4 ms·
4) needs a better source. He apparently has a history of claiming things not backed by science. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser https://rationalwik
by cinntaile 4y ago
4) needs a better source. He apparently has a history of claiming things not backed by science.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chris_Kresser
- SoftTalker 4y agoHe does sound a bit "out there" but mainstream science says that vegetable/seed oils are safe to eat, so anyone who says they are not is going to be "anti-science."
- notahacker 4y agoThere are plenty of mainstream science studies on oils, not all of them favourably disposed, and "is ingredient x bad for you" has never been something that's been difficult to get mainstream funding for. If it was the case that the only indication of negative health consequences of cooking oils came from an "out there" self-publicist that would be a [weak] prior in favour of the safety if oils, not a reason to pay particular attention to the "anti-science" arguments of the "out there" guy on this topic.
- brnt 4y agoHe cites no sources for any claim of adverse health effect. Also, evolutionary mismatch is the kind of nonsense common in alternative circles that we can do well without.