Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 261 posts

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#201

Post by array_key_first »

leereeves wrote: post #198
array_key_first wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colorings and fillers are not that bad for you. You, and other, are missing the forest for the trees here: diets high in fat, sugar, and calories lead to heart disease and metabolic syndrome. Replacing "seed oils" with hamburgers and french fries fried in tallow won't magically help your health. If anything, you would die quicker from the huge amount of saturated fat you're now intaking. Ultra processed foods are bad…

> Replacing "seed oils" with hamburgers and french fries fried in tallow won't magically help your health. If anything, you would die quicker from the huge amount of saturated fat you're now intaking. I'd like to see your evidence for the first claim. The second claim is not as well supported as you might think. A recent Cochrane review published by The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) rated "Reduction in…

No, we know that eating less saturated fat and replacing it with unsaturated fat, such as those found in seed oils, can reduce your risk of CVD as much as statins.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/10/21/advisory-replacing-...

We know, for sure, that eating less saturated fat reduces your markers that put you at risk of cardiovascular disease. Your study points that out. The problem with assessing cardiovascular mortality is that takes many many years to come home to roost. As your source points out, most studies were only 12-24 months.

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#202

Post by gruez »

leereeves wrote: post #194
gruez wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Among other mechanisms, refining removes nutrients and other beneficial molecules, while purifying taste and reducing volume making it easier to overeat. Should we cancel vaccines and water purification while we're at it? It's not hard to come up with vaguely plausible reasons for why those are bad as well, eg. "hygiene hypothesis", "gut microbiome", or whatever. >But the worst part isn't refining the oil itself, bu…

> It's ironic you cite ultra-processed foods, another category which has questionable rigor and applicability, but people nonetheless defend because "Even if ultra processed foods themselves aren't harmful, avoiding them is likely to be beneficial because it leads to avoiding unhealthy foods." The evidence that ultra processed foods are harmful is quite strong, much stronger than the association with saturated fat in…

The objection isn't over whether "ultra-processed foods" as a group tend to be unhealthy, it's that the classification is not rigorous, and conflates what's actually unhealthy or not with an heuristic that's at times inaccurate.

>Everyone knows that greens are good for your health and red meat is not. But everyone would laugh if I were to propose that red foods are dangerous and green ones healthy. I could prove my thesis making use of a few additional rules, such as postulating that some shades of red, tomatoes and apples for instance, should not be counted as red.

>The Nova classification system, which sorts foods into four categories depending on the degree of processing they undergo, uses similar logic. There is no scientific justification for the assumption that the number of processing steps is of any relevance for the health properties of foods. Making “ultra-processed” popcorn or chips is exceedingly simple. Making “minimally processed” natural yogurt requires some 20 processes.

>Heating is the process that affects foods the most, but heating is afforded no attention in Nova. It does not neatly fit into the processed or unprocessed scheme. In some cases it is essential for public health, in others it may induce carcinogens. And in a blatant example of the arbitrariness of the Nova classification, putting a loaf of bread into a bag moves it from the minimally processed to the ultra-processed category.

>The flawed, but intuitively easy to grasp, label of ultra-processed food is a handy justification for blaming food-related health problems on profit-hungry food companies. And it enables politicians to divert funding from serious research to meaningless eye-catching interventions.

>Petr Dejmek

>Emeritus professor of food engineering

>Lund University

>Lund, Sweden

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#203

Post by Tylast »

mjamesaustin wrote: post #93
pessimizer wrote: post #52

> A 2020 Cochrane meta-analysis of roughly 59,000 participants across 15 randomized controlled trials found that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat reduced combined cardiovascular events by 21%. Cardiologists note that the risk reduction from this dietary substitution is comparable to the benefits of statin medications. We don’t make a habit of telling statin patients to stop their medication because of…

If you're interested in just the pure statistics and outcomes of scientific trials, I highly recommend https://nutritionfacts.org/ . It's a non-profit charity featuring numerous ~5 min videos highlighting specific findings across scientific studies about nutrition, with sources read directly and linked.

+1 for this!

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#204

Post by marcuskane2 »

OneMorePerson wrote: post #200
perrygeo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, sorry its an important distinction. Especially raw whole fruits since they are packed with fiber and nutrients and hard to overeat.

See but here is where I get confused. The advice you are saying is to "completely eliminate added sugar" but then you say it's due to fiber, nutrients, and hard to overeat. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but people who go to the level of "eliminate sugar completely" are usually pretty knowledgeable, so I'm trying to get into the specifics. On a societal level the idea of reducing sugar is a positive one, but trying t…

> here is where I get confused

It doesn't seem like you're confused, it seems like you're using that as a rhetorical device to be pedantic.

> I'm not trying to be pedantic, but

Followed by 4 paragraphs of pedantry, after moving the goalposts from "added sugar" to all sugar.

Eat less junk food. Spend less time lawyering the definition of junk food.

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#205

Post by pibaker »

alkonaut wrote: post #23

Where is this panic? In the US? I don’t hear anything about it (in Europe).

Many restaurants around me have started advertising that they cook everything with beef tallow, as opposed to seed oil.

Ironically, most of them also happen to serve deep fried stuffs which are unhealthy no matter what oil you fry it with.

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#206

Post by port11 »

leereeves wrote: post #192
gruez wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>These random bloggers/influencers speaking from self-proclaimed high ground is in large part how we got in this mess. There are a gazillion people out there who know how to say the right things, to get the right minds, the click the right "follow" buttons, none of which has any bearing on truth, honesty, or accuracy. Did you get to the end? He addresses that. >I’ll just be honest. I think this view is completely ind…

> I don’t see any way to get to this conclusion other than heavily filtering the evidence—ignoring the flaws in everything that supports a predetermined view while scrambling to find flaws in everything that contradicts it. Is that not what he's doing when he dismisses the evidence that contradicts his view?

The article is fairly good. He specifically addresses research that doesn't support the conclusion. He’s not exactly a random blogger, this person is known for the quality of their research. At least in my circles…

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#207

Post by leereeves »

array_key_first wrote: post #201
leereeves wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Replacing "seed oils" with hamburgers and french fries fried in tallow won't magically help your health. If anything, you would die quicker from the huge amount of saturated fat you're now intaking. I'd like to see your evidence for the first claim. The second claim is not as well supported as you might think. A recent Cochrane review published by The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) rated "Reduction in…

No, we know that eating less saturated fat and replacing it with unsaturated fat, such as those found in seed oils, can reduce your risk of CVD as much as statins. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/10/21/advisory-replacing-... We know, for sure, that eating less saturated fat reduces your markers that put you at risk of cardiovascular disease. Your study points that out. The problem with assessing cardiovascular mor…

As evidence for mortality related to saturated fat, that AHA statement cites only three sources.

First, in the Oslo Diet-Heart Study, "there were fewer cardiovascular deaths in the experimental group by 27% (P=0.09)", a non-significant result.

Second, it cites the reduction in CHD deaths in Finland between 1972 and 1992, attributing 50% of the reduction to cholesterol levels. But similar reductions occurred in many nations at that time, largely due to reduced smoking, improved treatment, and other changes that should not be ignored. There is no clear link to saturated fat here.

Third, it cites the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study, an observational study that didn't isolate PUFA intake, and is likely to be confounded by diet quality.

I would describe that evidence as weak-to-moderate at best.

The evidence regarding LDL is stronger, but that's a concern that should be measured and treated individually. People do not respond identically to diet, not everyone has high LDL, and there are many ways to lower it if needed. Personally, I don't worry much about saturated fat because my LDL is under 70.

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#208

Post by akramachamarei »

anon84873628 wrote: post #144
EnigmaCurry wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may have been the dumbest line in the article, the oils in question, are made out of seeds.

Olives are a fruit and yet they are disfavored by the movement. Coconuts are a seed but they are considered acceptable. And within seeds, maíz, soy, and safflower are all very different botanically.

Coconuts are fruit, actually. Also while corn kernels and soy beans are technically seeds, they are, at least in my opinion, pretty far from the vernacular definition of seed. Part of this is that soy is a legume, corn a cereal, unlike safflower and rapeseed, which might matter nutritionally.

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#209

Post by CyberDildonics »

dukeyukey wrote: post #178
CyberDildonics wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't say "added sugar" they just said sugar. If you want to avoid sugar, you have to realize that fruit does contain sugar (fructose is the culprit here) and it isn't always healthy. If you think of the specialty oranges like cuties and halos, they are loaded with sugar, that's why they taste so good. Apples and bananas still won't help you lose weight. Tomatoes have much less sugar and could actually be helpf…

I'm not trying to lose weight, and I've never knowingly bought a specialty orange. Sugar is in basically every plant food, and saying "give up all sugar" means going carnivore plus eggs and a select few dairy products.

It's a matter of amount of course. A tomato has 1/4th the sugar of a normal orange.

The point here is saying "fruit is healthy" is just not true in any sort of black and white sense. Someone can easily get fat and be unhealthy by eating fruits with lots of sugar, and if they are juicing them, even more so.

Re: The seed oil panic is hurting my cardiac patients

#210

Post by muttonette »

perrygeo wrote: post #181
dukeyukey wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Added sugar? I really don't think giving up all fruits and vegetables is a good idea.

yes, sorry its an important distinction. Especially raw whole fruits since they are packed with fiber and nutrients and hard to overeat.

you can overeat fruit and vegetables and not all fruit is the same. Bananas vs kale is a good example. You should eat more kale, but you should avoid bananas unless they’re green (lots of resistant starch)
Post reply on HN