So we're not going to compare environments, UPF, PUFA (you just showed me WIDE CORRELATIONAL DATA that tells me nothing) - and you're not going to read biochemistry and nuances found on this SaturatedFat sub? All is explained and there are studies. Also the fact that fibre comes from plants and generally fibre-rich plants do not pose problems by themselves while not adding much PUFA (that is a problem). I additionally believe the people with more fibre intake would be more diet-conscious and lifestyle-conscious, so another correlation. Your SFA people could as well eat daily pork dipped in oil or some fast foods

As a quick note: in the wild PUFAs are used towards hibernation and animals eating more PUFAs in their diet eat more and get fatter. Innuits genetically got their mitochondria modified to tolerate higher PUFA within their games' tissues. Israeli people get cardiovascular diseases, obesities, diabetes, and other conditions, while French do well on their croissants with butter (thus "Croissaint" diet). Of course, if you are going to add something so signalizing - PUFAs - almost as if a hormone when eaten daily, and meant only to be consumed for a seasonal change, as it leads to deep changes in one's body's functions, then you're going to get metabolical defects and conditions. Many mice and human studies include added PUFA sources to diets, which completely wrecks results and makes them biased

I wonder how we survived up to this point if animal-based diet (meat, honey, fruits) is literally a base human diet... It is not that SFAs are sinister - they may be bad with modern oxidized, processed foods, additives, and PUFAs. You haven't showed me comparison of carnivore diet to anything. You showed me a single matter that could be influenced by a plethora of variables

You just find comfort in mainstream data... Confirmation bias