinating.

Here’s where I try and make this post shorter than the guidelines themselves. On my quest for logic, I started with the Australian Nutritional Guidelines, the moved to the Infant Feeding Guidelines, which strangely is hard to locate in its original location, but is fairly similar to the overarching guidelines. 

There is also a food modelling publication, t
he front page which suggests it is put together by the Dietitians Association of Australia, so I guess it’s not surprising that it suggests that low fat dairy should be given to kids even earlier - from age 13 months. 
Low fat dairy after age 1. Plus the joys of polyunsaturated margarine. Yay.

There is also a 1,105 page document entitled "The Australian Dietary Guidelines Evidence Report" which is chockablock full of papers that supposedly back up the guidelines and most references to infants inevitably lead to cholesterol levels as the ultimate guide to health. Brilliant.

They do briefly mention on page 398 that Ness et al, a paper on the Boyd Orr cohort, found that saturated fat and total fat in childhood diet was found to be protective of all causes of mortality and deaths attributable to cardiovascular disease."
"not consistent" with the dogma...next!

But of course this was fobbed off and thrown on the "not included studies" list. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, that they don't deserve, that the study was crap (it seemed on par with a lot of the other papers they used), but i
t eventually becomes evident that reading thousands of pages of justification for recommendations that don't make any sense is a waste of life. 

Specifically, mine.

Fortunately, I found an interview of two of the experts involved in formulating the guidelines and they happened to be talking about the very issue I was trying to clarify.

Unfortunately, because I thought I had the logic sussed, they didn't mention cholesterol levels or heart disease at all. It was all about kilojoules and the extra energy in full cream milk.

apparently 98% of what kids' eat is not required for growth - take that fact to the bank, people.

Sounds terribly convincing
I did waste time checking out the American Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, where they made it similarly unclear:

"There is near universal agreement that human milk is the preferred complete nutrition source for healthy full-term newborns and infants for the first 6 months of life, with continued breastfeeding recommended until age 12 months…Human milk is high in fat (45–55 percent of total calories), saturated fat, and cholesterol."

But then, in the same publication: After age 1 - "However, the dairy fat in whole cow’s milk is a major source of atherogenic saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories and a poor source of the essential fatty acids LA and ALA."

Saturated fat and cholesterol in human milk is good, but if it comes from a cow, it's atherogenic. I had no idea cows were so dangerous.

So, hoping to put the issue to bed, it would seem that the people who wrote the Australian guidelines think that eating fat will make anyone over 2 overweight, but the actual guidelines suggest, by the references they provide, that it's actually the arterycloggingsaturatedfat that is the problem.

Whether it's the former or the latter, or a combination of both, I have come to the conclusion that the way they've gone about explaining it makes about as much sense as the Goldman Sachs employee who would dearly love you to believe that they have been recommending you invest in a specific collateralised debt obligation (CDO), but then putting their own money in an investment that bets your CDO will fail, all because it's in the interest of 'making markets' and it's all for the greater good. 

Look, anyone who is convinced of the diet-heart hypothesis or the 'calories in, calories out' hypothesis is not going to be convinced of any list of studies that I can provide that contradict either - so I will not waste my time. That might sound like a cop out, and it probably is, but we’re all guided by our individual biases. I may seem sarcastic and flippant about it all, and yes, I understand that you can’t relate the biology of a dog to a human, but I’m not seriously trying to. I'm talking about what constitutes logical thought processes and what your gut is telling you.

Not your macrobiome community, the other one.

Our biases are based on our upbringing, research and personal experiments, as well as the relentless back and forth between people on the internet who think they know the truth, and when you've taken all that into consideration, you have to make a decision. What it all boils down to is - does the recommended advice make sense to you or does it smell like stupidity wrapped in bullshit?

What is plain to see, when you dig through the opaque reasoning, is that the Nutritional Guidelines Working Committee, whose job it is  to guide the health of our nation, base their recommendations on the beliefs that: 
  • Eating fat, even saturated fat, provides essential nutrients for physiological growth.
  • Saturated fat may be nutritious but it also causes heart disease, makes you obese, and will start damaging arteries at a young age and lead you to chronic diseases in later life (fuck you, evolution!)
  • The trade off in this perplexing scenario is to recommend humans eat fat, but only for the first 2-2.5% of expected life span.
  • They really hope that this hedging of bets works.