4 ms·

I don't know. Seems sensationalist. So I picked one of their referenced studies to look at, and to my untrained eye it doesn't seem to support the paper's posit

I don't know. Seems sensationalist. So I picked one of their referenced studies to look at, and to my untrained eye it doesn't seem to support the paper's position at all. What it says in the linked article: HEART DISEASE In another study, the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, participants who increased their consumption of corn oil and margarine had 86% more heart attacks, and for those aged 65 or older, a higher risk of death after four years What the linked study says: Conclusions: Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
readthenotes1 4y ago
nutrition science is right up there with social science in the competition for ironic names
prohisto 4y ago
that's because troglodytes who don't read research still have the backward notion that Cholesterol causes heart disease.
ricardobeat 4y ago
I read the linked study out of curiosity [1]. The study is from the other perspective, that replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil would lead to reduced mortality. I couldn't figure out exactly where they got the 86% figure from, but the study found a significant negative effect: "There was a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L) reduction in serum cholesterol" [resulting from vegetable oil consumption]. This is in accordance with what the article says. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  I would think that if the study set out to test hypothesis Y, but their data actually suggests hypothesis X, then that's pretty convincing evidence for hypothesis X since we know that it wasn't a result of publication bias/researcher degrees of freedom. (Then again, I suppose hypothesis X might've been found in a fishing expedition...)
riversflow 4y ago
Yeah, I read the first study because it seemed crazy. TFA: "The group consuming more vegetable oil had a 62% higher rate of death during the seven-year study compared to the group eating less vegetable oil. . .To put that into perspective, of the commonly cited diet and lifestyle risk factors, only severe obesity and heavy smoking are more dangerous" The study in question, emphasis mine: n=458 "Eligible patients were men aged 30-59 years admitted . . . for an episode of acute myocardial infarction (86%), or acute coronary insufficiency or angina (14%) . . . The intervention group received instructions to increase their PUFA [PolyUnsaturated Fatty Acid] intake to about 15% of food energy, and to reduce their intake of SFA[Saturated Fatty Acid] and dietary cholesterol to less than 10% of food energy and 300 mg per day, respectively. To achieve these targets. . . Liquid safflower oil was substituted for animal fats, common margarines and shortenings in cooking oils, salad dressings, baked goods, and other products, and was also taken as a supplement. . .Safflower oil is a concentrated source of [Omega]-6 LA and contains no other reported PUFAs Therefore, the intervention oil selectively increased [Omega]-6 LA without a concurrent increase in [Omega]-3 PUFAs." TFA represents it as a population wide conclusion about all people consuming "more" "vegetable" oils, and then has the audacity to directly compare this misrepresentation to the results of large scale longitudinal and prospective studies, comparing it to a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, etc. Absolutely ridiculous. Like I actually think that's a valuable study to have read, but the Author's article is being sensationalist and dishonest with their representation. FWIW as someone who reads a fair amount about nutrition to the point I consider it a hobby; I don't find this result on Safflower oil surprising, but the sensationalism in TFA is insane. There is a lot to unpack with that study–are people in that group predisposed to having biological processing or other confounding factors that make high Omega-6:Omega-3 diets particularly unhealthy? Is there something specifically bad about linoleic acid, or perhaps about a fatty acid regimen of specifically and primarily linoleic acid?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

readthenotes1 4y ago

nutrition science is right up there with social science in the competition for ironic names

prohisto 4y ago

that's because troglodytes who don't read research still have the backward notion that Cholesterol causes heart disease.

ricardobeat 4y ago

I read the linked study out of curiosity [1]. The study is from the other perspective, that replacing saturated fats with vegetable oil would lead to reduced mortality. I couldn't figure out exactly where they got the 86% figure from, but the study found a significant negative effect: "There was a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L) reduction in serum cholesterol" [resulting from vegetable oil consumption]. This is in accordance with what the article says. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

ShredKazoo 4y ago
I would think that if the study set out to test hypothesis Y, but their data actually suggests hypothesis X, then that's pretty convincing evidence for hypothesis X since we know that it wasn't a result of publication bias/researcher degrees of freedom. (Then again, I suppose hypothesis X might've been found in a fishing expedition...)

riversflow 4y ago

Yeah, I read the first study because it seemed crazy. TFA: "The group consuming more vegetable oil had a 62% higher rate of death during the seven-year study compared to the group eating less vegetable oil. . .To put that into perspective, of the commonly cited diet and lifestyle risk factors, only severe obesity and heavy smoking are more dangerous" The study in question, emphasis mine: n=458 "Eligible patients were men aged 30-59 years admitted . . . for an episode of acute myocardial infarction (86%), or acute coronary insufficiency or angina (14%) . . . The intervention group received instructions to increase their PUFA [PolyUnsaturated Fatty Acid] intake to about 15% of food energy, and to reduce their intake of SFA[Saturated Fatty Acid] and dietary cholesterol to less than 10% of food energy and 300 mg per day, respectively. To achieve these targets. . . Liquid safflower oil was substituted for animal fats, common margarines and shortenings in cooking oils, salad dressings, baked goods, and other products, and was also taken as a supplement. . .Safflower oil is a concentrated source of [Omega]-6 LA and contains no other reported PUFAs Therefore, the intervention oil selectively increased [Omega]-6 LA without a concurrent increase in [Omega]-3 PUFAs." TFA represents it as a population wide conclusion about all people consuming "more" "vegetable" oils, and then has the audacity to directly compare this misrepresentation to the results of large scale longitudinal and prospective studies, comparing it to a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, etc. Absolutely ridiculous. Like I actually think that's a valuable study to have read, but the Author's article is being sensationalist and dishonest with their representation. FWIW as someone who reads a fair amount about nutrition to the point I consider it a hobby; I don't find this result on Safflower oil surprising, but the sensationalism in TFA is insane. There is a lot to unpack with that study–are people in that group predisposed to having biological processing or other confounding factors that make high Omega-6:Omega-3 diets particularly unhealthy? Is there something specifically bad about linoleic acid, or perhaps about a fatty acid regimen of specifically and primarily linoleic acid?