To be fair, I've met more than one pro-organic person who thinks organic foods are more nutritious. These are often the same people who worry about vague things like "toxins" from eating meat.
Pop science doesn't vindicate textbook science which still discourages high amounts of saturated fat.
And the Massai (and Inuit) referred to in your link are hardly good examples. They have short lifespans (as low as in the 40s), suffer from atherosclerosis and thickening of the arteries. The Inuit are also not long lived and have a high rate of osteoporosis. These groups' "adaptation" to a high protein meat diet is hardly desirable. They are forced to eat a high meat diet out of circumstances, not as a chosen optimal way of life.
Thanks for providing a more interesting response than GP.
In the absence of 'textbook' science citations, I'm going to have to rely on 'pop' science that does provide citations to respected scientists at accredited institutions who have performed actual studies.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/saturated-fat-healthy/ provides another copious set of links to refutations (based on citations, not appeals) of traditional saturated fat studies and other indications of its overly maligned status.
I'll also note the penultimate sentence of the abstract you link: "The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease."
Exercise or not, it's worth noting that the study does not draw any strong correlation between saturated fat and a decreased health.
Yes, saturated fats are the molecular basis of many hormones including testosterone and estrogen. You may need very little of them but you do need some.
