4 ms·

The literature I've seen has also discussed the omega6-3 ratio, which I personally use flax oil to balance so I would agree that is probably an important factor

• hirundo 4y ago
  The criticisms I've seen come with an awareness that PUFAs exist in animal fats too, and are virtually unavoidable and healthy in those smaller amounts and nutritional contexts. They argue that the dose makes the poison, and PUFA consumption has increased many-fold in the modern era causing a great fraction of metabolic syndrome and associated chronic diseases. I've found Peter Dobromylskyj particularly interesting on this topic: https://hyperlipid.blogspot.com/ https://hyperlipid.blogspot.com/
  • feet 4y ago
    There's nothing on that website, unfortunately
    • hirundo 4y ago
      Sorry: https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/
• Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  As the sibling comment says, I'm not arguing that PUFAs are bad per se but that the reason why vegatable oils are bad is because of PUFAs, namely the n-3/n-6 ratio. So you are correct about my innitial comment: >One could reasonably phrase the question this way: what evidence is there that polyunsaturated fatty acids are healthy? This comment is not worded the best way. But I point out later what I meant: >Regarding your point about omega 3 and 6: yes, they are necessary, but that doesn't make vegatable oil "good." Additionaly, there may be too much omega 6 in many vegetable oils You are also technically correct in saying 'However none of what you've posted here says "polyunsaturated fats are bad"' as that includes my own comments, which never directly said polyunsaturated fats are bad, only that vegetable oil is bad. I admit that my innitial wording should have been better. >The statement I responded to is a gross mischaracterization which lacks the nuance that PUFAs are important for the diet, but the amount we consume them in is what's important. The statement you responded to does not mention PUFAs at all. In regards to my earlier comment, it is not a "gross mischaracterization" but semantics. That it "lacks the nuance" of qualifying the statement to "oils high in PUFAs" rather than PUFAs themselves is not relevant to the argument of whether vegetable oils are healthy compared to lard and meat, being that the latter two also have PUFAs. What is then meant is this: (Meat) protien is healthy even if one consumes 200g a day. protein itself is therefore healthy. Same can be said about some carbs. For an admittedly extream example, sodium is not healthy, and neither is cholride. When we say food x contains y amount of sodium we do not mean pure sodium. Since usual consumption of PUFAs found in vegetable oil exceeds a healthy ratio, it is reasonable to question the necessary assumption that "PUFAs are healthy" which is the entire extent to which I said 'PUFAs are bad' that is, not at all. This isn't as stong of a question when it comes to meat because taken as a whole it must be "healthy enough" as it is naturaly consumed by the species and also has lower concentrations to begin with. All this leads to the fact that when people talk about PUFAs, they are talking about vegetable oils, which is a misnomer technically spesking but that is how it has developed. But even not reading my statement that way it still does not read PUFAs are bad.
  • feet 4y ago
    I would argue that consuming equivalent amounts of vegetable oils or lard are equally unhealthy. Saturated fatty acids have their own risks associated with high dose consumption. Diet is not all that simplistic and we shouldn't jump to conclusions and paint things with broad brush strokes
    • Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      I definately agree that caloric intake is the ultimate issue wrt obesity and it's co-morbidities in western countries. But just know that until WW2 lard or butter was used in almost everything from cooking to baking. At that point in time obesity was nowhere near the level it is now where it is rightfuly considered an epidemic by most scientists. This said, caloric intake was lower and more importantly people were more active. It's difficult to pull these variables apart but I think it's fair to say that more research should be done. In regard to your specific argument that "consuming equivalent amounts of vegetable oils or lard are equally unhealthy" it's hard to know as when people used lard they were healthier but also consumed less and exercised more. We can also speculate that vegetable oils might lend itself better to be used in baking than lard was and by some process increases total consumption; perhaps it tastes better or lasts longer, for example. It seems from the study linked in the OP, however, that lard is better than at least rapeseed/canola oil. But like I said more research should be done: our speculation today should not preclude investigation and ultimately conclusive understanding. That said we do need to "pick a side" for the time being, if not as a colective then as individuals because we can't stop eating until conclusive results are found. >Diet is not all that simplistic and we shouldn't jump to conclusions and paint things with broad brush strokes Agreed. I don't think Iv'e made that mistake, even if my comments perhaps read that way.
      • feet 4y ago
        I was referring to specific issues with saturated fatty acids such as increased LDL and ApoB, not caloric intake