Seed oils cardioprotective? How would you debunk this?

[AnonE]

View: https://twitter.com/MohammedAlo/status/1634649909096849411


Interesting twitter thread with the researcher going after us seed oil haters. Challenges people to post *human* studies debunking the claims and showing the negatives.

How would you respond?

 

[Jam]

"How would you respond?"


View: https://twitter.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1634673173227773953

 

[Jam]

View: https://twitter.com/FatEmperor/status/1635029678825295873

 

[Hugh Johnson]

MD is creating demand his services. Nothing new here.

 

[Dapose]

I would look at a graph of seed oil consumption in a population over say the last 100 years. Then I would look at a graph of cardiovascular disease rates over the same population for and duration. Then when scratching one’s head I would start wondering what other dumb **** things I’d been lied to about my entire life.

 

[AnonE]

I would look at a graph of seed oil consumption in a population over say the last 100 years. Then I would look at a graph of cardiovascular disease rates over the same population for and duration. Then when scratching one’s head I would start wondering what other dumb **** things I’d been lied to about my entire life.

Spurious Correlations

Correlation is not causation: thousands of charts of real data showing actual correlations between ridiculous variables.

www.tylervigen.com

There should be better arguments. Not that I necessarily disagree.

 

[Dapose]

Spurious Correlations

Correlation is not causation: thousands of charts of real data showing actual correlations between ridiculous variables.

www.tylervigen.com

There should be better arguments. Not that I necessarily disagree.

I get that I took the easy route in correlating a couple things. But they are two things a sixth grader math student would come up with to look at. I find it annoying when people bring up random nonsense correlation that don’t have anything to do with reality. My point in my correlation that is based in rational deliberation is that I would then read people like Ray, like Peter from hyperlipid like Ivor Commins like Brad Marshal, Sally Fallon Morrel, that look into the matter in a very nuanced manner.
If we life in a world where we just jump when someone says “yeah meat eating causes cancer” and that you can’t make a casual conversational tone and say “yeah but people around me are eating less and less meat and I know several people with cancer.” We need to stick to real world thinking.
Peace

 

[cremes]

To debunk, I would look for in vivo experiments with mice, or better yet humans, where their dietary fat was replaced. Let's do a thought experiment where there is a diet where 100% of the fat is polyunsaturated, another diet has 100% monounsaturated, and another diet has 100% saturated fat. Maybe as a control, imagine a diet that is as close to 0% fat as possible; if impossible then keep the fat under 1%.

The carb and protein macros should be held constant across those diets with the exception of the control diet. The control diet would need to scale up linearly to cover calorie requirements.

And that's the last point... let's keep all of the diets equivalent in terms of caloric content.

Then feed that to our mice (or humans!) for some period and upon expiration compare their biomarkers with baseline. What would we find?

The reality is that this experiment hasn't been done as far as I can find.

Alternately, you should scour pub.med and find all of the published studies that support and debunk the OP's stance that PUFA is cardioprotective. Find where the balance of evidence lays.

 

[Runenight201]

I get that I took the easy route in correlating a couple things. But they are two things a sixth grader math student would come up with to look at. I find it annoying when people bring up random nonsense correlation that don’t have anything to do with reality. My point in my correlation that is based in rational deliberation is that I would then read people like Ray, like Peter from hyperlipid like Ivor Commins like Brad Marshal, Sally Fallon Morrel, that look into the matter in a very nuanced manner.
If we life in a world where we just jump when someone says “yeah meat eating causes cancer” and that you can’t make a casual conversational tone and say “yeah but people around me are eating less and less meat and I know several people with cancer.” We need to stick to real world thinking.
Peace

Epidemiological arguments aren’t really good evidence. You could draw up that same argument with sugar/fat/meat/calorie consumption and conclude whatever variable is being investigated as the source of the problem.

An RCT in humans similar to what @cremes suggested would be the be the strongest argument. To get around the ethical component would be the hardest part, but I believe that even if you were to run this experiment for one month, that should be enough time for some clear trends to emerge. Then you could reverse any damage done to the unfortunate people who received the substandard nutrition.

 

[LuMonty]

To debunk, I would look for in vivo experiments with mice, or better yet humans, where their dietary fat was replaced. Let's do a thought experiment where there is a diet where 100% of the fat is polyunsaturated, another diet has 100% monounsaturated, and another diet has 100% saturated fat. Maybe as a control, imagine a diet that is as close to 0% fat as possible; if impossible then keep the fat under 1%.

The carb and protein macros should be held constant across those diets with the exception of the control diet. The control diet would need to scale up linearly to cover calorie requirements.

And that's the last point... let's keep all of the diets equivalent in terms of caloric content.

Then feed that to our mice (or humans!) for some period and upon expiration compare their biomarkers with baseline. What would we find?

The reality is that this experiment hasn't been done as far as I can find.

Alternately, you should scour pub.med and find all of the published studies that support and debunk the OP's stance that PUFA is cardioprotective. Find where the balance of evidence lays.

This is good stuff, thought I'd add some off-hand examples from studies I've read. One claimed to be high-SFA but most of the diet was seal blubber so the diet was about 80g PUFA, 60 SFA and that's a ton of fat either way. Another used lard, butter, and canola oil. Lard was considered high-SFA and the main source of fat despite being noted in the study itself that the lard used was ~70% PUFA. On top of that, many studies overfeed regardless of fat used.

I'm in the same boat as yo9u as far as useful studies done, mainly piggybacking for new forum members to get a quick idea of what you're talking about.

 

[cremes]

This is good stuff, thought I'd add some off-hand examples from studies I've read. One claimed to be high-SFA but most of the diet was seal blubber so the diet was about 80g PUFA, 60 SFA and that's a ton of fat either way. Another used lard, butter, and canola oil. Lard was considered high-SFA and the main source of fat despite being noted in the study itself that the lard used was ~70% PUFA. On top of that, many studies overfeed regardless of fat used.

I'm in the same boat as yo9u as far as useful studies done, mainly piggybacking for new forum members to get a quick idea of what you're talking about.

I saw a thread here within the last 5 days or so where I think @haidut suggested that members of this forum could crowdsource some experiments. I would throw some bucks into the kitty to do the Fat Study I suggested above on a bunch of mice. Let's start there. If they all keel over from one or more of those diets, then obviously we can redesign or just skip it for humans.

Anyway, the average human in the United States (where a majority of forum participants live, I think) is so full of PUFA that even the 100% Mono or 100% SF diets would still be polluted with PUFA as our bodies liberated it for usage. I do not know how to get around that confounder for a human study. For mice, I bet it's fairly easy to source the right kind of animal for the test.

 

[LuMonty]

I saw a thread here within the last 5 days or so where I think @haidut suggested that members of this forum could crowdsource some experiments. I would throw some bucks into the kitty to do the Fat Study I suggested above on a bunch of mice. Let's start there. If they all keel over from one or more of those diets, then obviously we can redesign or just skip it for humans.

Anyway, the average human in the United States (where a majority of forum participants live, I think) is so full of PUFA that even the 100% Mono or 100% SF diets would still be polluted with PUFA as our bodies liberated it for usage. I do not know how to get around that confounder for a human study. For mice, I bet it's fairly easy to source the right kind of animal for the test.

Right, that's the big issue. Could ignore the issue by saying it's to measure the effects in the average person. Otherwise would require a prep phase to deplete PUFA.