I did some quick calculations (youre welcome to check them) and human breast milk is about 5% protein, 53% fat, and 42% carbohydrate. No we're not babies, but it makes for good debate.
Well, I've read the following:
Mother’s milk contains over 50% of its calories as fat, much of it saturated fat, and children need these kinds of fats throughout their growing years.
The infant needs foods with a similar percentage of protein and fats as was available in the mother's breast milk which is more than 50% fats and 25% protein.
Wikipedia claims, "0.8% to 0.9% protein, 3% to 5% fat, 6.9% to 7.2% carbohydrates and 0.2% ash", which doesn't add up.
No they are necessarily correct but neither is yours. Determining the 'correct' nutrient intake (if there is one) is, in practicality, impossible with current knowledge and technology.
It's no more impossible than measuring statistics and medical barometrics. The "correct" diet is the one that works the best for the greatest number of people. It's obvious that the mainstream high carb diet ISN'T working well for many people, so it's time to discount that and move on. By the same token, high-fat diets worked just great for many indigenous populations, as evidenced by their vitality, documented by scientific pioneers such as Weston Price.
Now here is what it really comes down to. You have a serious emotional attachment to your argument. If you can make a case by presenting ALL the facts and arguments, objectively weighing them out, and identifying support for your position then I will be more than happy to give you credit. However, fanning flames of a pro fat crusade is hardly the way to gain any scientific credibility - assuming that you would want any.
If I have an emotional attachment to my argument, it is absolutely no greater than anybody else's attachment to theirs. That's the point. Emotions are very much a part of this. Whenever you're dealing with mass propaganda, your data is going to be very much influenced by the prevailing bias of the establishment. I can't ignore that reality and pretend that this whole debate is taking place in a clean, sterile and scientific environment. It isn't. The battlefield is hot and dirty. The establishment is fighting hard and shedding blood to maintain it's high-carb dogma.
My goal is to sway others to my viewpoint. I believe that my viewpoint is correct and that this is demonstrable through objective evidence. But there are other ways of convincing people besides the mere presentation of such evidence. Scare tactics, not facts, were used by the medical establishment to get people to believe what they do today. Therefore, scare tactics will also be employed, to some extent, in their re-education. It's the way the game is played.
As I said, fight fire with fire. If I see anti-fat propaganda, and I see it all the time, I will counter it with pro-fat "propaganda" (which is completely true, as far as I'm concerned). Once the flames from both sides cancel each other out,
then a civil, public discourse can be held.
By the way, I also wanted to mention that fish oil does, in fact, contain saturated fat. I've read Poliquin's theories and I've got a high opinion of him. Don't have any personal experience with mega-dosing fish oil. But I can tell you, anecdotally, that plant fats simply aren't anabolic (just like plant proteins). You need ANIMAL fats and ANIMAL proteins. They are the real deal. Absolutely nobody ever got huge from eating lots of nuts and soy protein. This is pretty much self-evident. I am tired of people dancing around the issue and skirting the FACT that animal fats are what's responsible for anabolism...not peanut butter. I am tired of reading the terms "healthy fat" and "good fat", followed by references to the afore-mentioned vegetarian foods, which nobody ever gained a pound of muscle from. Give me a break, get real...
