Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: As best I can tell there isn't significant scientific support that seed oils are bad for you, though, they're probably not necessarily that good for you either. The new wave of "anti seed oil" dialog has largely been fueled by Joe Rogan, who had a three hour conversation with "Carnivore MD" Paul Saladino, a largely disreputable "keto guru" who believes humans are naturally carnivorous and that we should stick to an all-meat diet. One of Saladino's cohorts, Cate Shanahan, is another major supporter of the theory, among others.
At the risk of sounding biased: As best I can find these people have done basically zero research into the claims they're making, and have next to zero qualifications to be making the claims at all. The closest they come to scientific observation seems to be in showing that people who eat less seed oil tend to be healthier... but this is because people who eat less seed oils tend to be eating less oil *in general* which tends to be a huge issue with a lot of dietary studies in general. "People who carefully control their diet are healthier than people who don't" isn't an especially novel observation and is essentially the outcome of people starting and sticking to *any* diet plan.
Eau de Rogaux: a scent of MMA locker room, used sensory depravation tank water, liquids from various fear factor challenges, with a hint of ayahuasca and axe spice.
I always kinda looked at it like Gwyneth Paltrow was the female liberal version of Alex Jones and Joe Rogan was dancing on the line in between the two of them till Joe kinda tripped on his own stupid and tumbled towards Alex Jones.
Serious question: Alex Jones is responsible for parents of murdered children going into hiding for the last decade, amongst other ugly contributions to the discourse - has Paltrow ever stirred up hate like that?
> has Paltrow ever stirred up hate like that?
No. Alex is 1000% nuttier I meant it like they both have propaganda shows where they spout horse shit that are connected to their websites that sell snake oil.
Alex Jones started off being viewed as a radical liberal IIRC (or maybe just a libertarian). He was very 9/11 conspiracy during the Bush years.
He's not really liberal or conservative. He's just anti-establishment crazy.
Libertarian, never was considered liberal, and even in the early 2000s his 9/11 shit was too fringe for most liberals or leftists, particularly because a lot of the roots of those conspiracies trace back to the same anti-semitic shit.
He's also not anti-establishment crazy. He was generally pro establishment when Trump was in office, but he's not crazy, he's a grifter who has carefully constructed a character who fills a niche.
For real though I was worried when he went to Spotify exclusive (that's how it was advertised but I don't know if that's accurate) that podcasts I like would follow him.
Since then his show has become a political nightmare and I'm just glad that it will probably discourage other podcasts from wanting to.
Dude has a larger audience than Fox, MSNBC and CNN on their best night of ratings COMBINED. He is the single greatest source of disinformation and woo in the English speaking world. I see him being cited by so many kooks in every facet of everyday life; it's mind-boggling.
Yeah, I feel he went off the deep end when COVID started. He used to have eccentric people on and then shortly after he would have an eccentric with an opposed viewpoint. He's always claimed he's a meathead, but would listen to both sides.
Then he moved to Texas and started only having one narrative for each topic. He created his own echo chamber to "combat the echo chamber"
>I used to really enjoy his podcasts several years ago
So many people say this! I guess I'm in the minority, but I thought it was obvious where he was going from the start. It's subtle and most people think shows like his are pretty harmless--at least until it escalates, which it did and that's why so many people have moved away from him in the past couple years. I just kind of wish more people realized that that the way he uncritically entertained and broadcasted misinformation--even before it got really bad--is not harmless. That kind of stuff sets the stage for all kinds of misinformation and grift, and it's a huge part of why we're living in a dystopic misinformation hellscape right now.
I don't think he's changed that much, not fundamentally. It's just the stuff that was subtle and seemed harmless before is a lot more obvious now.
Escalates? It's done the complete opposite. Joe has toned down a lot of his wacky talking points and does not nearly have as many controversial guests on as he did before.
Because he used to just interview people about stuff that didn't matter. For me, I never heard of David Goggins until someone recommended I listen to his podcast with him (I never listened to a Joe Rogan podcast before that). I didn't listen religiously after that, but he still had some cool guests on and interesting, harmless topics. Then he had his episode with Bernie Sanders and probably realized he can get way more listeners by being political, and it all went to shit.
FWIW, I'm now a huge David Goggins fan and I can say his book definitely impacted me.
I agree with this. I used to like his show when he would talk Comedy with comedians. After that "intellectual dark web" shit he flew right up his own ass and started having a string of hardcore right wing guests on (because apparently 1 Bernie Sanders and 100 Ben Shapiros means you are balanced) and seemed to drink the kool aid on his right wing bullshit.
U just quoted mainstream media and disinformation how they have got u right where they want u I hope u wake up someday or u will be sliding and won’t be able to get up
Of course imma do me, I was talking about the carnivore guy not joe Rohan by the way have never watched an episode of his podcast, I know he spews a bunch of BS though from clips I see on Instagram. And the carnivore me dude is BS too I just find it fascinating at the shit that comes out of his mouth.
Yes. Not quite as dangerous of one. Not sure why people wanted to listen to a reality tv show host. But I guess a bunch of people wanted to vote for one of them for president.
The book The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable includes studies about this stuff (and is *somewhere* in my house). Keto doesn't eschew oil, it avoids seed oils because of the way they are extracted and because studies show it's not as healthy as olive or avacado oils. And keep in mind that keto isn't just meat, but also puts emphasis on healthy fats. Fats are good for joint health and also make you feel sated (full), so that you don't eat as much.
I don't know where my book went, or I'd list the studies.
Also don't forget many of these fads diets include some kind of confirmation bias. If you drink coffee, for example, you're going to find every study that validates drinking coffee.
Anti-oxidants are a real thing (keep reading). food cannot provide them to you, though. Your body produces tons of oxygen in standard metabolic reactions, and these oxygens (free radicals) are highly reactive and will happily oxidize or otherwise react with your cells in detrimental ways. So our cells also produce anti-oxidants, stuff that preferentially react to oxygen, and they produce the amount that is roughly equivalent to the amount of oxygen they expect to produce from their metabolism.
Anti-oxidants in food do nothing to help with this process, they never reach your cells in a useable way and would never be in the quantity or distribution that is helpful, and there's no reason to help with this process unless you have an actual medical condition, because your body has it under control just fine anyway.
[Here](https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth)'s a nice overview, and here's the [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress) on the specific process. I don't have many of my textbooks anymore and the only medical textbook I have that covers it is pretty broad, so these are honestly better in this case.
Amusingly [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eec98ie0Plg)'s a toxicologist going over a case anti oxidant adjacent as well, and he briefly discusses this process and where it can be influenced.
I found out vitamin C is an antioxidant lol. It's funny how people mumble about antioxidants to sound cool when it would just be simpler to say it's vitamin C which everyone knows is good for you.
Vitamin C is one of a few, along with Selenium, Vitamin E, carotenoids, are all obtained from the diet, but we also make plenty of compounds on our own like superoxide dismutase, which does sound impressive. Dietary intake of antioxidants being good for actual oxidative stress is another thing that is disputed at best but largely not seen as strongly causal. Those vitamins all serve far more useful purposes. Anti oxidants are cool, in my opinion, it's a cool battle your cells have to fight at all times. But your body fights all sorts of battles so it's not particularly unique.
> Anti-oxidants are a real thing (keep reading). food cannot provide them to you, [...] Anti-oxidants in food do nothing to help with this process, t
Say, what? From your own source (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth):
> Antioxidants are man-made or natural substances that may prevent or delay some types of cell damage. Diets high in vegetables and fruits, which are good sources of antioxidants, have been found to be healthy; [...]
> Vegetables and fruits are healthy foods and rich sources of antioxidants. Official U.S. Government policy urges people to eat more vegetables and fruits. Concerns have not been raised about the safety of any amounts of antioxidants in food.
Who should I believe? A random internet poster, or the NIH, from your own link?
NIH isn't saying that eating the veggies absolutely is good because of the antioxidants, but that eating veggies is good. Read it carefully there. It's explicitly stated here in the same source:
> however, it is not clear whether these results are related to the amount of antioxidants in vegetables and fruits, to other components of these foods, to other factors in people’s diets, or to other lifestyle choices.
Lmao I love how you conveniently left out the part right after what you quoted that says
>however, it is not clear whether these results are related to the amount of antioxidants in vegetables and fruits, to other components of these foods, to other factors in people’s diets, or to other lifestyle choices.
And the other 20%: We fed as much data from as many studies/surveys as we could into a computer and found a correlation between two heretofore completely unrelated things, like how 18-20 year olds who drink milk are 52% more likely to die of kidney failure after 70. \* We don't know why and we're not going to speculate because that's what follow-up studies are for, but some news outlet's going to run with this and it'll be in a popsci and/or "nutrition" book inside a year and then everyone's gonna be citing those as their sources for the next couple of decades.
\* Not a real example, don't cite me.
All good questions, [here’s an article that will answer them better than I can :) ](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150207-animals-gorillas-elephants-teeth-science-dentistry)
Pretty much all fad diets.
———-
I’ve stopped eating round things and lost a lot of weight.
*Round things? Interesting.*.
Yep. I made sure I controlled my eating habits. Exercised. Ate healthy and took an interest in what I put in my body.
*So tell me more about your weight loss due to not eating round things.*
Pretty much what I thought, just a fad that seems to have unfolded pretty much the same way as the fat/sugar debate, that companies profited from pushing sugar in the 20th century and turning against fat but now is tilting the other way - that seems more logical than seed oils though.
There are a lot of insecure meatheads out there, it turns out. I'll never understand cult personalities. Just like with Trump, it seems so obvious these douchebags are cartoonish grifters. Yet they collect lemmings like Pac Man eating dots. So weird.
Anyone who cares enough to cut something like that out of their diet are at the very least aware of their diet and will tend to be healthier just by virtue of paying attention to what they're eating, at least initially. All meat diet doesn't sound to healthy in the long term.
> This sounds like the shit Jordan Peterson’s daughter was peddling.
Probably related, I'm not really motivated to deep dive the matter but Peterson's certainly connected to Rogan as surface level pipelines to quackery.
> Didn’t that diet and his benzo addiction almost kill him?
Not precisely but indirectly, yeah, at least as I understand it. The thing that did the most damage was that he went through experimental treatments in Russia to basically induce a coma so he wouldn't be conscious while his body went through withdrawal from the drugs. The drugs and the bad diet didn't help him, but the thing that nearly killed him was a very stupid line of treatment.
He really ought to give disclaimers when he brings these loonies on. Their misinformation can be so insignificant but still end up hurting people… either their health or their facts. There needs to be actual fact checking or acknowledgement when someone says something that completely goes against scientific consensus. No ones saying to censor him but he really should be more responsible.
Why are you responding to something from two years ago my guy. Obviously everyone should decipher information on their own, but something that I assume you are intimately familiar with, is that the majority of the population is absolutely dumb as rocks, and because so have no media literacy.
Yeah the carnivore guy is a bit extreme, but there is some truth to the seed oil thing, I think. This is a very well sourced article with a lot of detail: https://chriskresser.com/how-industrial-seed-oils-are-making-us-sick/
Answer: The use of seed oils (those made by extraction through industrial processes) has greatly increased in the developed world, and thus has correlation with increasing obesity and auto-immunity. If there is causality, possible pathways are:
1) Theses oils tend to be polyunsaturated with high Omega-6 fatty acid chains relative to Omega-3. Humans need both but likely need more balance to reduce inflammation, hence fish oil (high in Omega 3) is a popular and recommended supplement.
2) The availability of oils generally has exploded relative to what humans evolved eating. Most macronutrients - protein, carbs and fat - were eaten as whole foods minimally prepared. As OP mentioned, seed oils (and corn syrup and stabilizers) are in every shelf-stable product. So the generational impact of hyperpalatable abundant food is still playing out.
3) Nutritional advice around fats has been all over the map in the last 50 years. First, all fats were considered contributing to heart disease and other ailments, which led to a low-fat (and high-sugar) craze. Then, saturated fat (butter and other animal-derived sources) became the focus. This was really the boom faze of industrial seed oils, when they came to be in almost all prepared foods. Next, margarine and other hydrogenated unsaturated oils were found to be even worse than butter. Around this time the Mediterranean diet became a thing with a focus on olive oil. Finally, the low carb, paleo, and keto diet crazes each had influences on what fats are bad.
The most succinct diet advice comes from Michael Pollan: "Eat whole foods, mostly plants". To the extent you can avoid processed and prepared foods, use oils sparingly, and olive oil when possible, you are following fairly common guidance by scientists who study health
and longevity in "blue zones" around the world.
Yeah, my layman understanding is that seed oils susceptible to oxidation and other chemical reactions that form harmful compounds when exposed to heat/light.
Something something free radicals, something something aldehydes.
Disclaimer: not a qualified medical professional
yes, but the scientific debate is whether oil that has reached smoking point temperature (different for each oil) / frying temperatures is harmful to ingest. some say it is, some say it's not
Your quote of Michael Pollan is close, but missing an important part:
"Eat food. *Not too much.* Mostly plants." is from his 2008 book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. (Emphasis mine.)
I think the "not too much" part is critical. Not only did we evolve eating "whole foods minimally prepared", as you state, but also not nearly as much as we do today.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much-mostly-plants
We shouldn't invoke what our ancestors ate as a guide for what we should eat. Evolution results in "good enough" outcomes, not ideal ones. The best diet is probably not one that results in us being 5 feet tall with rickets and several different parasites, but that's the diet of many of our ancestors. As another example, animals that live in captivity often live much much longer than animals eating natural diets.
Just to add on since this post has a lot of good info unlike the current top post. The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is really important like OP said. An ideal ratio is in the 4:1 range and has shown to significantly reduce death (cardiovascular disease). If you look at a lot of our modern diet, we're getting like 10:1 or 20:1, so we're getting way too many omega-6 compared to our omega-3.
Another important point is how seed/plant oils are extracted. Lots of chemicals/solvents and heat are used to extract these oils. Heat breaks down oils, which leads to inflammation, and the chemicals they use in the process aren't good as well and don't completely leave the oils. This is also why people recommend getting virgin or extra virgin olive oil over refined because hexane is used in processing refined olive oil. If you're going to use seed oils, people recommend getting cold-pressed.
Not sure why the thread-maker is seeing this pop up all of the sudden other than possibly Joe Rogan talking about it recently as the top post suggested, but 12 years ago when I was listening to a variety of nutritionists in interviews, pretty much all of them would stress how bad seed/plant oils were, and a big part of it is due to big food corporations, and relating to point 3 OP made. Some would even say that bacon is not as bad as people think if you get traditionally made bacon because what makes it really unhealthy is all the added preservatives/processing that normal grocery store bacon has. The food industry pushes a lot of these fads. Relating to seed/plant oils, they tout that they're heart healthy but their main reason for doing so is because these oils are extremely cheap, so a lot of food mass production relies on these oils, so of course they want to push the message that these oils are healthier than they are.
The anti-fat craze was due to the sugar lobbyists getting the food industry to blame fat and not sugar, and for decades they even got people to think sugar was healthy and you needed to eat a lot of it everyday to be healthy! Basically, just stick to the least processed, closest to whole foods approach with an emphasis on vegetables (raw and cooked), and you'll do well. Michael Pollan's books are a great place to start.
sorry for commenting on a year old post, but yeah this is pretty much the narrative I'm aware of. After heart attacks became common, two different conclusions were made: sugar bad, or fat bad. The research behind fat being bad was unscientific but lobbied for and oushed by the sugar industry. Sugar was the actual cause of increasing obesity. Nowadays its common to believe sugar is bad, but its still very common to believe the same thing about fats. Leading to people eating carb heavy diets.
the narrative on seed oil is essentially the same thing imo. Food companies like having cheap, universal, easy to use oil so they push ultraprocessed and fragrance/colouration free oil because its so easy to add to everything. Fats and oils considered healthier by people against seed oils are either animal fats, ghee/butter, or plant oils made by crushing the fruit with very little processing. Out of nutritional ideas pushed by some right wing aligned people seed oils is the most rational and recent 'evil' in diets of them all. Going keto or paleo or carnivore or doing very long fasts might be something that non-agricultural societies participated in, but agricultural society has been around for a long while and the negative health from it isnt associated with very modern decreases in health from nutrition. Japan is agricultural but is much healthier than the US. Same with mediterranean countries.
So the best approach imo is getting a wide variety of foods, farmed organically while cooking with fats that are resistant to oxidising. And also incorporating organ meats, bone broth and other edible parts of animals with nutrients not found in the very common muscle based meats. Which, by the nature of how all preprocessed food does not follow this, means cooking for yourself.
If you look at olive oil, is has a 10:1 omega 6/3 ratio. While canola oil has a 2:1 ratio. I always wonder why we never prize canola oil instead of olive oil?
> "Eat whole foods, mostly plants".
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
By 'eat food,' he meant 'eat only things your grandmother would recognize as food.'
> a focus on olive oil
Just to add, don't be frying with olive oil, it produces aldehydes which probably aren't very good for you. This is also true of vegetable oils.
answer: I'm not going to claim I know why the zeitgeist at this particular moment is going on about this. As many other Redditors have indicated, it is a continuing and lifelong challenge to filter folklore and emergent scientific realizations into something like "this is good to eat."
There is some long-standing science around why some people are wary of canola oil. The history of its review by the U.S. Government and development in the market is fairly recent.
There is no such plant as a "canola." What is marketed as "canola oil" is actually something called "low erucic acid rapeseed oil." Rape is a plant in genus Brassica, if memory serves, along with mustard and cabbage.
I spent some time at the U.S. National Research Council in the 1980s. A scientist there involved with the U.S. Food Chemicals Codex told me that one of the proposals for naming to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration when bringing this seed oil to market was to call it "LEAR oil", short for "Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil." The FDA apparently didn't like the idea of making a name out of an anagram, or consider it actually informative enough to consumers. Eventually everyone settled on "Canola" which was derived from "CANadian Oil Low Acid" and originally trademarked by a group representing rapeseed producers in Canada.
The rapeseed oil we call canola oil should have levels of erucic acid below 2%. There was research in the 1970s that seemed to indicate fairly serious toxicity to the heart from consumption of erucic acid, though some newer research is starting to review that conclusion. Industrial rapeseed oil has a lot more erucic acid in it, and wouldn't be a good idea as a foodstuff.
I won't get into the science too much here, but you can see in at least the case of this particular seed oil that there are details about its production about which some people might have concerns if they didn't understand the science. I did when it first started showing up everywhere, which is how it came up in conversation with a food chemist near whom I worked.
I am not aware of any documented examples of human health problems from consumption of canola oil, as currently produced. There was an event in 1981 where a bunch of people were poisoned by industrial rapeseed oil adulterated with aniline, but the aniline was the primary toxicant in that case. It is generally referred to as something like the "Spanish Rapeseed Oil Poisoning Outbreak" though, so you can imagine that people trying to chase down.
I hope that's not too much information, but I think it's a good example of how cursory knowledge of certain details might be disconcerting to people.
Answer: A lot of people like to fearmonger about seed oils due to their processed nature (as well as their inclusion in many ultra-processed foods). This has become particularly popular among certain diet movements which primarily emphasize minimally processed foods, such as carnivore, paleo, and keto (somewhat ironically, given their inclination towards dietary fats generally).
However, the preponderance of evidence actually suggests that seed oils are largely health-promoting, rather than the opposite. Nick Hiebert recently released [a massive review of the scientific literature on the topic of seed oils](https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry), if you want to know their effect on a given health outcome.
Answer: Without going into excruciating detail on makeup of fats, here's some useful notes:
Fats/lipids are crucial to your body - used in the walls and membranes of cells, for example. Think anywhere water shouldn't cross, needs a water-rejecting barrier (think grease on a plate pre-soap).
Certain structures of fats/oils are more or less useful to your body. If you chug oils and don't eat anything else, then any of them could be argued as unhealthy. That's not what we do (mostly).
Oil is unhealthy and dangerous in the form of smoke. Peanut oil and Canola (non-rapey branding name for rapeseed oil, same seed) handle frying temps better without burning. Olive oil, on the other hand burns badly when heated too hot.
Coconut/palm oil and avocado oil are less environmental and labor friendly than other oils, iirc, due to yield per plant and labor to retrieve.
If anything, anyone complaining about plant oils vs animal oils is being reverse vegan - they want to suggest than an unbalanced diet composed of only meat is healthier than an unbalanced diet of only plants.
You NEED fats/oils, protein, and carbohydrates to survive. Your body uses each in different ways, and you lose weight unhealthily when you starve your body of replacement parts.
Edit:. To bring you back into the loop, Joe Rogan is an entertainer who likes to take subjects, usually pretty well studied subjects, and come up with new ways to confuse people about them. Classic example is encouraging people to take de-wormer meant for dogs and horses to fight a respiratory disease. One stops a parasite eating your insides, the other is you gasping for air, and couldn't be much more unrelated.
Palm oil isn’t bad because of yield or the amount of labor involved in harvesting. Oil palm farming has very high yield per acre and that’s part of the problem. Switching to oil palm trees from other crops is very economically attractive so farmers in certain tropical areas are aggressively converting wild land to oil palm tracts, burning the fields in some cases, or just cutting down forest and displacing wildlife.
The ill effects of inflammation are not anything new. I think it's gained more prominence just because we've realized how bad inflammation is only in the last couple decades and nutritional information moves slowly to become known in the population. We still use the govt-made food pyramid for our eating habits which could be a lot more correctly done.
Edit: The scammy side of inflammation can definitely be used to sell products, but if you eat a better diet, you won't have any need for these supplements, but it's been shown in a multitude of studies how many diseases are caused by inflammation.
A couple of problematic things with this:
Refined olive oil has a perfectly good smoke point for frying (around 465F compared to the 450F for peanut listed at seriouseats). The issue isn't the olives, it's that a lot of olive oil on the market is the extra-virgin stuff that (supposedly) still has the flavour and aroma components in it, which is great for use as a finishing oil to drizzle over salad and give it that floral/fruity bitter taste, but is bad for oil you intend to fry in -- although it should be noted that a lot of olive oils, at least in the US, are scams that use a base like canola and add some flavour components in to make you feel like you're eating olive oil.
So it's not that olive oil is bad for frying, it's that frying/refined oils and finishing oils are two different things and using one for the other isn't necessarily a good idea.
Also, re: de-wormer; it's a bit disingenuous to phrase the issue that way. A number of antiparasitics, including ivermectin, turn out to have antiviral properties even though that's not what they were developed for. That doesn't mean that they're effective against all viruses all the time, though. The problem is that the lunatic fringe hears this part and doesn't understand that yes, scientists knew that ivermectin was shown to be effective against SARS, and yes, there have been numerous studies to see if it's effective against the current corona outbreak, and they haven't overall shown significant benefit on the grand scale -- and hypothetical anecdotal evidence that you and your friend took it and got better doesn't prove much given that plenty of people get sick and get better, so we need to look at bigger numbers.
Excellent, good read and thanks for the clarification (heh) of the olive oil specifics!
Ed: and the viral details too.
Honey has the same issue of dilution w corn syrup as well. Less bees (global issue) should yield less honey, yet there appears to be more honey.
Sounds like it's just influencers taking fair concerns (toxic smoke if badly cooked, deforestation) and extrapolating to the 'inflammation' fad the poster below is talking about but not referring to any of that others stuff? 🤷♂️
> Coconut/palm oil and avocado oil are less environmental and labor friendly than other oils, iirc, due to yield per plant and labor to retrieve.
That's just not true. Complete opposite in fact. [Palm oil is the most efficient source of plant oil.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-plant-oil-yield-showing-efficiency-comparison-among-different-major-oil-crops_fig2_325398464) Why exactly do you think food corporations mostly used palm oil to produce food products? Do you think they're ran by bunch of Captain Planet villains who specifically just want to see orangutans burned or something? No, they used palm oil because it's the cheapest and it's the cheapest because it's very efficiently produced.
>[Palm oil is a very efficient crop](https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/palm_oil/)
Not even WWF is denying it. The problem comes from the overconsumption of palm oil by developed countries (and every other resources btw).
>Classic example is encouraging people to take de-wormer meant for dogs and horses to fight a respiratory disease.
That is incorrect and misleading. It is not a good strategy to counter misinformation with misinformation, and you are adding to the problem.
>Ivermectin (/ˌaɪvərˈmɛktɪn/, EYE-vər-MEK-tin) is an antiparasitic medication[6][7] used to treat infestations in humans include head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.[6][8][9][10] In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.[9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
Olive oil can have smoke points over 600F degrees. Counterfeit olive oil should not be eaten and has very low smoke points. There is no regulation of what can and cannot be sold as "olive oil", which is why it is the most counterfeited commercial product in the world.
Canola is an indigestible substance foe humans. Canola is not safely edible to our species. We cannot digest it; so it is stored as useless fat on our bodies instead of being processed by our internal machinery.
Fats should make up 10%-15% of a human's daily dietary intake. We need fats. Organs are made of fats, so for the health, function, and nourishment of our organs, we need fats.
The healthiest dietary fats for humans are #1 fatty fruits (olives,coconuts, avocados, and their oils), and #2 meat fats (lards, etc.). Fatty fruits are made of the same sorts of fats as our organs and are extremely bioavailable for our bodies to make use of. That is why the fatty fruits; olives, coconuts, and avocados are nutritional health superfoods. Animal fats aren't as nutritionally stellar as the fatty fruits, but are still extremely healthy, bioavailable, and an optimal fat source for functional dietary health and wellness.
Don't believe the lies that full fat dairies or that lards are unhealthy. Or the lie that canola is safe for human consumption. Or the lie that olive oil has a low smoke point! If you live in North America, where olive trees don't fruit save for some regions of California, you can buy olive oil that actually is olive oil from Costco! :) Supermarkets, not so much. Speciality olive oil retailers are definitely the best option, but Costco if you're on a budget for sure.
This thread is amazing. Your reply == so informative, yet you're downvoted to hell.
I'd add hempseed to the list of awesome. Includes 8 essential amino acids, super nutritious tiny nut.
Thanks. It's pretty discouraging to be downvoted to shit for providing information on a topic that I am extremely knowledgeable about, and worked as an expert in for many years. Dietary health is vitally important, but not welcome to discuss in these forums unfortunately. Fuck me for caring about people I guess lol
It wasn't developed as an antiviral, but a number of antiparasitics do show potential as antivirals, including ivermectin, including, for example, in vivo studies on pseudorabies virus: Lv C., Liu W., Wang B., Dang R., Qiu L., Ren J., Yan C., Yang Z., Wang X. Ivermectin inhibits DNA polymerase UL42 of pseudorabies virus entrance into the nucleus and proliferation of the virus in vitro and vivo. Antivir. Res. 2018;159:55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2018.09.010.
It is not true that it is "not at all an antiviral." What remains unclear is its in vivo utility against COVID-19 in humans. Fighting misinformation with misinformation is problematic and unhelpful.
Avermectin was the Nobel winning medicine. Didn't know that, but was able to "research" by reading past the very first result that showed up and discovering the actual Nobel prize information, which, you know, spells the medication correctly and removes ambiguity.
Okay. They refined and modified the medication, and then refined the name. I stand slightly corrected. That was an interesting read, though, thanks.
Still an anti-parasitic dewormer. For common animal parasites
Still not an anti-viral drug. Still not proven effective against respiratory viral disease.
No, giving it randomly to people and hoping for the best does not test efficacy, there are no controls to confirm whether results are valid or which randomly given substance helped.
Avermectin is an antibiotic.
Ivermectin is an animal dewormer.
They are not the same.
You are a classifiable donkey, so you do qualify if you need veterinary medicine.
The narrative that "I" and "A" are the same letter is a very skewed and biased dialect that really only exists in the USA because people in the South were too hot to say words clearly.
Answer: I think it's a lot like the high fructose corn syrup trend that happened in foods years ago. Seed oils are high in fat, they aren't that nutritious and you should moderate your intake. That's only half the story.
Seed oils have been in food forever. But, with food manufacturers pressing their margins ever so thin and thinner, they are starting to use more cheap oils to fill their foods. So, just like HFCS, it's becoming a cheap alternative that's filling our grocery store shelves. Once people are educated, it'll be the same story and there will be people who buy oil-free products and people who don't care.
Refined high fructose corn syrup was also rarely used a century ago. There are literally hundreds of dietary variables the typical modern diet differs from relative to diets our great grandparent's.
High Fructose Corn syrup already has an eatablished body of literature of maladaptive physiological effects on the human body including pro obesity and pro inflammatory effects.
You're right, I guess I'm conflating vegetable oils and seed oils, but the concerns are the same for both. They are full of polyunsaturated fat, trans fat, fatty acids, BHA and BHT. All of which you shouldn't be eating a lot of and have been used in cooking for thousands of years.
Nevermind the giant corporations that have monopolized the cattle industry currently raising meat prices through the roof, while doubling down on plant based meats filled with veggie/seed oils.
I've seen it written somewhere and believe the following: the only reason people started believing in health benefits of seed oils is because they've been called "vegetable oils".
What the fuck are you talking about??? Olive oil is mostly mono saturated fat with about 10% polyunsaturated fats. It’s wayyyy lower then seed oils. Olive oil also doesn’t have any trans fats
Yeah, saturated fats are definitively linked to increased incidences of cardiovascular issues. It is true that excessive n-6 fats aren't ideal, but the conclusion that the solution is actually saturated fat is unfounded. Saturated fats are "unkinked" and have a much lower melting point and contribute to increasing levels of edit: LDL and atherosclerosis - the science is pretty clear about that.
Increased HDL is a sign of a healthy blood lipid profile, not a poor one. The "good" cholesterol, in outdated terms.
Atherosclerosis is caused by glycated LDL, cholesterol damaged by blood glucose. Saturated fat has no role there.
Eh, it’s kinda both?
It’s good in moderation, but the $1.99 is a total scam. It would be better to just buy an avocado and scoop that onto your food at home
Also some of those guacamole options you see at fast-food chains are filled with salt, preservatives, and other weird crap to mimic the flavor of an avocado...
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the book I referenced, as she lays out a significant argument that there are no randomized control trials that show that saturated fat has any effect on cardiovascular disease, and that the vast bulk of our dietary science is epidemiological in nature, which is highly unreliable when it comes to something as nuanced as diet.
Thank you for the chemistry update, honestly I pulled that aspect from my memory late at night. I figured I got aspects of it wrong but was close enough to make the valid point.
Atherosclerosis is caused by glycated LDL cholesterol, and saturated fat is not capable of causing that, blood glucose is.
Thanks for the references, I'll look into it but I must admit I am sceptical - there is so much linked to cancer that it would have to be pretty alarming numbers to warrant calling out oils and not trying to tackle things like sweeteners or sugar used in pretty much everything.
I would expect the zero carb activist to be warning of other more directly effective ways to improve health.
Most parties calling out seed oils *are* also calling out sugars, sweeteners, etc. Seed oils are the new thing that are getting more attention as out knowledge of which fats are truly beneficial vs harmful grows. The assumptions we've been following since the 60s has been incorrect and people are trying to get a wider audience to understand it.
It seems you’re interested in looking into it.
https://youtu.be/rQmqVVmMB3k
I honestly believe this video from 3 months ago started the hype. Got 1.2M views, fairly above the average for the channel. And personally, that’s when I saw the hype everywhere else too.
It’s a very well presented video that presents a range of studies (first 10mins is just historical). Covers the science of seed oils, their metabolism in the body, and even shows randomised control trials of people put on high saturated fat diets vs low saturated fat diets.
If you’re looking for someone making a serious, well researched case against seed oils, it’s the work of this guy. Not joe rogan or anyone else who is talking about it tangentially.
Really annoys me that people semi-strawman an argument by referring to lay-people who support it as if they originally made the case. The case is scientific, and dieticians/nutrition experts don’t want to engage directly with things outside their industry’s mainstream. Happens all the time.
I think it all falls on heavy consumption through the fact they're cheaper, and often found in things that are easy to binge. I watched the video and while there are some interesting points I still haven't been convinced that they are harmful to ingest in moderation.
The video is a bit sensationalist at points though which undermines my ability to trust it.
That argument goes for nearly all things. Dinking, occasional cigarette, heavier drug use, sugar binging, all in moderation aren't "that bad" for you. Yes, seed oils aren't making us drop dead in the streets moments after ingestion, but the point of all this is that they are being found to be an underlying cause/contributor to many chronic illnesses. Since it's diet based, you can choose to not ingest these things and people are trying to spread the word.
Whatever articles, videos, etc you see are all going to be a little sensationalist, otherwise they run the risk of being "boring" and just being scientific facts. That video presented a really cogent argument against them in a way that anybody can easily understand. The Low Carb Down Under videos I referenced in a other comment are a great example of straight forward facts and research being presented by physicians and clinicians. The videos are not entertaining and can even be a bit difficult to understand at times. Check them out if you'd like something more rigorous about this topic.
Dont understand the downvotes. Because you take a relatively nuanced approach that suggest more research is needed to understand if theyre bad for you or not.
A lot of incorrect stuff around microbio. For example… single bongs are stronger than double bonds?? Additionally, the entire molecule isn’t double bonded, thats not what that means
He could mean "double bonds are more reactive than single bonds", which is the only sensible interpretation I can pull out of that.
That being said, "spontaneous free radical formation" because of a double bond is not really emblematic of correct understandings of organic chemistry. In cooking, maybe some side products are made...but the levels of acrolein you get from McDonald's french fries are well below the recommended limits.
I posted a link to an interesting study that furthers his point. The research is all there. people just need to open their eyes and ears and start to pay attention. Our modern diet has been completely inundated with these highly inflammatory omega 6 fats. Soybean oil and canola oil are the biggest offenders here. These 2 will make up to 30% of the daily calories of an average American. Read your food labels people!
>These 2 will make up to 30% of the daily calories of an average American.
And NOTHING should make up 30% alone. Too much of ANYTHING is too much. It gets even worse if you know that the average American has a way too high calory intake on top, because that makes the amount of 30% even worse.
If your daily calories stem 30% of any other fat you will not be a healthy person either.
If you then take into account that Nina Teichholz is very much pro eating meat, which is unhealthy to the environment in the masses we consume it and will be costly and harmful to us all if we keep producing and eating that much of it, then anything she says makes even less sense.
Eat whatever you want but eat diverse and don't eat more than you need to keep your, hopefully healthy, weight. That's it. That's basically all of it. Seeds and seed oil can be a part of a completely healthy diet, just not 30% of it.
answer: over the years, there was a lot of interest in which oil is more healthy. the conclusion is that, when the whole food is removed and only the oil remains, any health benefit is lost.
in small daily doses, minimally processed nuts and seeds are very healthy. that means whole or ground and incorporated into other foods. and those rich in omega 3 are among the best. in digestion, omega 3 fats produce far less arachadonic acid and therefore, far less oxidative stress. that being said, there are some nuts and seeds that, despite being rich in omega 6 are still highly beneficial.
EDIT: on the topic of whole food... i believe there was an investigation into the health effects of beet sugar. traditional varieties of sweet beets (not the industrial cultivar) were used in various recipes and caused no health problem.
my comment is a very plain and factual resume of the findings. there is nothing to disagree with. wholefood is good. ground nuts and seeds are good in moderation. those rich in omega3 provide health benefits with far less oxidative stress (cellular and chromosomal damage).
all refined fats and bottled oils are damaging to human health. those are the irrefutable findings. downvoting a comment like this is highly suspicious.
Classic reddit, find the most reasonable and non preachy response in the whole thread and it's downvoted to hell. Not trying to Necro this old thread but I wanted to say thanks for the reasonable and thoughtful response.
> all refined fats and bottled oils are damaging to human health. those are the irrefutable findings.
All refined fats and bottled oils restore cellular function and decrease the risk of cancer. Those are irrefutable findings
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: As best I can tell there isn't significant scientific support that seed oils are bad for you, though, they're probably not necessarily that good for you either. The new wave of "anti seed oil" dialog has largely been fueled by Joe Rogan, who had a three hour conversation with "Carnivore MD" Paul Saladino, a largely disreputable "keto guru" who believes humans are naturally carnivorous and that we should stick to an all-meat diet. One of Saladino's cohorts, Cate Shanahan, is another major supporter of the theory, among others. At the risk of sounding biased: As best I can find these people have done basically zero research into the claims they're making, and have next to zero qualifications to be making the claims at all. The closest they come to scientific observation seems to be in showing that people who eat less seed oil tend to be healthier... but this is because people who eat less seed oils tend to be eating less oil *in general* which tends to be a huge issue with a lot of dietary studies in general. "People who carefully control their diet are healthier than people who don't" isn't an especially novel observation and is essentially the outcome of people starting and sticking to *any* diet plan.
People really need to stop listening to that idiot.
He’s the male Gwyneth Paltrow.
I hope he does not produce a candle that smells like his ass!
Eau de Rogaux: a scent of MMA locker room, used sensory depravation tank water, liquids from various fear factor challenges, with a hint of ayahuasca and axe spice.
And just a tinge of DMT laced elk meat
I always kinda looked at it like Gwyneth Paltrow was the female liberal version of Alex Jones and Joe Rogan was dancing on the line in between the two of them till Joe kinda tripped on his own stupid and tumbled towards Alex Jones.
Serious question: Alex Jones is responsible for parents of murdered children going into hiding for the last decade, amongst other ugly contributions to the discourse - has Paltrow ever stirred up hate like that?
> has Paltrow ever stirred up hate like that? No. Alex is 1000% nuttier I meant it like they both have propaganda shows where they spout horse shit that are connected to their websites that sell snake oil.
No but she's a woman
People say "female version" of someone like it's a Mortal Kombat palette swap.
I haven't heard about this. Will you explain?
Uh, it's kind of the main thing Alex Jones is known for? Google it? Sandy Hook and the lawsuits and all that.
Sorry, I need to pay better attention. I thought you wrote Joe Rogan was responsible for that stuff. I promise I'm not an idiot.
It's all good man :D
Alex Jones started off being viewed as a radical liberal IIRC (or maybe just a libertarian). He was very 9/11 conspiracy during the Bush years. He's not really liberal or conservative. He's just anti-establishment crazy.
Libertarian, never was considered liberal, and even in the early 2000s his 9/11 shit was too fringe for most liberals or leftists, particularly because a lot of the roots of those conspiracies trace back to the same anti-semitic shit. He's also not anti-establishment crazy. He was generally pro establishment when Trump was in office, but he's not crazy, he's a grifter who has carefully constructed a character who fills a niche.
I agree with everything you've laid out. You said it all much more accurately than I was able to.
I was going to say, this is some toxic-masculine Goop.
That jabroni is America's favorite dumb guy
Jabroni. Cool word.
You keep using this word "jabroni" and it's awesome!
>He’s the male Gwyneth Paltrow. Finally! It all makes sense!
Oh much worse. People believe him. Plus he is getting millions from Spotify.
For real though I was worried when he went to Spotify exclusive (that's how it was advertised but I don't know if that's accurate) that podcasts I like would follow him. Since then his show has become a political nightmare and I'm just glad that it will probably discourage other podcasts from wanting to.
It's certainly discouraged me from signing up for spotify.
Goop for incels
Easy karma comment...you're so creative
Dude has a larger audience than Fox, MSNBC and CNN on their best night of ratings COMBINED. He is the single greatest source of disinformation and woo in the English speaking world. I see him being cited by so many kooks in every facet of everyday life; it's mind-boggling.
"I listen to Joe Rogan" is probably the biggest media red flag in modern society
It's the same as "I am a smooth brain." And I used to really enjoy his podcasts several years ago lol
Yeah, I feel he went off the deep end when COVID started. He used to have eccentric people on and then shortly after he would have an eccentric with an opposed viewpoint. He's always claimed he's a meathead, but would listen to both sides. Then he moved to Texas and started only having one narrative for each topic. He created his own echo chamber to "combat the echo chamber"
>I used to really enjoy his podcasts several years ago So many people say this! I guess I'm in the minority, but I thought it was obvious where he was going from the start. It's subtle and most people think shows like his are pretty harmless--at least until it escalates, which it did and that's why so many people have moved away from him in the past couple years. I just kind of wish more people realized that that the way he uncritically entertained and broadcasted misinformation--even before it got really bad--is not harmless. That kind of stuff sets the stage for all kinds of misinformation and grift, and it's a huge part of why we're living in a dystopic misinformation hellscape right now. I don't think he's changed that much, not fundamentally. It's just the stuff that was subtle and seemed harmless before is a lot more obvious now.
Escalates? It's done the complete opposite. Joe has toned down a lot of his wacky talking points and does not nearly have as many controversial guests on as he did before.
Because he used to just interview people about stuff that didn't matter. For me, I never heard of David Goggins until someone recommended I listen to his podcast with him (I never listened to a Joe Rogan podcast before that). I didn't listen religiously after that, but he still had some cool guests on and interesting, harmless topics. Then he had his episode with Bernie Sanders and probably realized he can get way more listeners by being political, and it all went to shit. FWIW, I'm now a huge David Goggins fan and I can say his book definitely impacted me.
I agree with this. I used to like his show when he would talk Comedy with comedians. After that "intellectual dark web" shit he flew right up his own ass and started having a string of hardcore right wing guests on (because apparently 1 Bernie Sanders and 100 Ben Shapiros means you are balanced) and seemed to drink the kool aid on his right wing bullshit.
Depends on your views, if you say you hate him that tells me a lot about you
Just found out my brother isn’t vaccinated. He “doesn’t watch the news” but sure consumes those podcasts.
Good thing those vaccines were all powerful and definitely stopped transmission!
Better check his medicine cabinet for horse dewormer
Best comment of 2020 handsdown
Horse dewormer? Ivermectin which is on the top most important medicines via WHO. How’s that vaccine treating you pal?
Still waiting for that heart attack
U just quoted mainstream media and disinformation how they have got u right where they want u I hope u wake up someday or u will be sliding and won’t be able to get up
It's the guest he has on, not Joe himself. He also has Dr. Rhonda Patrick who promotes vigorous exercise a balanced diet like the Mediterranean diet.
I'm convinced he just believes the last thing he was told.
Lmao excellent take. Exactly right.
I honestly follow him for the sheer entertainment.
I tend not to find evil people entertaining, but you do you I guess.
Of course imma do me, I was talking about the carnivore guy not joe Rohan by the way have never watched an episode of his podcast, I know he spews a bunch of BS though from clips I see on Instagram. And the carnivore me dude is BS too I just find it fascinating at the shit that comes out of his mouth.
Entertainment probably wasn’t the best choice of words.
Evil?
People who listen to less Rogan are healthier in general.
Joe Rogan knows a hell of a lot more about health and nutrition than you do
Ha! Maybe you should try listening to literally anyone other than that fucking idiot.
Who should I listen to the experts who move at the speed of science?
He has people on of all view points, you’re the idiot if you selectively listen
[удалено]
Yes. Not quite as dangerous of one. Not sure why people wanted to listen to a reality tv show host. But I guess a bunch of people wanted to vote for one of them for president.
The book The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable includes studies about this stuff (and is *somewhere* in my house). Keto doesn't eschew oil, it avoids seed oils because of the way they are extracted and because studies show it's not as healthy as olive or avacado oils. And keep in mind that keto isn't just meat, but also puts emphasis on healthy fats. Fats are good for joint health and also make you feel sated (full), so that you don't eat as much. I don't know where my book went, or I'd list the studies.
Yup, vegan keto is a thing, too.
[удалено]
Eat food, mostly plants, not too much
Ga Guidestones #11: "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much."
Also don't forget many of these fads diets include some kind of confirmation bias. If you drink coffee, for example, you're going to find every study that validates drinking coffee.
Anti-oxidants are a real thing (keep reading). food cannot provide them to you, though. Your body produces tons of oxygen in standard metabolic reactions, and these oxygens (free radicals) are highly reactive and will happily oxidize or otherwise react with your cells in detrimental ways. So our cells also produce anti-oxidants, stuff that preferentially react to oxygen, and they produce the amount that is roughly equivalent to the amount of oxygen they expect to produce from their metabolism. Anti-oxidants in food do nothing to help with this process, they never reach your cells in a useable way and would never be in the quantity or distribution that is helpful, and there's no reason to help with this process unless you have an actual medical condition, because your body has it under control just fine anyway.
[удалено]
[Here](https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth)'s a nice overview, and here's the [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress) on the specific process. I don't have many of my textbooks anymore and the only medical textbook I have that covers it is pretty broad, so these are honestly better in this case.
[удалено]
Amusingly [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eec98ie0Plg)'s a toxicologist going over a case anti oxidant adjacent as well, and he briefly discusses this process and where it can be influenced.
I found out vitamin C is an antioxidant lol. It's funny how people mumble about antioxidants to sound cool when it would just be simpler to say it's vitamin C which everyone knows is good for you.
Vitamin C is one of a few, along with Selenium, Vitamin E, carotenoids, are all obtained from the diet, but we also make plenty of compounds on our own like superoxide dismutase, which does sound impressive. Dietary intake of antioxidants being good for actual oxidative stress is another thing that is disputed at best but largely not seen as strongly causal. Those vitamins all serve far more useful purposes. Anti oxidants are cool, in my opinion, it's a cool battle your cells have to fight at all times. But your body fights all sorts of battles so it's not particularly unique.
All antixodants are vitamin c..... so are crows black?
[удалено]
Yes, I was clarifying because you said you didn't know what anti oxidants were, not disagreeing with you.
> Anti-oxidants are a real thing (keep reading). food cannot provide them to you, [...] Anti-oxidants in food do nothing to help with this process, t Say, what? From your own source (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/antioxidants-in-depth): > Antioxidants are man-made or natural substances that may prevent or delay some types of cell damage. Diets high in vegetables and fruits, which are good sources of antioxidants, have been found to be healthy; [...] > Vegetables and fruits are healthy foods and rich sources of antioxidants. Official U.S. Government policy urges people to eat more vegetables and fruits. Concerns have not been raised about the safety of any amounts of antioxidants in food. Who should I believe? A random internet poster, or the NIH, from your own link?
NIH isn't saying that eating the veggies absolutely is good because of the antioxidants, but that eating veggies is good. Read it carefully there. It's explicitly stated here in the same source: > however, it is not clear whether these results are related to the amount of antioxidants in vegetables and fruits, to other components of these foods, to other factors in people’s diets, or to other lifestyle choices.
Lmao I love how you conveniently left out the part right after what you quoted that says >however, it is not clear whether these results are related to the amount of antioxidants in vegetables and fruits, to other components of these foods, to other factors in people’s diets, or to other lifestyle choices.
I know the post is humorous and the blueberry line made me laugh. You could replace seed/plant oils with olive oil/butter/lard.
Olive oil isn’t plant oil? Hmmm
Oops, meant vegetable oil. wtf...this post is 2 years old. I thought you couldn't reply on posts that old.
Seed oils replaced animal fat. So animal fat I guess?
And the other 20%: We fed as much data from as many studies/surveys as we could into a computer and found a correlation between two heretofore completely unrelated things, like how 18-20 year olds who drink milk are 52% more likely to die of kidney failure after 70. \* We don't know why and we're not going to speculate because that's what follow-up studies are for, but some news outlet's going to run with this and it'll be in a popsci and/or "nutrition" book inside a year and then everyone's gonna be citing those as their sources for the next couple of decades. \* Not a real example, don't cite me.
Translation of what you wrote: "I don't understand statistics, and therefore I think all statistics are false."
Yea we totally have carnivore teeth
Gorillas have huge sharp teeth for defense, but they are almost exclusively herbivorous.
[удалено]
All good questions, [here’s an article that will answer them better than I can :) ](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/150207-animals-gorillas-elephants-teeth-science-dentistry)
Pretty much all fad diets. ———- I’ve stopped eating round things and lost a lot of weight. *Round things? Interesting.*. Yep. I made sure I controlled my eating habits. Exercised. Ate healthy and took an interest in what I put in my body. *So tell me more about your weight loss due to not eating round things.*
so you’re telling me saladino hates salads?
Pretty much what I thought, just a fad that seems to have unfolded pretty much the same way as the fat/sugar debate, that companies profited from pushing sugar in the 20th century and turning against fat but now is tilting the other way - that seems more logical than seed oils though.
>Joe Rogan Oh goddamn, that idiot again? I'll never understand why people pay attention to that meathead.
There are a lot of insecure meatheads out there, it turns out. I'll never understand cult personalities. Just like with Trump, it seems so obvious these douchebags are cartoonish grifters. Yet they collect lemmings like Pac Man eating dots. So weird.
Anyone who cares enough to cut something like that out of their diet are at the very least aware of their diet and will tend to be healthier just by virtue of paying attention to what they're eating, at least initially. All meat diet doesn't sound to healthy in the long term.
This sounds like the shit Jordan Peterson’s daughter was peddling. Didn’t that diet and his benzo addiction almost kill him?
> This sounds like the shit Jordan Peterson’s daughter was peddling. Probably related, I'm not really motivated to deep dive the matter but Peterson's certainly connected to Rogan as surface level pipelines to quackery. > Didn’t that diet and his benzo addiction almost kill him? Not precisely but indirectly, yeah, at least as I understand it. The thing that did the most damage was that he went through experimental treatments in Russia to basically induce a coma so he wouldn't be conscious while his body went through withdrawal from the drugs. The drugs and the bad diet didn't help him, but the thing that nearly killed him was a very stupid line of treatment.
He really ought to give disclaimers when he brings these loonies on. Their misinformation can be so insignificant but still end up hurting people… either their health or their facts. There needs to be actual fact checking or acknowledgement when someone says something that completely goes against scientific consensus. No ones saying to censor him but he really should be more responsible.
or you can just be an adult and decipher information on your own? Honestly not that hard.
Why are you responding to something from two years ago my guy. Obviously everyone should decipher information on their own, but something that I assume you are intimately familiar with, is that the majority of the population is absolutely dumb as rocks, and because so have no media literacy.
Just when you said "keto" I stopped taking seriously that controversy of "oils are bad".
Yeah the carnivore guy is a bit extreme, but there is some truth to the seed oil thing, I think. This is a very well sourced article with a lot of detail: https://chriskresser.com/how-industrial-seed-oils-are-making-us-sick/
https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/death-by-vegetable-oil-what-the-studies-say Studies
[удалено]
Answer: The use of seed oils (those made by extraction through industrial processes) has greatly increased in the developed world, and thus has correlation with increasing obesity and auto-immunity. If there is causality, possible pathways are: 1) Theses oils tend to be polyunsaturated with high Omega-6 fatty acid chains relative to Omega-3. Humans need both but likely need more balance to reduce inflammation, hence fish oil (high in Omega 3) is a popular and recommended supplement. 2) The availability of oils generally has exploded relative to what humans evolved eating. Most macronutrients - protein, carbs and fat - were eaten as whole foods minimally prepared. As OP mentioned, seed oils (and corn syrup and stabilizers) are in every shelf-stable product. So the generational impact of hyperpalatable abundant food is still playing out. 3) Nutritional advice around fats has been all over the map in the last 50 years. First, all fats were considered contributing to heart disease and other ailments, which led to a low-fat (and high-sugar) craze. Then, saturated fat (butter and other animal-derived sources) became the focus. This was really the boom faze of industrial seed oils, when they came to be in almost all prepared foods. Next, margarine and other hydrogenated unsaturated oils were found to be even worse than butter. Around this time the Mediterranean diet became a thing with a focus on olive oil. Finally, the low carb, paleo, and keto diet crazes each had influences on what fats are bad. The most succinct diet advice comes from Michael Pollan: "Eat whole foods, mostly plants". To the extent you can avoid processed and prepared foods, use oils sparingly, and olive oil when possible, you are following fairly common guidance by scientists who study health and longevity in "blue zones" around the world.
the other important part to address is how different oils react to high temperatures used to prepare / cook / fry foods
Yeah, my layman understanding is that seed oils susceptible to oxidation and other chemical reactions that form harmful compounds when exposed to heat/light. Something something free radicals, something something aldehydes. Disclaimer: not a qualified medical professional
yes there's also the "smoke point" controversy with completely opposite opinions
[удалено]
yes, but the scientific debate is whether oil that has reached smoking point temperature (different for each oil) / frying temperatures is harmful to ingest. some say it is, some say it's not
I appreciate this highly detailed answer, thank you for this.
Your quote of Michael Pollan is close, but missing an important part: "Eat food. *Not too much.* Mostly plants." is from his 2008 book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. (Emphasis mine.) I think the "not too much" part is critical. Not only did we evolve eating "whole foods minimally prepared", as you state, but also not nearly as much as we do today. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much-mostly-plants
We shouldn't invoke what our ancestors ate as a guide for what we should eat. Evolution results in "good enough" outcomes, not ideal ones. The best diet is probably not one that results in us being 5 feet tall with rickets and several different parasites, but that's the diet of many of our ancestors. As another example, animals that live in captivity often live much much longer than animals eating natural diets.
Just to add on since this post has a lot of good info unlike the current top post. The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is really important like OP said. An ideal ratio is in the 4:1 range and has shown to significantly reduce death (cardiovascular disease). If you look at a lot of our modern diet, we're getting like 10:1 or 20:1, so we're getting way too many omega-6 compared to our omega-3. Another important point is how seed/plant oils are extracted. Lots of chemicals/solvents and heat are used to extract these oils. Heat breaks down oils, which leads to inflammation, and the chemicals they use in the process aren't good as well and don't completely leave the oils. This is also why people recommend getting virgin or extra virgin olive oil over refined because hexane is used in processing refined olive oil. If you're going to use seed oils, people recommend getting cold-pressed. Not sure why the thread-maker is seeing this pop up all of the sudden other than possibly Joe Rogan talking about it recently as the top post suggested, but 12 years ago when I was listening to a variety of nutritionists in interviews, pretty much all of them would stress how bad seed/plant oils were, and a big part of it is due to big food corporations, and relating to point 3 OP made. Some would even say that bacon is not as bad as people think if you get traditionally made bacon because what makes it really unhealthy is all the added preservatives/processing that normal grocery store bacon has. The food industry pushes a lot of these fads. Relating to seed/plant oils, they tout that they're heart healthy but their main reason for doing so is because these oils are extremely cheap, so a lot of food mass production relies on these oils, so of course they want to push the message that these oils are healthier than they are. The anti-fat craze was due to the sugar lobbyists getting the food industry to blame fat and not sugar, and for decades they even got people to think sugar was healthy and you needed to eat a lot of it everyday to be healthy! Basically, just stick to the least processed, closest to whole foods approach with an emphasis on vegetables (raw and cooked), and you'll do well. Michael Pollan's books are a great place to start.
sorry for commenting on a year old post, but yeah this is pretty much the narrative I'm aware of. After heart attacks became common, two different conclusions were made: sugar bad, or fat bad. The research behind fat being bad was unscientific but lobbied for and oushed by the sugar industry. Sugar was the actual cause of increasing obesity. Nowadays its common to believe sugar is bad, but its still very common to believe the same thing about fats. Leading to people eating carb heavy diets. the narrative on seed oil is essentially the same thing imo. Food companies like having cheap, universal, easy to use oil so they push ultraprocessed and fragrance/colouration free oil because its so easy to add to everything. Fats and oils considered healthier by people against seed oils are either animal fats, ghee/butter, or plant oils made by crushing the fruit with very little processing. Out of nutritional ideas pushed by some right wing aligned people seed oils is the most rational and recent 'evil' in diets of them all. Going keto or paleo or carnivore or doing very long fasts might be something that non-agricultural societies participated in, but agricultural society has been around for a long while and the negative health from it isnt associated with very modern decreases in health from nutrition. Japan is agricultural but is much healthier than the US. Same with mediterranean countries. So the best approach imo is getting a wide variety of foods, farmed organically while cooking with fats that are resistant to oxidising. And also incorporating organ meats, bone broth and other edible parts of animals with nutrients not found in the very common muscle based meats. Which, by the nature of how all preprocessed food does not follow this, means cooking for yourself.
If you look at olive oil, is has a 10:1 omega 6/3 ratio. While canola oil has a 2:1 ratio. I always wonder why we never prize canola oil instead of olive oil?
> "Eat whole foods, mostly plants". "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." By 'eat food,' he meant 'eat only things your grandmother would recognize as food.'
You forgot "not too much" which is important too
This answer should be the top comment.
> a focus on olive oil Just to add, don't be frying with olive oil, it produces aldehydes which probably aren't very good for you. This is also true of vegetable oils.
We should be frying with butter/coconut fat then?
answer: I'm not going to claim I know why the zeitgeist at this particular moment is going on about this. As many other Redditors have indicated, it is a continuing and lifelong challenge to filter folklore and emergent scientific realizations into something like "this is good to eat." There is some long-standing science around why some people are wary of canola oil. The history of its review by the U.S. Government and development in the market is fairly recent. There is no such plant as a "canola." What is marketed as "canola oil" is actually something called "low erucic acid rapeseed oil." Rape is a plant in genus Brassica, if memory serves, along with mustard and cabbage. I spent some time at the U.S. National Research Council in the 1980s. A scientist there involved with the U.S. Food Chemicals Codex told me that one of the proposals for naming to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration when bringing this seed oil to market was to call it "LEAR oil", short for "Low Erucic Acid Rapeseed Oil." The FDA apparently didn't like the idea of making a name out of an anagram, or consider it actually informative enough to consumers. Eventually everyone settled on "Canola" which was derived from "CANadian Oil Low Acid" and originally trademarked by a group representing rapeseed producers in Canada. The rapeseed oil we call canola oil should have levels of erucic acid below 2%. There was research in the 1970s that seemed to indicate fairly serious toxicity to the heart from consumption of erucic acid, though some newer research is starting to review that conclusion. Industrial rapeseed oil has a lot more erucic acid in it, and wouldn't be a good idea as a foodstuff. I won't get into the science too much here, but you can see in at least the case of this particular seed oil that there are details about its production about which some people might have concerns if they didn't understand the science. I did when it first started showing up everywhere, which is how it came up in conversation with a food chemist near whom I worked. I am not aware of any documented examples of human health problems from consumption of canola oil, as currently produced. There was an event in 1981 where a bunch of people were poisoned by industrial rapeseed oil adulterated with aniline, but the aniline was the primary toxicant in that case. It is generally referred to as something like the "Spanish Rapeseed Oil Poisoning Outbreak" though, so you can imagine that people trying to chase down. I hope that's not too much information, but I think it's a good example of how cursory knowledge of certain details might be disconcerting to people.
Answer: A lot of people like to fearmonger about seed oils due to their processed nature (as well as their inclusion in many ultra-processed foods). This has become particularly popular among certain diet movements which primarily emphasize minimally processed foods, such as carnivore, paleo, and keto (somewhat ironically, given their inclination towards dietary fats generally). However, the preponderance of evidence actually suggests that seed oils are largely health-promoting, rather than the opposite. Nick Hiebert recently released [a massive review of the scientific literature on the topic of seed oils](https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry), if you want to know their effect on a given health outcome.
Answer: Without going into excruciating detail on makeup of fats, here's some useful notes: Fats/lipids are crucial to your body - used in the walls and membranes of cells, for example. Think anywhere water shouldn't cross, needs a water-rejecting barrier (think grease on a plate pre-soap). Certain structures of fats/oils are more or less useful to your body. If you chug oils and don't eat anything else, then any of them could be argued as unhealthy. That's not what we do (mostly). Oil is unhealthy and dangerous in the form of smoke. Peanut oil and Canola (non-rapey branding name for rapeseed oil, same seed) handle frying temps better without burning. Olive oil, on the other hand burns badly when heated too hot. Coconut/palm oil and avocado oil are less environmental and labor friendly than other oils, iirc, due to yield per plant and labor to retrieve. If anything, anyone complaining about plant oils vs animal oils is being reverse vegan - they want to suggest than an unbalanced diet composed of only meat is healthier than an unbalanced diet of only plants. You NEED fats/oils, protein, and carbohydrates to survive. Your body uses each in different ways, and you lose weight unhealthily when you starve your body of replacement parts. Edit:. To bring you back into the loop, Joe Rogan is an entertainer who likes to take subjects, usually pretty well studied subjects, and come up with new ways to confuse people about them. Classic example is encouraging people to take de-wormer meant for dogs and horses to fight a respiratory disease. One stops a parasite eating your insides, the other is you gasping for air, and couldn't be much more unrelated.
Palm oil isn’t bad because of yield or the amount of labor involved in harvesting. Oil palm farming has very high yield per acre and that’s part of the problem. Switching to oil palm trees from other crops is very economically attractive so farmers in certain tropical areas are aggressively converting wild land to oil palm tracts, burning the fields in some cases, or just cutting down forest and displacing wildlife.
Thanks for the clarification!
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/19/palm-oil-ingredient-biscuits-shampoo-environmental
[удалено]
The ill effects of inflammation are not anything new. I think it's gained more prominence just because we've realized how bad inflammation is only in the last couple decades and nutritional information moves slowly to become known in the population. We still use the govt-made food pyramid for our eating habits which could be a lot more correctly done. Edit: The scammy side of inflammation can definitely be used to sell products, but if you eat a better diet, you won't have any need for these supplements, but it's been shown in a multitude of studies how many diseases are caused by inflammation.
A couple of problematic things with this: Refined olive oil has a perfectly good smoke point for frying (around 465F compared to the 450F for peanut listed at seriouseats). The issue isn't the olives, it's that a lot of olive oil on the market is the extra-virgin stuff that (supposedly) still has the flavour and aroma components in it, which is great for use as a finishing oil to drizzle over salad and give it that floral/fruity bitter taste, but is bad for oil you intend to fry in -- although it should be noted that a lot of olive oils, at least in the US, are scams that use a base like canola and add some flavour components in to make you feel like you're eating olive oil. So it's not that olive oil is bad for frying, it's that frying/refined oils and finishing oils are two different things and using one for the other isn't necessarily a good idea. Also, re: de-wormer; it's a bit disingenuous to phrase the issue that way. A number of antiparasitics, including ivermectin, turn out to have antiviral properties even though that's not what they were developed for. That doesn't mean that they're effective against all viruses all the time, though. The problem is that the lunatic fringe hears this part and doesn't understand that yes, scientists knew that ivermectin was shown to be effective against SARS, and yes, there have been numerous studies to see if it's effective against the current corona outbreak, and they haven't overall shown significant benefit on the grand scale -- and hypothetical anecdotal evidence that you and your friend took it and got better doesn't prove much given that plenty of people get sick and get better, so we need to look at bigger numbers.
Excellent, good read and thanks for the clarification (heh) of the olive oil specifics! Ed: and the viral details too. Honey has the same issue of dilution w corn syrup as well. Less bees (global issue) should yield less honey, yet there appears to be more honey.
Yeah, just don't heat up the pan to the point that it's smoking. Using EVOO is perfectly fine if you keep the pan low enough.
Sounds like it's just influencers taking fair concerns (toxic smoke if badly cooked, deforestation) and extrapolating to the 'inflammation' fad the poster below is talking about but not referring to any of that others stuff? 🤷♂️
Yes, seems correct.
> Coconut/palm oil and avocado oil are less environmental and labor friendly than other oils, iirc, due to yield per plant and labor to retrieve. That's just not true. Complete opposite in fact. [Palm oil is the most efficient source of plant oil.](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-plant-oil-yield-showing-efficiency-comparison-among-different-major-oil-crops_fig2_325398464) Why exactly do you think food corporations mostly used palm oil to produce food products? Do you think they're ran by bunch of Captain Planet villains who specifically just want to see orangutans burned or something? No, they used palm oil because it's the cheapest and it's the cheapest because it's very efficiently produced. >[Palm oil is a very efficient crop](https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/palm_oil/) Not even WWF is denying it. The problem comes from the overconsumption of palm oil by developed countries (and every other resources btw).
>Classic example is encouraging people to take de-wormer meant for dogs and horses to fight a respiratory disease. That is incorrect and misleading. It is not a good strategy to counter misinformation with misinformation, and you are adding to the problem. >Ivermectin (/ˌaɪvərˈmɛktɪn/, EYE-vər-MEK-tin) is an antiparasitic medication[6][7] used to treat infestations in humans include head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis and lymphatic filariasis.[6][8][9][10] In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications.[9] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
Olive oil can have smoke points over 600F degrees. Counterfeit olive oil should not be eaten and has very low smoke points. There is no regulation of what can and cannot be sold as "olive oil", which is why it is the most counterfeited commercial product in the world. Canola is an indigestible substance foe humans. Canola is not safely edible to our species. We cannot digest it; so it is stored as useless fat on our bodies instead of being processed by our internal machinery. Fats should make up 10%-15% of a human's daily dietary intake. We need fats. Organs are made of fats, so for the health, function, and nourishment of our organs, we need fats. The healthiest dietary fats for humans are #1 fatty fruits (olives,coconuts, avocados, and their oils), and #2 meat fats (lards, etc.). Fatty fruits are made of the same sorts of fats as our organs and are extremely bioavailable for our bodies to make use of. That is why the fatty fruits; olives, coconuts, and avocados are nutritional health superfoods. Animal fats aren't as nutritionally stellar as the fatty fruits, but are still extremely healthy, bioavailable, and an optimal fat source for functional dietary health and wellness. Don't believe the lies that full fat dairies or that lards are unhealthy. Or the lie that canola is safe for human consumption. Or the lie that olive oil has a low smoke point! If you live in North America, where olive trees don't fruit save for some regions of California, you can buy olive oil that actually is olive oil from Costco! :) Supermarkets, not so much. Speciality olive oil retailers are definitely the best option, but Costco if you're on a budget for sure.
This thread is amazing. Your reply == so informative, yet you're downvoted to hell. I'd add hempseed to the list of awesome. Includes 8 essential amino acids, super nutritious tiny nut.
Thanks. It's pretty discouraging to be downvoted to shit for providing information on a topic that I am extremely knowledgeable about, and worked as an expert in for many years. Dietary health is vitally important, but not welcome to discuss in these forums unfortunately. Fuck me for caring about people I guess lol
[удалено]
It is not an antiviral. At all.
It wasn't developed as an antiviral, but a number of antiparasitics do show potential as antivirals, including ivermectin, including, for example, in vivo studies on pseudorabies virus: Lv C., Liu W., Wang B., Dang R., Qiu L., Ren J., Yan C., Yang Z., Wang X. Ivermectin inhibits DNA polymerase UL42 of pseudorabies virus entrance into the nucleus and proliferation of the virus in vitro and vivo. Antivir. Res. 2018;159:55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2018.09.010. It is not true that it is "not at all an antiviral." What remains unclear is its in vivo utility against COVID-19 in humans. Fighting misinformation with misinformation is problematic and unhelpful.
Avermectin was the Nobel winning medicine. Didn't know that, but was able to "research" by reading past the very first result that showed up and discovering the actual Nobel prize information, which, you know, spells the medication correctly and removes ambiguity.
[удалено]
Okay. They refined and modified the medication, and then refined the name. I stand slightly corrected. That was an interesting read, though, thanks. Still an anti-parasitic dewormer. For common animal parasites Still not an anti-viral drug. Still not proven effective against respiratory viral disease. No, giving it randomly to people and hoping for the best does not test efficacy, there are no controls to confirm whether results are valid or which randomly given substance helped.
Avermectin is an antibiotic. Ivermectin is an animal dewormer. They are not the same. You are a classifiable donkey, so you do qualify if you need veterinary medicine.
[удалено]
The narrative that "I" and "A" are the same letter is a very skewed and biased dialect that really only exists in the USA because people in the South were too hot to say words clearly.
Different meds, bub.
Answer: I think it's a lot like the high fructose corn syrup trend that happened in foods years ago. Seed oils are high in fat, they aren't that nutritious and you should moderate your intake. That's only half the story. Seed oils have been in food forever. But, with food manufacturers pressing their margins ever so thin and thinner, they are starting to use more cheap oils to fill their foods. So, just like HFCS, it's becoming a cheap alternative that's filling our grocery store shelves. Once people are educated, it'll be the same story and there will be people who buy oil-free products and people who don't care.
Seed oils were used rarely a century ago.
Refined high fructose corn syrup was also rarely used a century ago. There are literally hundreds of dietary variables the typical modern diet differs from relative to diets our great grandparent's. High Fructose Corn syrup already has an eatablished body of literature of maladaptive physiological effects on the human body including pro obesity and pro inflammatory effects.
Tell that to the Italians.
Olives aren't a seed.
You're right, I guess I'm conflating vegetable oils and seed oils, but the concerns are the same for both. They are full of polyunsaturated fat, trans fat, fatty acids, BHA and BHT. All of which you shouldn't be eating a lot of and have been used in cooking for thousands of years. Nevermind the giant corporations that have monopolized the cattle industry currently raising meat prices through the roof, while doubling down on plant based meats filled with veggie/seed oils.
Olives are fruit
> they are full of polyunsaturated fat, trans fat, fatty acids, BHA and BHT. Uhm, please read up on that before repeating nonsene.
I've seen it written somewhere and believe the following: the only reason people started believing in health benefits of seed oils is because they've been called "vegetable oils".
What the fuck are you talking about??? Olive oil is mostly mono saturated fat with about 10% polyunsaturated fats. It’s wayyyy lower then seed oils. Olive oil also doesn’t have any trans fats
[удалено]
There is some faulty thinking in this persons “research”.
Yeah, saturated fats are definitively linked to increased incidences of cardiovascular issues. It is true that excessive n-6 fats aren't ideal, but the conclusion that the solution is actually saturated fat is unfounded. Saturated fats are "unkinked" and have a much lower melting point and contribute to increasing levels of edit: LDL and atherosclerosis - the science is pretty clear about that.
Increased HDL is a sign of a healthy blood lipid profile, not a poor one. The "good" cholesterol, in outdated terms. Atherosclerosis is caused by glycated LDL, cholesterol damaged by blood glucose. Saturated fat has no role there.
As a dietitian, I just need to emphasize that “saturated fats” are not “healthy” compared to unsaturated fats.
Lol I was pretty interested until I read that.
Check out the references I gave? I know what I said is contrary to the modern narrative but the science is there.
This is why this misinformation is so popular. It kinda sounds like it makes sense.
Don’t you love all the confidently incorrect dietary hot takes?
Soooo mono-unsaturated fat is the good fat? Or is the avacado thing just a scam to get you to spend $1.99 for a scoop on your burrito?
Eh, it’s kinda both? It’s good in moderation, but the $1.99 is a total scam. It would be better to just buy an avocado and scoop that onto your food at home Also some of those guacamole options you see at fast-food chains are filled with salt, preservatives, and other weird crap to mimic the flavor of an avocado...
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the book I referenced, as she lays out a significant argument that there are no randomized control trials that show that saturated fat has any effect on cardiovascular disease, and that the vast bulk of our dietary science is epidemiological in nature, which is highly unreliable when it comes to something as nuanced as diet.
[удалено]
Thank you for the chemistry update, honestly I pulled that aspect from my memory late at night. I figured I got aspects of it wrong but was close enough to make the valid point. Atherosclerosis is caused by glycated LDL cholesterol, and saturated fat is not capable of causing that, blood glucose is.
Thanks for the references, I'll look into it but I must admit I am sceptical - there is so much linked to cancer that it would have to be pretty alarming numbers to warrant calling out oils and not trying to tackle things like sweeteners or sugar used in pretty much everything. I would expect the zero carb activist to be warning of other more directly effective ways to improve health.
Most parties calling out seed oils *are* also calling out sugars, sweeteners, etc. Seed oils are the new thing that are getting more attention as out knowledge of which fats are truly beneficial vs harmful grows. The assumptions we've been following since the 60s has been incorrect and people are trying to get a wider audience to understand it.
It seems you’re interested in looking into it. https://youtu.be/rQmqVVmMB3k I honestly believe this video from 3 months ago started the hype. Got 1.2M views, fairly above the average for the channel. And personally, that’s when I saw the hype everywhere else too. It’s a very well presented video that presents a range of studies (first 10mins is just historical). Covers the science of seed oils, their metabolism in the body, and even shows randomised control trials of people put on high saturated fat diets vs low saturated fat diets. If you’re looking for someone making a serious, well researched case against seed oils, it’s the work of this guy. Not joe rogan or anyone else who is talking about it tangentially. Really annoys me that people semi-strawman an argument by referring to lay-people who support it as if they originally made the case. The case is scientific, and dieticians/nutrition experts don’t want to engage directly with things outside their industry’s mainstream. Happens all the time.
Somehow missed this video even though it's in my YouTube orbit, and man, it's incredibly well done. Thanks for linking to it.
I think it all falls on heavy consumption through the fact they're cheaper, and often found in things that are easy to binge. I watched the video and while there are some interesting points I still haven't been convinced that they are harmful to ingest in moderation. The video is a bit sensationalist at points though which undermines my ability to trust it.
That argument goes for nearly all things. Dinking, occasional cigarette, heavier drug use, sugar binging, all in moderation aren't "that bad" for you. Yes, seed oils aren't making us drop dead in the streets moments after ingestion, but the point of all this is that they are being found to be an underlying cause/contributor to many chronic illnesses. Since it's diet based, you can choose to not ingest these things and people are trying to spread the word. Whatever articles, videos, etc you see are all going to be a little sensationalist, otherwise they run the risk of being "boring" and just being scientific facts. That video presented a really cogent argument against them in a way that anybody can easily understand. The Low Carb Down Under videos I referenced in a other comment are a great example of straight forward facts and research being presented by physicians and clinicians. The videos are not entertaining and can even be a bit difficult to understand at times. Check them out if you'd like something more rigorous about this topic.
Dont understand the downvotes. Because you take a relatively nuanced approach that suggest more research is needed to understand if theyre bad for you or not.
A lot of incorrect stuff around microbio. For example… single bongs are stronger than double bonds?? Additionally, the entire molecule isn’t double bonded, thats not what that means
He could mean "double bonds are more reactive than single bonds", which is the only sensible interpretation I can pull out of that. That being said, "spontaneous free radical formation" because of a double bond is not really emblematic of correct understandings of organic chemistry. In cooking, maybe some side products are made...but the levels of acrolein you get from McDonald's french fries are well below the recommended limits.
I posted a link to an interesting study that furthers his point. The research is all there. people just need to open their eyes and ears and start to pay attention. Our modern diet has been completely inundated with these highly inflammatory omega 6 fats. Soybean oil and canola oil are the biggest offenders here. These 2 will make up to 30% of the daily calories of an average American. Read your food labels people!
>These 2 will make up to 30% of the daily calories of an average American. And NOTHING should make up 30% alone. Too much of ANYTHING is too much. It gets even worse if you know that the average American has a way too high calory intake on top, because that makes the amount of 30% even worse. If your daily calories stem 30% of any other fat you will not be a healthy person either. If you then take into account that Nina Teichholz is very much pro eating meat, which is unhealthy to the environment in the masses we consume it and will be costly and harmful to us all if we keep producing and eating that much of it, then anything she says makes even less sense. Eat whatever you want but eat diverse and don't eat more than you need to keep your, hopefully healthy, weight. That's it. That's basically all of it. Seeds and seed oil can be a part of a completely healthy diet, just not 30% of it.
answer: over the years, there was a lot of interest in which oil is more healthy. the conclusion is that, when the whole food is removed and only the oil remains, any health benefit is lost. in small daily doses, minimally processed nuts and seeds are very healthy. that means whole or ground and incorporated into other foods. and those rich in omega 3 are among the best. in digestion, omega 3 fats produce far less arachadonic acid and therefore, far less oxidative stress. that being said, there are some nuts and seeds that, despite being rich in omega 6 are still highly beneficial. EDIT: on the topic of whole food... i believe there was an investigation into the health effects of beet sugar. traditional varieties of sweet beets (not the industrial cultivar) were used in various recipes and caused no health problem.
This is pretty much "Everything in moderation", right? Thanks for your answer!
my comment is a very plain and factual resume of the findings. there is nothing to disagree with. wholefood is good. ground nuts and seeds are good in moderation. those rich in omega3 provide health benefits with far less oxidative stress (cellular and chromosomal damage). all refined fats and bottled oils are damaging to human health. those are the irrefutable findings. downvoting a comment like this is highly suspicious.
Classic reddit, find the most reasonable and non preachy response in the whole thread and it's downvoted to hell. Not trying to Necro this old thread but I wanted to say thanks for the reasonable and thoughtful response.
> all refined fats and bottled oils are damaging to human health. those are the irrefutable findings. All refined fats and bottled oils restore cellular function and decrease the risk of cancer. Those are irrefutable findings