I definately agree that caloric intake is the ultimate issue wrt obesity and it's co-morbidities in western countries. But just know that until WW2 lard or butter was used in almost everything from cooking to baking. At that point in time obesity was nowhere near the level it is now where it is rightfuly considered an epidemic by most scientists. This said, caloric intake was lower and more importantly people were more active. It's difficult to pull these variables apart but I think it's fair to say that more research should be done.

In regard to your specific argument that "consuming equivalent amounts of vegetable oils or lard are equally unhealthy" it's hard to know as when people used lard they were healthier but also consumed less and exercised more. We can also speculate that vegetable oils might lend itself better to be used in baking than lard was and by some process increases total consumption; perhaps it tastes better or lasts longer, for example. It seems from the study linked in the OP, however, that lard is better than at least rapeseed/canola oil. But like I said more research should be done: our speculation today should not preclude investigation and ultimately conclusive understanding. That said we do need to "pick a side" for the time being, if not as a colective then as individuals because we can't stop eating until conclusive results are found.

>Diet is not all that simplistic and we shouldn't jump to conclusions and paint things with broad brush strokes

Agreed. I don't think Iv'e made that mistake, even if my comments perhaps read that way.

I was referring to specific issues with saturated fatty acids such as increased LDL and ApoB, not caloric intake