flora worse than butter? I don't think so..!

While running with client X (alarmingly slowly) , the suggestion came up that flora was worse for your health than butter. As usual, I tend to be vague with X, as she does like to argue her points, being a lawyer and all:I usually nod sagely and then distract her with a harsh interval (faster bit) or some comment about the Palestinians (X is not only a lawyer but is also of the Hebrew persuasion)-this gets her ranting for ages. Distractions apart, here are the facts.
Butter has 80 (yes, 80) grammes of saturated fat per 100g.Of this 37g is saturated fat."Saturated" refers to the chemical make up of the fat, and means that the carbon atoms have as many hydrogen atoms as possible attached to them, and are thus very very stable and hard for us to break down. It also has 36g of "good" fats.
Flora on the other hand, has only 9g of the nasty stable saturated fat, and also has 25.5g of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated (more on this later) fat, including omega 3 and 6 fatty acids. Only a rock-covered hermit would not know that these are good for us in all sorts of ways.
SO, if you must have either, go for the Flora, or better still, ditch the bread and have some vegetables instead.
Boring stuff-I used Lurpak Spreadable and Flora pro-activ for my comparison.