Are Seed Oils Toxic and Inflammatory?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- This no doubt will be my most hated video, but I’m here to show you the evidence, and let the evidence speak for itself.
For weekly health research summaries and extra sights, sign up here 👉 drstanfield.co...
💊 Supplements I Take: drstanfield.co...
💊 MicroVitamin (multivitamin & mineral that I take): drstanfield.co...
📜 Roadmap - how to look young & feel strong: drstanfield.co...
✔️ Twitter: / bradstanfieldmd
✔️ Patreon: / bradstanfieldmd
Here are the links to the research papers referenced in the video:
www.researchga...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
diabetesjourna...
www.ahajournal...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
www.cochrane.o...
www.mdpi.com/2...
www.sciencedir...
onlinelibrary....
www.mdpi.com/2...
Video edited by Troy Young
The links above are affiliate links, so I receive a small commission every time you use them to purchase a product. The content contained in this video, and its accompanying description, is not intended to replace viewers’ relationships with their own medical practitioner. Always speak with your doctor regarding the content of this channel, and especially before using any products, services, or devices discussed on this channel.
Data >>>> feelings
📜Roadmap - how to look young & feel strong: drstanfield.com/pages/roadmap
💊MicroVitamin (multivitamin & mineral that I take): drstanfield.com/products/microvitamin
For a channel that steers very closely to the scientific data, you have many many followers that do not, e.g. anti-vaxers, carnivore diet followers, lovers of saturated fat, etc. You must surely have offended every one of them by now.
Nice! I can keep using mayonnaise then.
Video compares PUFA with SFA... WFPB works best with none to negligible Fat or Oil due to Krebs cycle and definitely for Diabetics who can go either HCLF or LCHF/keto for glucose control with pluses/minuses of both approaches.
NO OIL wins hands over Any Oil for HC as lower the fat, more efficient Krebs cycle. Combo can result in reverse flow in ETC and can result in electron bombardment definitely for compromised or diabetics. With Low SOD, electrons and O2 is Superoxide followed by Peroxide, ROS, Oxidative Stress, and inflammation...
Besides double bonds are the weakest links with more electrons and H+ or pH lowering - another Homeostasis issue..
Bottomline stay away from Oils ... Makes no sense to compare bad vs bad....
Thanks Doc well explained!
Due to high histimines, oxalate/salicylate overload, I can only use Lard and butter and carnivore. I can't even use Olive, Coconut or Rose Hip for my face and neck wrinkles , because it may be low in one but high in the other and still cause problems.
But why take the chance when you can eat olive oil that’s been eaten for thousands of years?
Great point. Unfortunately many Olive oils are cut with seed oils though
The claims, (by Nina Teicholz for examle) that deep frying is ok with lard, tallow,... but bad with seed oils. Well, you will not deep fry with extra virgin olive oil.
@@amc1140 Easily avoided !
Good point!
@@mixalis6168 how? It’s very difficult to trust the sources
All this is well and good as long as you "trust the science". I have a hard time trusting anything anymore. What I do is learn as much as I can and then make an informed decision for myself. Essentially, the more processing involved in making something that's intended to be consumed the worse it is.
You forgot the comparison; the reason seed oils usually are shown to be healthy in studies is that they are compared against something. Meaning, they replace saturated fats with Omega6, and this is always beneficial. Seed oils in themselves are not really beneficial, like any 100% fat that lacks a lot of the original nutritients. But the issue is, that butter etc saturated fats are problematic for humans.
@@Nobody-Nowhere THere is nothing wrong with saturated fats. That's out of date. what is known is that we comsume too much omega 6.
So you are following the science.
Just across multiple studies and then throwing in a bit of personal bias/angle
I would like to see a study about if comments on seed oils are inflammatory.
🤣
They're definitely high in salt.
Wheather
@@Deby4x4-jp7il whether
@@Nashlash This is one study against more than 50 studies on Pubmed stating that seed oil are highly inflammatory. Look who sponsored this one study...seed oils businesses , need I say more..
Mike Israetel should not be on that graphic. He has said many times that seed oils are not inflammatory and also thinks people who peddle this idea are crazy.
Thank you, glad someone said it
Thats just a graphic With people who talked about seed oils, if you know Layne Norton (who also is in that graphic) you‘d know he has the same Opinion about seed oils Like Brad
yea, it was more to illustrate that seed oils are a popular topic to talk about online
Mikw Israetel and Layne Norton are among the most sane ones out there.
Good points, but I’m still going to avoid seed oil.
Seed oils that are most commonly found in grocery store shelves are highly refined and a GMO. Dr Stanfield, you have contradicted your own advice; not to consume ultraprocessed foods! Seed oils also contain high glyphosphate residues. The food industry has spruiked seed oils for a century now, just like high sugar ultra refined products, and both are responsible for the health decline of the global population.
Ignore this guy. Go to Paul Saladino's channel and you will see he has a video on every single randomized controlled trial on seed oils which was used in the meta-analyses this guy mentions in his video and he goes through every single trial one by one discussing its flaws in detail. In the end, almost all the randomized controlled trials are discarded because of their severe flaws and the only ones left show a clear result that seed oils worsen heart health.
@@vincentturnt6635 I can't believe I just read someone recommending Paul Saladino. He must be the single most debunked misinforming nutrition influencer online! I certainly don't take diet advice from a salesman
psychiatrist.
That guy is a pseudo intellectual. He has no credentials in the medical field & therefore, does mot have the credibility to accurately interpret the research/data.
If you eat pressed cold seed oil, you will be a healthy human been. TAKE NO REFINED. OILS . THATS ALL
You should have finished the video 11:05
The seed oil debate highlights an interesting contradiction in nutrition advice. While many influencers warn against seed oils, citing toxicity concerns, the bulk of scientific evidence suggests they're safe and potentially beneficial. Interestingly, those who support seed oils often caution against overconsumption of ultra-processed foods.
Here's the catch: seed oils themselves are highly processed products. Their production involves intensive industrial methods like pressing, refining, bleaching, and deodorizing. This raises a question: how do we reconcile the support for seed oils with the general advice to limit ultra-processed foods?
I go through this at the end of the video :-)
@@DrBradStanfield I feel like you missed the point with this statement. You advocate to use seed oils sparsely on salads or to cook with and the reason it gets a bad reputation is because it is often used and paired with ultra-processed (junk, your word) foods. Ian is saying that seed oils themselves are an ultra-processed food so the seed oil should be avoided in the same way 'junk' foods should be.
@@reyne-soundtherapy469According to Dr. Chris A Knobbe and Dr. Catherine Shanahan. Seed oils are processed amd are not fresh.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaosno, there are no healthy ultra processed foods
@@reyne-soundtherapy469 well, he didn't explain why they should be avoided though. Labeling them as ultra-processed is not enough, since what we care are the health outcomes and not some kind of labeling.
That month old frying oil in McDs isn't helping my health? Lies, allllll lies.
McDs actually changes the oil very regularly. You would need to find a trashier fast food place.
Regularly? Once a year could be regularly. How often
@@loriann7989 At least every week
@@loriann7989 I still don’t eat there. But McDonalds is a big corporation. They change their oil. It’s not fucking Burger King
@@mptavaryou should only cook with it once bud.
The videos where Brad starts by saying "This will be my most hated/controversial video" are always the best ones! It's very reassuring that there are doctors who are capable of being successful on youtube while sticking to evidence based medicine like Brad and Gil Carvalho.
Gil is wonderful
After so many nutritional videos that I seen, I can only trust Brad and Gil Carvalho. All based in evidence and less bias
Same, Physionic too. Thanks so much.
It's sad that too many people only believe what they want to believe and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. Unfortunately, these people used their failed epistemology across all aspects of their life, not just nutrition. We need more people like Brad and Gil, especially teaching our children.
@@OzzPhysicist Don't forget the GOAT Layne Norton!
In other breaking news, although not fully acquitted of all previous convictions, Seed oils were still victorious in overturning a former ruling in court today and has been released on parole.
Please debate this with Dr Paul Saladino🙏
"Dr" Saladino is a chiropractor, ie someone who believes most illness comes from the spine. I don't see any value in debating such an individual.
Oops...sorry, wrong Saladino. He's actually a psychiatrist.my bad.
@@xtmillsx yeah and he’s very against seed oils. Has lots of videos on it
@@amc1140 Stay away from Saladino. He's an influencer with an agenda. and routinely debunked.
@@IanRushtonMusiche started off good and was data centric. Now he seems more unhinged and an influencer like you said
The problem you need to make clear is the the standard American diet has a disproportionately high in omega-6 fatty acids compared to omega-3s, with a ratio as high as 20:1 (omega-6
Bingo ! Excellent pt. See my inidividual comment above. I indirectly allude to this...when I address that the Body also CANNOT quickly reduce heavy Omega 6 build-up...
He addressed this. His take is that it's not the ratio that is significant, and that the important thing is getting enough omega-3 fatty acids in your diet.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Yes, there is evidence to suggest high omega 6 ratios are unhealthy. Conveniently left out of the video. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29610056/
@@madmaxmedia From CNN 14 may 2024 An imbalance of two healthy fats affects your early death risk, study finds.
We found that a higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is associated with a greater risk of dying,” said Yuchen Zhang, lead author of the April study published in the journal eLife, in a news release. Zhang is a doctoral student in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia’s College of Public Health.
Lots of troubling issues that are potentially dangerous....or not fully covered here: 1) It was mentioned that seed oils ARE further converted to Trans Fatty Acids above ~200 degrees C... NEWSFLASH: Most restaurants you attend cook intentionally at HIGH heat ! 2) Omega 6 levels can escalate or build up in the body over time--humans do not get rid of them quickly. 3) What about Cancer ?? Places like Chipotle (supposedly healthy--not to pick on Chipotle's) FLOOD their foods w/ seed oils. You can't convince me this heavy, unnatural process use is healthy.
While it's true that cooking oils at very high temperatures can lead to the formation of harmful compounds, including some trans fats, the statement oversimplifies a complex issue. The formation of trans fats depends on various factors, and not all seed oils or high-heat cooking necessarily result in significant trans fat production. And true, Omega-6 fatty acids can indeed accumulate in the body's tissues, particularly in fat stores and cell membranes. However, this accumulation is not unique to omega-6; the body also stores omega-3 fatty acids and other types of fats. It's true that Chipotle, like many restaurant chains, uses seed oils in their cooking. However, the term "FLOOD their foods" is an exaggeration. While oils are used in cooking, they're not typically used in excessive amounts that could be described as "flooding." Characterizing seed oils as cancer-causing or extremely unhealthy is not supported by current scientific consensus.
The omega6 theory is old, it was though that more LA meant more AA. But this did not happen, your body's LA to AA conversion is highly regulated.
Even high amounts of LA omega6 were anti-inflammatory, and the higher LA blood levers correlated with lower CRC levels.
You can refer to this paper : "Omega-6 fatty acids do not promote low-grade inflammation" November 13, 2017
Home cooking a steak in the pan with seed oils easily reaches temperatures of over 200 degrees Celsius , so not sure why you say that home cooking with seed oils isn’t a problem while at the same time saying that cooking with seed oils over 200 degrees is a problem.
Because the first heating over 200C only causes a minor undetectable change, it is the repeated heating that does. Watch the video again!
Even a few months in an open bottle causes a large buildup of toxic aldehydes and epoxi fatty acids.
It reminds me of the absolute decades of studies proving that smoking is OK, if not good and healthy. Only when some people were for to look ar crying specific metrics, did some things become apparent. Same with seed oils. There are numerous parameters that COULD be checked, but no-one wants to look at them for obvious reasons.
Yeah none of that happened though. Smoking is bad, unlike seedoils.
No one ever thought smoking was good for you and seed oils were in heavy use when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s yet there wasn't a fatty to be found. People that think seed oils are a major problem are a major problem.
Same thing with refined sugar, for decades they used the "it's just the calories" argument.
@Masterr59 it still is. You can lose weight just fine if you are in a calorie deficit while eating refined sugar. The best way to attain calorie deficit is to eat a nice balance of carbs, proteins and healthy fats, minimizing saturated fats.
@@robertusga Refined sugar in place of those calories from nutrient rich whole foods has a larger negative impact beyond just the calories. This is why telling people to just count calories is still a very ignorant concept.
I'm sure the controversy is not over but you have highlighted the disparity between ohmega-6/3 theory and experimental results and have brought into the discussion the context in which consumption of seeds oils occurs.
Odd Days : Seed oils are Bad
Even Days: Seed Oils are good
No, just follow science-based influencers, take a science class.
@@samsam060402 LoL
For now you can’t even imagine how RIGHT you are being on this path. I have open ateroma from birth. And it fills up when I use seed oils and vegetables oils in food preparation. For many years I couldn’t understand how it worked, until I did the experiment that consisted in using only animal fat for cooking and eat. The surprise was that when I did blood analysis my HDL ( “good cholesterol “) had risen from 50 to 80. My doctor was very surprised. And the most important!!! My ateroma was empty during the experiment!!!! Ateroma is filling with the same substance as in the arteries that taps them. I invite you to experiment with everything by yourself!!! There’s a huge lie about fats out there!!!
Is this good, bad, I don't understand what you are saying? What is an open ateroma? Is the ateroma being empty good or bad? Please explain what everything you said means to someone who doesn't have a clue about anything you said. It's literally like hearing a foreign language but using english words.
@@richfuller it's definitely bad. But knowing that the entire response is a non sequitur
What about the fact that seed oils like canola have been linked to an increased risk of dementia?
You aren't paid for spreading this kind of information. 😂
Now i have a cognitive dissonance, ¿what's the problem with junk food then? ¿The freaking microplastics?
As explained - commercial junk food is cooked in oil that has been heated over and over and over again which degrades it, makes it oxidized plus trans fats are produced - those are harmful. At home, when you heat the oil just once and throw it away, there is no issue, you just simply abuse red meat, fats and carnohydrates without the additional toxic package😉
@@Redranddd Old oil reheated over and over again, for one thing.
Sugar, refined grain, artificial colors, etc.
@@ChadRDlol , everything but the rancid oil huh?
@@davidabanto8121 I avoid it as much as I can as well, but fact exits that there isn't much damning evidence that these oils are causing great harm. At least not yet.
THANK YOU!!! In addition to what you said, none of them talk about the unfiltered naturally expelled seed oils. They exist. Are those bad too? But aside from that, we've been eating seed oils for decades in this country, and never before have people been overweight as in recent decades. The other thing is everyone assumes that Italians who live longer, don't use seed oils. This is simply untrue! No one was frying in olive oil..not only would it be too expensive, but it also can't stand the heat. Not everyone used lard like everyone believes. I was just in Italy and my family still has seed oil in their cupboards.
Here is what has changed in the last few decades. People are sitting more. We have more and more women working now than ever before. Those ladies who used to be home running after kids, gardening, cleaning house, etc., are now plopped in front of a computer. We have a messed up sense of what exercise is. One hour in the gym isn't doing anything for anyone if they sit on the couch, or in front of a desk, the rest of the time. Now there are fewer people making home cooked meals, and there are more and more snacks in people's pantrys. For Europeans, food comes before their homes and their cars, and most people cook their own meals from scratch...even if they do use seed oils some times.
Europeans still believe in fresh air and long after dinner walks.
Another thing that Europeans don't do the way Americans do is consume alcohol. Kids are starting younger and younger. It starts before college and they drink to oblivion, not just one or two. By the time they are adults, they still need their drinks. Alcohols is worse than seed oils.
And as for diseases, doctors need to START paying attention to their patients medications. Could they be reacting to one of them? They all know that they come with side effects, but rarely do they change out their meds. People need to start talking about that.
The bottom line is, we were not meant to sit all day. We were meant to work outdoors in the sun and fresh air. It's not one answer, it's a lifestyle.
That's not what my evidence shows.
Wow, this video addresses SO many of the questions that have occurred to me recently. Brilliant! It's like you're reading my mind, Dr. Stanfield.
Still, it's sad that while substituting canola oil for butter (as I've done for 3 years) seems to lower heart attacks and strokes, it evidently does NOT lower all-cause mortality, which is the only thing I care about.
But...a timely and GREAT video!
Very insightful video as always Dr. Stanfeild. From where I'm sitting it's quite clear that you're not invested in convincing people of anything apart from the actual scientific findings. Much appreciated
Science TM, State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology and Crisco approve of this message
I'm glad more and more actually educated people are talking about seed oils. the conversation on seed oils on the internet was and still is highly dominated by "health influencers"
Recently found out about a youtuber called "No Lab Coat Required" who spreads misinformation about seed oils, you can't make this shit up :
More educated? He's cherry picking and misleading
@@Kahva123so what's he wrong about?
@@Ardentic-better-eat-meat So who's a reliable source of information then?
@@Ardentic-better-eat-meat Says they're harmful for health even though every legitimate study shows that they're either harmless or better than many animal based alternatives for instance.
Here's my take away: I think fast food places should switch back to saturated fats since yeah like you said reheating seed oils makes them harmful, so they may as well use saturated fats like lard or whatever tastes good. Now for processed foods that you find on shelfs and home cooking seed oils are still the healthiest option so we should stick to it.
There is an issue in this discussion that I observe often in science: you have one group of people - including many doctors and surgeons highly focused on real life experience and can explain cellular processed in the body very detailed saying one thing based on experience. Another group focused on theoretical studies and is highly skilled in reading those say the first group is wrong based on data. Now we have two expert groups claiming science with contradicting results. You need to sit together and have a discussion and then do proper research where the disconnect between observational studies and individual experience comes from. It happened often that studies all showed the same picture until somebody realised "wait a minute we do not measure right" and wham, suddenly everything was different and real life and theoretical data could be aligned. Reading lots of studies and then saying "this is the evidence" is not how science works. One issue I experienced myself: without real life expertise it's extremely difficult to understand the limitations of studies and you are tempted to give them way too much weight, have a hard time to distinguish if it's single point of data or applies to a wide range. At this point I don't trust any source, I am open for both sides to be right but please do the science and don't fight for who is right. it'd be also worth taking to people who actually manufacture oils some of them can tell you a book about how the process - starting long before the pressing - influences the quality of the oil, that also has to taken into account. In another video an immunologist raised concern that for studies fresh bottles are used while in households oils are opened and used over months. Yeah, nice you heat up that oil for 10 hours, now open the bottle, take out a sip every day and do the experiment again when the bottle is almost used up. Still the same results? See how important the setup of a study is? How important it is to have the connection to real life?
Science evolves, and sometimes findings from observational studies don’t perfectly align with clinical outcomes. That's where large-scale, well-controlled studies come into play-to systematically address potential biases or oversights in smaller, real-world observations. It’s also important to recognise that anecdotal experience, while valuable, is inherently limited and prone to bias. This is why rigorous studies are so essential-they allow us to test hypotheses under controlled conditions and isolate specific factors to see if the results hold up across different scenarios. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep questioning or re-evaluating our methods, but it also means we can’t dismiss well-conducted studies simply because they don't align with individual experiences. It’s not a battle of who's right or wrong, but rather a continual process of refining our understanding.
@@IanRushtonMusic I don't know if you got the point I was trying to make: the size of the study only eliminates a numerical bias, but not the bias of a wrong approach itself. Especially in medicine the way studies are normed can lead by principle to unusable data. Often we need to look much more on the setup of the study than the outcome. And that is my point: only if you are able recognising the limitations from the setup of the study you are able to interpret it. Anybody who goes trough studies without explaining their limitations and how those limitations can influence the data to the audience doesn't teach knowledge. To explain limitations you have to be able to understand them. But if you are more into theory it is extremely hard to understand limitations, for that you need to have an experience guy who might not be able to work with the big data. But he can help the big data guys to get the data right. And this is not happening, instead the big data guys and experience guys try to prove each other wrong. So in the end we know nothing but have to chose who to believe because the data is contradicting itself. That is not science, that is religion!
@@Mathias-ji2qc Just to clarify-when you talk about studies, are you focusing mostly on observational or epidemiological studies? Because it's worth noting that there are also countless randomized controlled human trials (RCTs) - that's what I am drawing from, (in particular several meta-analysis covering over 60 such RCTs). They provide higher-quality evidence by controlling for variables and randomizing participants, which reduces biases inherent in observational research. RCTs are designed specifically to eliminate many of the limitations you’ve mentioned, offering stronger data on cause and effect. While observational studies are useful for generating hypotheses, they can’t establish causality as well as RCTs can. The good news is that when it comes to things like diet and health, there’s a significant body of RCT data to help clarify the picture, and they don’t suffer from the same design limitations you see in observational studies. In other words, it’s not just a matter of belief or anecdote-there is rigorous, controlled research out there that supports many of these conclusions.
@@IanRushtonMusic I think we still talk about different things. If I don't express myself clear please let me know it's not easy for me to go this complex in text in english. RCTs don't necessarily show you if there was an error in the setup of the study - maybe the same error was done in all of them because that's what the standard approach is. It works better for medication where you want to have one outcome and if that is achieved the medicine works. But you can't go with that approach into nutrition. A common error is: stressor - normed time frame - measurement. There are not many studies in which a complete observation of almost the complete vital picture of a human was done over a period of several months while also the complete life of these people was recorded. I don't know if there is a single one where n is of statistical relevance. Bias is only one factor, but even without bias the human is so complex that many studies fail to have a satisfactory answer because they were too simplified. You might not notice change in the observed area - what the aim of the research was - but have reactions in others that are missed, and these maybe months later lead to changes in the observed area - long after the study was closed. And that is where doctors who treat one patient over years have more knowledge where and what to look for, but they only have like 20-100 patients that are of interest for that, which is too little for statistical significance. On the other hand you have specific studies with huge numbers that lack the detail the doctor goes into with 1 patient. These 2 you have to combine. For this example with seed oils: do the study with a lot of different types, different production method, different shelf life. Then also different usage time in which the bottle is opened. And then observe the people over at least 12 months. Record all their diet and stress levels so because psychological stress that leads to inflammation could manipulate the picture. But also have a full vital check before to see what people started off from, how was the mineral household of the body? Blood tests don't cut it, they don't work for minerals like copper, zinc or B12, also Vitamin D you can have in active or inactive form all these are important when it comes to metabolism because it all influences nutrients work on the body. If you use a meta analysis over 60 RCTs you need to read the setup of all those 60 studies, get the limitations - know enough of metabolism to even see where a lack of measurements leads to a blind spot in the data. Like if there is not enough zinc the body can't convert Vitamin D from inactive to active - so any vitamin D study that doesn't include zinc levels might be limited already. Then first see if these blind spots overlap, because if they do and you combine those 60 you still have no solid data.
@@Mathias-ji2qc You make some valid points, the complexity of nutrition is undeniable and it's true that no study is perfect, and RCTs-like any research-can have limitations. However, to my mind it seems very unlikely that all 60-odd peer-reviewed RCTs in these meta-analysis would share the same fundamental shortcomings, especially since they are often conducted by different teams in different settings with different protocols. And of course, it's probably much more that 60 RCT's - that's just the ones courtesy of three meta studies that I quickly identified. The diversity in study design helps to balance out individual weaknesses. Meta-analyses also take these limitations into account by assessing the quality of each study and adjusting for any potential biases. Flawed, or at least studies with obvious limitations are often given less weight or even excluded from the analysis. While individual RCTs might not be perfect, when you pool data from many high-quality studies, you typically get a more reliable overall picture. Of course, RCTs aren't immune to limitations, particularly when it comes to the complexity of human nutrition. But I think it’s important to differentiate between some degree of limitation and a fundamental shortcoming across an entire and significantly sized body of research. Broad issues like those you raise would likely have been identified and addressed by researchers over time.
This is a video about replacing saturated fats (and heat-stressed seed oils) with normal seed oils. YES, absolutely, replacing saturated fats (and processed foods with seed oils) results in better health outcomes, as has been well and long established. I was hoping for a video about the consumption of lots of seed oils vs replacing with olive oil or other fats like nuts, seeds, and avocados. I would also point out that seed oils make it incredibly easy to over-consume calories. 2-3 tablespoons doesn’t look like much, but you’ve just added 200-300 calories to that salad you’re eating or pan you’re cooking in. And those calories are effectively devoid of nutrition.
So are seed oils heathy? Well, relative to what?
You’re right to ask, 'relative to what?' Seed oils can be a healthier alternative to things like trans fats or highly saturated fats, which have been linked to heart disease. However, if we’re comparing them to whole food sources of fat like avocados, nuts, or olive oil, those options might offer more overall nutrition and beneficial compounds. It’s about balance and context-moderate use of seed oils, especially those rich in polyunsaturated fats, can fit into a healthy diet, but they shouldn’t be the only source of fats.
What about the high temperatures that are used to extract the oil in the first place? Doesn't that break down the fats and produce trans fats?
Good video, thank you for going into the evidence
Another terrific video lending more clarity.
I minored in chemistry and this video is right on the point. Perfect explained.
Good video. It makes sense that the reason seed oils are associated with inflammation is that they are used in ultra processed foods.
Great video! Someone needed to say it, and I commend your bravery in taking on this huge source of nutritional misinformation!
Thanks for that video though it would have also been interesting to mention that arachidonic acid is also the precursor of anti-inflammatory molecules as it's explained in the fifth study that you shared and is from the AHA unless you think that this part is unreliable.
It is really hard to keep track of this. for myself I am going to stick with natural fats - olive oil, ghee, tallow, etc. There is just too much info to keep track of. I understand that these artificial fats have gotten better. But (1) I prefer natural to processed; and (2) seed oils just taste like crap.
Ghee, butter and such are processed items. Why is a seed oil not "natural" but "artificial".. if it originally comes from a natural plant source/seed? How is butter "natural" if it's obtained through processing only, but a seed oil is artificial, though it comes from a natural plant source?
@@GeoffiNaw Have you looked up to process to create it? Solvent dilution, deodorization, etc. Nothing about these oils resemble its original form, hence why its used as a preservative. Natural foods encourage bacteria degradation
@@GeoffiNaw Semantics. Some people will do anything to 'win' an argument.
"There is just too much info to keep track of" - This is how you get got. You get spun in circles so much that you end up deciding to just continue with the habits that sound the most enticing to you. Nevermind that health organizations like American Heart Association or Harvard Health are advocating for using seed oils to replace and lower saturated fat intake. That advice somehow has been downgraded to the same weight in the discource as what some grifter chiropractor or whatever has to say about it.
Thank you I’m glad you have taken the risk
Good to hear that seed oil themself are not the big killers. I avoid them as much as possible due to their extreme calorie density, compared to almost every other type of nutrient. Combined with salt in food me overeating resulting in weight gain. These studies compare relative risk why not compare -- Added oil to food: Saturated Fat vs. Seed Oil vs. No oil at all?
I use high oleic sunflower oil as a healthy substitute for olive oil. You can buy it cold pressed or regular
The problem is that with processed foods where you find seed oils, you're also going to find sugar. So it's entirely possible it's the sugar causing all the trouble. However, in the real world, cutting out seed oils will also lead to a person cutting out sugar since they are found together and thus the strategy can work to improve health.
we can speculate about that. But there's also the issue that a lot of processed junk has palm oil in it. We can also cut out sugar or added salt and have the same effect, meaning cutting processed foods.
I never thought i would get so much out a statistics course, but between that and watching several of these videos i know this. Organizing a proper RCT is critical, and so is analyzing and seeing if the proper symmetry exist before the randomization. Im not a huge paul saladino fan but he goes through several trials in one of his vids. He points out things like one group having a significantly hire amount of heavy smokers vs the others as well as one side being counceled to avoid trans fat for the experiment. Both of these things are significant factors to health.
So what all this seems to do in layman's terms is to validate the older theories from the 1950s on using standard cooking oils and margarine more often, and butter or lard less often or just more narrowly. So maybe "Wessonality" and Mrs. Mike Brady were on the right mark then? I think what has to be rehashed is that probably few of us are going to just stick to one kind of oil or fat to cook with. It's going to be a variety based on what's convenient and what fits the food and the cooking better. There's also always going to be meat fat, especially from ground beef or chicken filling in the gaps. Also it seems like a couple of the learned guys I weight more (such as yourself) speak of inflammation as a key indicator provoking other bad things in the long run, and that common cooking oils specifically don't cause it. I have heard that several times. What is interesting is that at the same time as I hear and place value in what you say, Dr. Brad, I also hear from others that saturated fat isn't really a problem and that that connects to previous times in the 20th Century when people tended to be leaner and healthier and also ate more butter more meat and used less for whatever cooking oils happened to be around then in say 1950. I think one has to have his own personal compass and common sense for nutrition where that's the main course with slight guidance at times from things like this, without letting it be too extreme for an influence. That is of course if your sense is good for such things and you maintain above average health from good eating habits and physical routines.
I don't need any studies, I feel the inflmation pain in my body after eating them.
Thanks for clarifying...a lot of people can't seem to understand it's the HEATING of seed oils that creates health hazards.
What about the high temperatures used in the extraction and manufacturing processes? If these are higher than the recommended 200 degrees?? Still confused. 🤨
Nina Teichholz wrote a book about this topic. And no seed oils are not healthy!
Are olive oil and avacado oil ok to use if heated on high temperatures? I use olive oil for deep frying too
I read a paper that tested common oils for trans fats. Some were as high as 3%. This is from the harsh processing and chemical extraction with hexane. Cold pressed oils avoid this.
A good video. Folks often mistake correlation with causation and that is the situation with seed oils topic.
Disagree - this is pure propaganda kinda like Fox news. Brad did you ever hear of follow the money - duh
@@wmp3346
Gee. At least you aren't biased so much so you can't even keep politics out of a non-political comment thread.
Propaganda has worked on you since you only named one news outlet that is primarily targeting republicans.
Dare I guess you believe what CNN. MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Wa Po, etc. tells you?
@@wmp3346 "Propaganda" backed by peer reviewed studies is not propaganda. But go your conspiracy loving way, I'm sure you won't change your mind even if you actually looked at the studies.
Love all the comments from people that just throw their opinions about without even listening to word Dr. Brad just said. 👂
Brad would you like to comment on the minnesota coronary study BMJ 2016 and the Sydney Diet Heart Study BMJ 2013 - both seem to oppose your points made in your latest video ?
One of the major problems with the Minnesota study was that they replacement fat used was high in trans-fats. If you want to see one video going into the study ua-cam.com/video/hmU_CafaPGQ/v-deo.html
One of these studies they gave safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine... they gave the patients trans fats to substitute de saturated fats... i dont think i need to read the other one the check why they reach certain conclusion
@@neilsilverwood558 both were considered failed studies. Because of trans fats, high drop-out rate.
Subject nicely covered in the latest podcast from Prof Sarah Berry - Zoe Science & Nutrition
Excellent work and great news
Are we better off with refined or unrefined canola oil?
I have an autoimmune condition and if seed oils were as inflammatory as some studies or healthgurus claim, I would probably have severe flare-ups from consuming them. But I dont.
My skin shows me in a few days when inflammation is high in my body, for me that is enough to not worry too much about seed oils. Buying high quality seed oils is the real problem though, especially when it comes to olive oil there is a LOT of bs sold...REAL virgin olive oil is expensive though.
There is a marketing of the video. "You will Hate this Video" is a thing that several of these "experts" do for clicks.
I heard that its more about how these seed oils are processed, and the chemicals used rather then the seed oil itself, any chance an expert like yourself could look into the chemicals used in the process of making seed oils? Maybe a follow up video?
The historical and primary use and crop for seed oils was linseed oil for paints. Seed oil paints don't dry, they oxidize into a polymer that we call dried paint. Open a bottle of any seed oil, and you might find it has already "gunked" under the threads. If not, pour some out, recap and come back in a few weeks. Dried paint. It's why when I was a kid we were all taught to not pile up old paint rags. They would ignite all by themselves. In fact, I was a passenger on a ship, the Yarmouth Castle in August of 1964. Two months later it burned at sea with with great loss of life. The culprit? Old rags in the paint locker.
Short term studies don't accomplish shit.
If you think that this process is good in your body, well, good luck.
We did not evolve eating high linoleic acid. The countries with the highest consumptions of seed oils, Israel and India have the the greatest all causes mortality.
i
Thanks for the informative video. I was vaguely aware of seed oils having a bad reputation, but didn't really know what the deal was.
Two problems with your study it was sponsored by seed oils manufacturers and big pharma and its one study against hundreds of studies against seed oils.
The problem with your comment is that you made it all up.
The griftivore flat earthers are angrily eating 2 sticks of butter in protest
He don’t lump flat earthers in with seed oil people
Thx. Great information as always.
But Dr Stanfield, can we please get at least one video for vegans regarding overall supplementation?
@@xanxus8272 B12 and D3 especially in the winter. The rest is optional.
This video should have mentioned coconut oil and palm oil having high saturated fats.
Dr Brad is my one of my favourites statin salesmen
Who financed the meta-analysis and the underlying studies?
Exactly! I looked up donors for “Diabetes Care” website and it said “Abbott (supporter of American Diabetes Association), Lilly, Merck, etc.
This video sounds like disinformation put out by a doctor (doctors) that kisses the ass of Big Pharma.
The FDA sets ‘em up, Big Pharma knock ‘em down!!
Even though you eat Omega 3 sufficiently, if you eat more omega 6 than 3, Omega 6 dominate in your body.
Because omega 3 and omega 6 are competitive each other for a capacity.
3 and 6 refer to where the double bond is counting from the non carboxyl end of the fatty acid. Linoleic means it has ONE double bonded carbon pair. LinoleNic means it has TWO double bonded carbon pairs.
You did get the part RIGHT when you said the double bonds are more reactive and prone to form dastardly free radicals and aldehydes. And the reason why saturated fatty acids like coconut butter will not go rancid for years and years !
And you are right about unsaturated oils heated below 200 C will not cause those double bonds to react.
You have looked into this in a completely wrong way.
The reason seed oils are bad for you is not because they are unsaturated omega 6 fats.
It is because they are heavily processed oils that are dangerously oxidized.
They do become very toxic and lose all the nutrients they otherwise would have if they were say, cold-pressed.
This has nothing to do with the fats themselves.
If you can find a seed oil that is cold pressed and minimally processed, that would probably be not as bad just like you outlined in this video.
However almost all seed oils that are used in foods today are extremely processed, oxidized fats that are terrible for you.
Thank you for your information 👏😊
Recently, the UA-cam channel Nutrition Made Simple had a video about a randomized control trial comparing ghee and canola oil. And canola oil proved a better choice.
Lol based on studies paid for by the industry.
@@Morgainz88 at this point why u even look at studies? you only gonna see what u wanna see it.
Anybody thinks that's true needs to go get checked out, no way is a highly processed oil as healthy as a natural fat that our body's need.
@tiagomoraes1510 because you can see who funded them bud and why the out come is what it is
@@simpleboy3457 the articles he showed had no conflict of interest...
I dont like to eat seed oils as i dont like butter or any oils
Ok, what makes food junk food then?
Here is a what about Q: What about those studies on soybean oil consumption showing hypothalamic shrinkage?
I'll stick to real butter and olive oil (in moderation); they've covered human needs for over 4,000 years. Praise to the "French paradox". Maybe that would an interesting topic to cover in a video?
Look into Japan and Israel
I stopped eating most of UPF half a year ago. I lost 11kg of weight. You are probably right that seed oils a such are. not the problem but I don't understand why you should promote "modern" margarine above butter as it is one of the most processed foods you can find and are still made of heated and hydrogenated refined seed oils. Like you said when your grandparents didn't have it don't eat it. People are eating butter for 5000years and driking wine since the Roman Empire. So I guess it won't kill me as long as you eat it and drink it in moderation
Good for you doc, real gutsy topic to cover. Incorporation of the meta-analysis is pivotal.
not really, as my statistician wife says, meta analysis often obscures the real picture by incorporating shoddy data and averaging it out with good data
Yes, most seed oils and omega-6 PUFAs are not inherently problematic, and they can certainly be part of a balanced diet.
Regarding the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, I have a few points that need addressing/refinement:
1. You mention that a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio is thought to cause chronic inflammation when discussing single cells, but this cannot be extrapolated. Could you clarify what you mean here? It’s important not to make this statement too easily without context. There is plenty in vivo evidence showing inflammation associated with high omega-6 to omega-3 ratios.
2. You mention that "The idea of modern diet full of seed oils and processed food has way more omega-6 to omega-3, which throws of the balance between these fats leads to inflammation". However, in the randomized control trials you mention, the comparison is between SFA and omega-6 PUFA intake. This has little relevance to the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio discussion. Of course, PUFAs are healthier than high levels of SFAs, but this doesn’t address the specific concern about the imbalance between omega-6 and omega-3. Comparing omega-6 to SFAs doesn’t provide insight into how the ratio affects inflammation; it’s more like comparing apples to pears. I believe the focus should be on how omega-6 excess, without sufficient omega-3, affects inflammatory pathways.
3. While you emphasize seed oils, they are not as problematic compared to the high intake of SFA from sources like meat, palm oil, or coconut oil, which are in fact what the trials you refer to compare. Excessive consumption of these SFAs also contributes to inflammation and other metabolic issues. What we need is less SFA and a better balance of omega-6 to omega-3. The emphasis should be on reducing SFA intake in parallel with balancing PUFAs.
4. It’s important to note that only a small fraction (1-5%) of omega-6 linoleic acid (LA, 18:2) is converted to arachidonic acid (AA, 20:4), which is the precursor for eicosanoids. Additionally, only 1-2% of AA is converted into eicosanoids. Most omega-6 PUFAs are stored in cell membranes as phospholipids, where they play structural roles rather than being used for eicosanoid synthesis. Cells can also redirect excess PUFAs into TAGs in lipid droplets, and this process differs between LA and AA. Therefore, it’s critical to differentiate between LA and AA in the discussion of inflammation, as their roles and effects in the body are distinct.
5. A similar point can be made for omega-3 PUFAs, as their conversion to EPA, DHA an eicosanoids is also limited
6. The omega-6 to omega-3 ratio IS important because the enzymes involved in fatty acid metabolism (elongases, desaturases, and oxygenases) are shared between the two pathways. High omega-6 intake doesn’t just mean more LA and AA, but it also slows the conversion of ALA into EPA and DHA, shifting the balance toward pro-inflammatory states. So it is a double effect. In the context of a modern diet high in omega-6, reducing omega-6 intake while increasing omega-3 intake is essential for restoring the balance and supporting anti-inflammatory processes. This does not mean that omega-6 should be substituted with SFA.
7. Pre-industrial humans typically consumed more balanced ratios of omega-6 to omega-3, often around 1:1 to 4:1. They ate grass-fed animals and wild game rich in omega-3s. Today, most conventionally raised livestock are fed grain and soy, which are high in omega-6 fatty acids. Pre-industrial diets also had a more balanced ratio because we consumed more leafy greens and wild-caught fish. So yes eating a lot of seed oils and processed food is bad, compared too eating more leafy greens, grass fed animals and fish. This is a VERY important point to make, when discussing this topic, so I am glad you mention this in the end, but I would have preffered you stretched this earlier.
To sum up: Yes, the shift in our diet toward higher omega-6 is harmful, but it’s largely due to displacement of omega-3s in Western diet, not necessarily because omega-6 is used in moderation (like adding it to yogurt or salad). A high SFA to PUFA ratio is even worse, so it’s better to include omega-6 PUFAs rather than not enough PUFAs overall. Thus, our omega-6 to omega-3 FA ratio is off, but not due to eating seed oil, but due to eating to little omega-3 containing fats.
Cheers, from a researcher in PUFAs
In your opinion, why is baby formula (High in PUFA's) so damaging to children as opposed to breast feeding?
Some people can be genetically predisposed to higher omega-6:omega-3 ratios.
Seriously! comparing one randomised trials with other randomised trials..what the heck we suppose to believe and who guarantees one is correct and the other is wrong, specially when we know these trials can be manipulated as to who is carrying them out 🤔 And how do you explain deteriorating health conditions compared to 100 yrs ago?????
I give up. So much contradiction out there. My brain won't take anymore.
In your intro, you say the internet is awash with videos and articles, warning about the dangers of seed oils. You use thumbnails of various influencers as illustration. I don't know about the others, but I can tell you that Dr Mike Israetel, top left corner, does not think seed oils are bad, and thinks the science that says that they are are BS. You should remove his image; he's not part of the seed oil hate in your intro, he agrees with you.
I think he just used thumbnails of popular videos discussing seed oils.
If the people publishing the research had any conflict of interest, they surely wouldn't disclose it...
My guess is that a scientist would not want to damage their career in such a careless manner, and would therefore generally declare any conflicts. On the other hand, the people that pay for the studies may choose not to publish if they didn't like the results.
@@arthureaton8 I'm afraid that's wishful thinking.
Seed oils are inflammatory. I have Lyme Disease and have inflamed joints. My inflammation has gone way down since I stopped ingesting processed seed oils. I switch to cooking with butter and olive oil. Those highly processed oils taste rancid anyway.
OK happy news for me I started cooking food for myself because my family wont be cooking food without seed oil. Now I 'll be cooking oilless food only when I see same seed oil being used twice.
An informative video! Given we are not what we eat, but what our food eats. Would the comparison against butter be true if the studies were looking at butter from grass fed cows which has higher levels of butyrate? Assuming research still supports that butter from grass-fed cows is metabolized differently than butter from grain-fed cows due to higher levels of butyrate.
Interesting perspective. I wish a lot of studies were carried out on people who follow particular diets, there's enough people (medical professionals, amoungst them). Random studies have little value, I feel and Meta analysis (Hmm)...not sure. It's a bit like anti-meat people saying meat is not good for you etc why not carry out extensive testing on people who ONLY follow particular diets.
If I follow the advice of every influencer "dietician" I would day from starvation. The vegans think meat is killing you but the carnivore guys are walking around. The carnivore thinks vegetables are poisonous, but the vegans are walking around. It's more of a religion nowadays.
The biggest real-life well documented study about this issue has been conducted in Finland 1990-2010 when Finland (the whole country!) in twenty years obliterated their heart-attack deaths by 92% (!) after significantly lowering their consumption of saturated fats (and switching to oils) and increasing fruit consumption,specially blueberries which are abundand in Finland.
My general opinion about dietary advice available on the internet is "the lunatics are taking over the asylum".
P.S. Does anyone even know what is (more than 60y. old) "calorie restriction diet" and what are its proven effects on health of not only humans but also mamals,worms and insects?
Do you know that the ONLY way to loose weight is to limit your calorie intake and exercise can only assist that process by affecting your hormonal picture (and apetite) but it has no impact on your "calories burned" ? (There are seven studies showing that,the last one was one of the most expensive dietary studies ever conducted including 3 specific and very diverse groups of people on two continents,use of water isotope deuterium and meticulous waste collection)
And there are people literally claming that eating apples or beans is outright dangerous (??!),are you f*cking insane!?
Gee I wonder what happened to smoking rates at the time?
Interesting because Japan increased PUFA intake while lowering sugar and calorie consumption and saw a 4 fold increase in heart disease and cancers.
The decline in CVD mortality in Finland began earlier, around the 1970s, not 1990. The 92% reduction figure is an overstatement. The actual reduction, while still impressive, was lower. The reduction wasn't solely due to changes in fat consumption and increased fruit intake. It was a result of a comprehensive public health initiative called the North Karelia Project, which began in 1972. While there was a shift from saturated to unsaturated fats, it wasn't simply "switching to oils." The dietary changes were more complex, including reduced salt intake and increased consumption of vegetables. Other contributing factors: smoking reduction, better detection and treatment of high blood pressure and high cholesterol and improvements in medical care and treatments. While berries are part of the Finnish diet, attributing a significant role to blueberries specifically in reducing heart disease is an oversimplification. It's important to represent the facts accurately and avoid oversimplifying complex public health outcomes.
Doesn't come as a surprise. Many of these comments were focuses on certain seed oil types. Usually it was like "Omega-6 is so bad and the worst is canola oil because it's full of chemicals", not taking into account that there is a lot of canola/rapeseed oil on the market that is not chemically extracted (at least here in Europe) and furthermore this oil has a huge percentage of omega-3 fatty acid (only flax seed oil has more). There was mostly no chemical logic behind these comments...
Europe has banned a large number of trace pesticides found in the US oils. Be happy you have a skeptical population, it makes for honest (or at least less corrupt) lawmakers
My thoughts are that there might be specific ones that are pretty bad, and that unhealthy foods almost always have seed oils. Or worse sometimes unheathy foods have mix of various low quality oils. Might just be entirely correlation as you state
Toxic and inflammatory, ok, but do seed oils slow metabolism? Here studies are conflicting, but on balance, it appears yes they do. When eating PUFA, your body will store PUFA. Normally the body stores fat as SFA and MUFA. This store of PUFA slows the metabolism as it is released. This is the problem with seed oils. The impact on metabolism. It takes years to change out the fat in a body, so short term studies may not be accurate, especially when dieting. Release of stored PUFA may be the cause of a slowed metabolism when dieting.
Who cares. Olive oil is all I use and will continue to use. But appreciate your work in bringing out the truth based on facts. The minimal times I consume seed oils I wont feel guilty.
Why is it that those guys who demonize seed oils never wear shirts??
Dr. Mercola wears a shirt
it's in order to impress science-illiterate people. And apparently it works.
cause it tends to be a respect for the natural form
@@tiagomoraes1510 care to elaborate?
@@CharlieFader he asked why theres this relation, and i said that not wearing a shirt is showing the natural form of the body, and these people normally defend less processed (more natural) foods. Also, its a way to show health.
It still doesn't make sense to go with an oil that's so ultra processed versus olive oil. Ultra process seed oils are basically just empty calories. We don't need more empty calories. I'll stick with olive oil.
The health community needs to stop with the anecdotes. Placebo is powerful, we need to look at human trials, and health outcomes, that's it. If you have a contradicting study that's peer reviewed, replicated, etc. then post it! If you're a rich person, or part of a diet community, then fund some research!
@@NcowAloverZI they are not interested in science, thats why the only talk about anecdotes. They’re so delusional that they think only their meme diet has positive anecdotes.
How does it measure anything else than cardiovascular risk? It doesn't. People who consume high quality animal fats claim to feel a lot better (myself included) which is very important part of the whole argument, meanwhile this video tackles only the cardiovascular risk. Truth is, the only side effect of animal fats is plaque buildup which obviously will result in these outcomes. But you have to think, for sure there are some other factors that affect plaque buildup, there's plenty of people who consume shitton of animal fats and never had heart issues. Other than that, animal fats might actually be better in many different ways that have not been measured here, but Brad is not able to think that way. He should be more skeptic about his own skepticism.
And no, it's not from reducing processed foods, at least not in my case. Just home cooking with seed oils that me and my parents have been doing since I was a child. And both of them have metabolic syndrome. Switching to animal fats literally changed my life, I don't care if there are some long-term consequences that will affect me 60 years later when we will have a cure for most diseases even before that. This video does not disprove any of my claims.
EDIT: Forgot to say that I also added olive oil to my diet, I consider it the healthiest oil and animal fats are second best. Better than seed oils in all aspects other than plaque that you don't have to worry about unless you're like 60+.
@@Przeemoo244 care to identify the “high quality animal fats” you mentioned? Also, feeling “a lot better” is too generic. What does this even mean, and how do you know it’s not placebo? There are “plenty of people” smoking a lot and don’t get lung cancer, so? In what way can animal fats be better and why would you think that?
@@CharlieFader By high quality I do not mean some specific type of fat, just grass-fed, least processed or from local farmers if possible. I tried butter, ghee, tallow and lard.
I know that "feeling better" is too generic, I just didn't want to make my comment too long and off-topic. I meant more energy, metabolism and looks. Used to be a skinnyfat but then I started losing fat without wasting muscle, I had not began to exercise more or do calorie-restriction stuff, just a bit more quality animal products, olive oil and a big no to seed oils. My skin looks better too, now having that healthy reddish glow, before I used to be very pale. It's like my general health increased.
How do I know that is not a placebo? It just can't be. It can be caused by other things tho, maybe it's the shot glass of olive oil on empty stomach every morning? Besides, that's not my point. I understand as skeptic to take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt. My point was that this video does not look at the full picture. I do believe that saturated fats cause plaque buildup in some people which in turn shows higher cardiovascular risk, but what about quality of life? There are many other claimed benefits that needs to be addresed before anyone calls this "just a fad" or some "dangerous misinformation". You're potentially losing on some precious fat-soluble vitamins and other nutrients with nothing in return, unless you're 50+ being at high risk of CVD going in the family history. We have been eating animal based for more than 2 million years. Your argument with smoking and cancer doesn't make sense here, I just showed an example that high cholesterol alone does not guarantee plaque and we need more research. There are other factors in play, both genetic and environmental. Just so you know, hunter-gatherers never had plaque buildup, earliest evidence is from Egypt which was very grain dependent. There is also big controversy about blue zones, because some of them actually have high saturated fat intake, not vice versa. This IS a healthy skepticism. Brad does a very bad job saying everything so confidently, implicating there is absolutely nothing wrong with seed oils.
@@Przeemoo244 so many things wrong with your comment. First of all, calling these fats "high quality" is nothing more than a buzz word. It's possible that they are a little better, a bit less saturated fat content for example, although we have not really seen that it matters much when it comes to health outcomes. While I find no purpose in addressing anecdotes, the change that you saw in muscle and skin color could easily be from consuming more protein and heme iron. The first could be achieved without being on a carnivore diet and the second may not even be positive. Quality of life can improve by a number of ways, following a number of diets. As to possibly losing on fat soluble vitamins and other nutrients, this makes no sense since we are talking about consuming other (healthier) fats, not abstaining from all fats, and also by eating carnivore you're depriving yourself from other nutrient found in plants.Your point about worrying about CVD only when you're over 50, makes zero sense, since prevention is very important and at this point a lot of damage is already done. You also didn't explain why you think the smoking analogy didn't make sense, since we know that they are heavy smokers that don't get lung cancer.
The question is what happens to vegetable oils after consumption. How are these fats converted in fat cells in the body?
What about evidence, admittedly limited, that the mitochondria can't burn linoleic acid thay affectively.
But he claimed yesterday that hydrogenated trans fats are best for heart.
This oil and fat war seem ridiculous to me, I'm pretty convinced the main problem is obesity first and foremost, 2nd place overall low quality foods and third place sugar addiction. Other lifestyle factors like exercise and sleep is probably up there too.
thanks. great informations.
I'm a big fan of your content and your academic honesty, and as a marketing guy I can understand a bit of click-bait - but this is a bit too much. Seriously - saying things like "this will be my most hated video" is a lot like preemptively playing the victim card, and it isn't a good look.
I get that you deal with a lot of criticism and hate, but don't let yourself begin to stoop down to their level.