Robert F. Kennedy junior and his supporters argue these are “toxic” and can wreck your health. But they are unlikely to cause harm—in fact, they are probably good for you
Robert F. Kennedy junior and his supporters argue these are “toxic” and can wreck your health. But they are unlikely to cause harm—in fact, they are probably good for you
Said another way, Pseudoscience-armed former heroin addict argues for fringe internet theories while ignoring scientific consensus
So the better question is why did the @economist.com write an unsigned article about “Seed Oils”? It’s so off base for them, the question begs was it an infomercial for the Seed Oil Industry or a Side Entry for Poltics?
On this particular issue Seed Oils which are high in Omega 6, an inflammatory are not evil however they are overused and not balanced with enough Omega 3in diets. Ideal ratio 1:1, acceptable 4:1 current in the general population 14:1+, too much of anything is bad. #SeedOils are overused in #SAD.
#SeedOils are used as binders in heavily ultra processed food extensively, especially “low sugar” anything. Which unfortunately make up a large portion of the available pre-packed foods in SuperMarkets.
Like all articles in the @economist.com they are unsigned and the questions needs to be ask is this about JFK Junior or SeedOils. The article is not grounded in balance or facts about the reality of overconsumption of #Omega6 Oils (Seed Oils).
The Economist is very well researched. They have access to the best advice and data. And your qualifications?
The Economist is not a person, we have no idea who wrote the article and why. It was not a balanced article and more political than science. My qualifications are irrelevant don’t assume that unsigned articles are factual. The better question why was politics mixed with bias scientific writing?
So...no relevant qualifications. Thanks.
The issue is ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6, NOT saturated versus unsaturated, this is scientific fact ideal: 1:1, acceptable 4:1, current general population 14:1. You need Omega 6 however the amounts are too high against Omega 3 current intake.
The Standard American Diet is indeed #SAD
The conclusion of the (well-sourced, fwiw) article says the same thing: "In short, seed oils are unlikely to cause harm—in fact, they are probably good for you, especially if eaten in moderation and supplemented by other, healthy fats such as the omega-3s found in fish and walnuts..." 1/
"...Over-consumption is usually the consequence of a generally unhealthy diet, full of fried or ultra-processed foods, which there are plenty of other reasons to avoid..." 2/
"...Spoon for spoon, seed oils are much more healthy than some of the alternatives championed by their critics, not least butter, lard and beef tallow." 3/
The U.S. agriculture system produces LOTS of seed oils along with LOTS of refined sugar including fructose. High Caloric Ultra processed food featuring Seed Oils and refined sugar is cheap addictive calories = metabolic disease.
In short seed oils are being over-consumed and non-seed oils are being under-consumed. Your being duped: “Low Fat” = high sugar and “Low Sugar” = high seed oils, both ways create inflammation leading metabolic diseases.
"Your being duped..." And that's not what that short science article was about.
I actually have a bad response to rapeseed oil, and most if not all refined vegetable oils. I tolerate sunflower oil when used for canned foods. When I eat out or get take away, I know in an instant that they used the cheapest oil available. I think using less of these oils is better.
Who knew a former Heroin iser with a fucking brain worm may not fully understand health issues. Oh yeah...and
THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH SEED OILS
In moderation, sure. Go for it!
Who would listen to whatever RFK Jr says?