One thing that seems wrong here is placing all seed oils into one bucket. It does seem like your conclusion is right based on a quick pubmed search. That said, I am not sure if it is the most useful metric. To me, ranking all the oils by all cause mortality is the real kicker (including no oils too).
Different olive oils have different polyphenol levels. Lots of adulterated and aged oils w/ OO and I imagine elsewhere . Also cooking vs raw, old vs new, storage temp, extraction type, reuse, etc. If olive oil (mono) is worse than canola (poly), which brands were tested and how do they fare based on their categorization above? Most Americans probably are buying cheap often adulterated OO so self reporting here would mess things up. I don't know how to take all this into account without using mechanism.
He should review controlled infant studies in the nineties. They replaced saturated fat with omega 6 seed oils in formula. Babies went down hill fast. Failed to thrive.
Jimmy Dore should have Kevin on his show. He got taken in by the seed oil crowd and a bunch of other nutrition pseudoscience. In part because of his position on Covid, he’s skeptical of mainstream science, which is healthy, but now he’s all about the nutrition counterculture and advocates for long debunked ideas about nutrition. What a shame.
But maybe Kevin, as someone who agrees on Covid and the cancellation industry, could reach him and his millions of viewers.
TLDR, sorry. I glanced and just read a bunch of assertions, broad categorizations, and non sequiturs. Care to provide something more linear? Perhaps with empirical data or decent theoretical rationale? It’s clear you’re not big into nutritional biochemistry, but I’m open.
Sorry, I'm really having trouble understanding your point. What specifically do you think we're having a disagreement about? I see a reference to the Masai, but anthropologists who actually study the Masai have not only disagreed with what people say about their lifestyle, but also the nutrition related inferences some influencers have made.
Beyond that, I see some weak correlational evidence being cited regarding seed oils. Since I never stated my specific position--only that Kevin would be a good person to update Dore's beliefs, I'm happy to state my beliefs about the balance of evidence on seed oils.
1. Seed oils often appear beneficial for health in the data, but this is often due to a replacement effect; seed oils are healthier than typical alternatives such as butter.
2. Seed oils are calorically dense and offer little incremental nutritional value, particularly if a person is eating a varied diet rich in other sources of fatty acids such as nuts and seeds.
3. Seed oils (and other fiber-free fats) are really unhealthy if they are consumed a) along with other processed foods such as sugar, and/or b) in the context of caloric surplus.
In general, processed foods aren't great, and specifically, foods that are rich in fat and sugar and low in fiber should be avoided for the vast majority of the population (at least people living in places capable of reading this).
Do you (or anyone) agree with any of the items (1-3) I've stated above? If so, please be specific and avoid gish galloping.
I've been out of diet debates for years and mostly concluded nutrition science is generally very low quality and I just eat a mixed diet, but I remember back when I was into all this stuff, I did find the Minnesota RCTs pretty compelling. What do you think about Ramsden et al. (2016) and the non-significant worse mortality trends in the vegetable oil group?
The studies are from the 60s and 70s so I'm sure there are all kinds of problems, confounders, but I feel like there's an even more interesting meta-discussion about how nutrition science can get back to running RCTs like that. Ethics is of course very tricky, but maybe there's some creative way?
One thing that seems wrong here is placing all seed oils into one bucket. It does seem like your conclusion is right based on a quick pubmed search. That said, I am not sure if it is the most useful metric. To me, ranking all the oils by all cause mortality is the real kicker (including no oils too).
Different olive oils have different polyphenol levels. Lots of adulterated and aged oils w/ OO and I imagine elsewhere . Also cooking vs raw, old vs new, storage temp, extraction type, reuse, etc. If olive oil (mono) is worse than canola (poly), which brands were tested and how do they fare based on their categorization above? Most Americans probably are buying cheap often adulterated OO so self reporting here would mess things up. I don't know how to take all this into account without using mechanism.
There are tons of considerations, that’s for sure. That’s why I try to narrow in on one or two at a time per post.
Keep away from seed oils. Way more ignored evidence out there.
My wife’s comments on this piece:
He should review controlled infant studies in the nineties. They replaced saturated fat with omega 6 seed oils in formula. Babies went down hill fast. Failed to thrive.
Babies aren't necessarily adults. Honey for example. You can only base results by sample tested, even men v women do not always have same result
ONLY Olive, avocado + coconut oil, ghee for me!
It’s the bioengineering in the vegetables that causes sickness.
Jimmy Dore should have Kevin on his show. He got taken in by the seed oil crowd and a bunch of other nutrition pseudoscience. In part because of his position on Covid, he’s skeptical of mainstream science, which is healthy, but now he’s all about the nutrition counterculture and advocates for long debunked ideas about nutrition. What a shame.
But maybe Kevin, as someone who agrees on Covid and the cancellation industry, could reach him and his millions of viewers.
TLDR, sorry. I glanced and just read a bunch of assertions, broad categorizations, and non sequiturs. Care to provide something more linear? Perhaps with empirical data or decent theoretical rationale? It’s clear you’re not big into nutritional biochemistry, but I’m open.
Sorry, I'm really having trouble understanding your point. What specifically do you think we're having a disagreement about? I see a reference to the Masai, but anthropologists who actually study the Masai have not only disagreed with what people say about their lifestyle, but also the nutrition related inferences some influencers have made.
Beyond that, I see some weak correlational evidence being cited regarding seed oils. Since I never stated my specific position--only that Kevin would be a good person to update Dore's beliefs, I'm happy to state my beliefs about the balance of evidence on seed oils.
1. Seed oils often appear beneficial for health in the data, but this is often due to a replacement effect; seed oils are healthier than typical alternatives such as butter.
2. Seed oils are calorically dense and offer little incremental nutritional value, particularly if a person is eating a varied diet rich in other sources of fatty acids such as nuts and seeds.
3. Seed oils (and other fiber-free fats) are really unhealthy if they are consumed a) along with other processed foods such as sugar, and/or b) in the context of caloric surplus.
In general, processed foods aren't great, and specifically, foods that are rich in fat and sugar and low in fiber should be avoided for the vast majority of the population (at least people living in places capable of reading this).
Do you (or anyone) agree with any of the items (1-3) I've stated above? If so, please be specific and avoid gish galloping.
I've been out of diet debates for years and mostly concluded nutrition science is generally very low quality and I just eat a mixed diet, but I remember back when I was into all this stuff, I did find the Minnesota RCTs pretty compelling. What do you think about Ramsden et al. (2016) and the non-significant worse mortality trends in the vegetable oil group?
Great comment. Worthwhile to do a post dedicated to Ramsden et al. I remember that deep-diving that paper was where I left off last.
The studies are from the 60s and 70s so I'm sure there are all kinds of problems, confounders, but I feel like there's an even more interesting meta-discussion about how nutrition science can get back to running RCTs like that. Ethics is of course very tricky, but maybe there's some creative way?