> Sugar also contributes to fatty liver less than saturated fat I’ve seen multiple studies suggesting otherwise, sugar being in general responsible for non-alc

> Sugar also contributes to fatty liver less than saturated fat I’ve seen multiple studies suggesting otherwise, sugar being in general responsible for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. That assertion will also be difficult to swallow for anybody that ever attempted a Keto diet. I can talk from my own experience with Keto, when I binge ate butter on cheese (aka fat bombs). I did not lose any weight and yet my fatty liver was gone after the 3 months I was on it. Also all my liver’s ALT and AST levels are perfect. And I must insist on this point: no weight loss was involved. Also note that the study you’re linking, with 38 subjects observed for 3 weeks, is statistically insignificant and probably flawed, as small studies tend to be. When changing somebody’s macros, there’s an adaptation period involved and 3 weeks is not enough. The funny thing about all claims regarding the negative effects of saturated fats is that: (1) saturated fat was a major caloric source throughout all of human history and yes, we know what humans ate in the Paleolithic (2) human fat itself is saturated, you know, the one the body starts consuming when hungry Humans are equipped to efficiently digest saturated fats and starchy plants rich in glucose. Well actually humans only need about 600 calories from carbs, any excess is converted to fat. Fructose on the other hand is completely unnecessary, when digested it is converted to fat or glucose and it’s toxic in high doses. You can live your whole life without eating another gram of sugar. You can’t say that about saturated fat ;-) Funny enough you can make the same argument about the other public enemy, salt. You will literally die without enough sodium in your diet and yet the healthcare industry is fixated on vilifying salt, but not sugar. A huge double standard that has no basis in actual science.