Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is... not what your link says at all. Rather the opposite: > Fatal atherosclerotic events were more common in the control group (70 v. 48; p greater incidence of fatal carcinomas in the experimental group [the vegetable oils group].
This makes perfect sense, given that fatty acids become more susceptible to oxidation (accelerated by heat, light and air exposure) the more unsaturated they are. One can very, very roughly think of the increase in susceptibility as increasing an order of magnitude moving from saturated->monounsaturated->polyunsaturated, though the exact amount will vary depending on the particular fatty acid. Rustic survival foods w…
Here's Layne Norton making this point yesterday in response to Huberman in a Twitter thread you should read: https://twitter.com/BioLayne/status/1704477570417254530. He lists some of these interesting RCTs as well, but here's the summary:
> If you only look at epidemiology & in vitro/mechanistic data you can hack together a horror story for almost any nutrient
> In RCTs where n-6 PUFAs (aka seed oils) are used in place of SFA there are neutral/positive effects on health
You can speculate all day about how bad certain mechanisms like oxidation or compounds like phytates might be for us. But why would that be convincing to you when these foods, whether it be seed oils or legumes (which have phytates for example), improve human health outcomes in the highest tier of evidence?
There's a reason why "seed oil disrespecters" on social media hang around the lowest tier of evidence like Ray Peat'ian narratives and mechanistic speculation rather than stick to RCTs and metaanalyses.