3 ms·

You seem to be hiding an assumption, which is that it only makes sense to completely solve the highest hazard ratio before even considering the next highest haz

• JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > it only makes sense to completely solve the highest hazard ratio before even considering the next highest hazard ratio. But why would that be the case? Seed-oil harm is nowhere close to the second-highest hazard. That's the point. If you're obsessing around optimising your oil consumption for health, you're probably missing lower-hanging fruit. It's fine to optimise on around the margins, but any more attention than that--assuming you are not a researcher--is overkill.
  • thegrim33 3y ago
    They listed the specific numeric figure for the harm from smoking, but omitted any such numbers for consuming seed oils, so how are we supposed to judge that? You saying "it's nowhere close" is not data.
    • nradov 3y ago
      If there was actually a huge harm from consuming seed oils then we would probably be seeing a strong, clear signal from epidemiological studies. So far, the data is ambiguous.
  • ok_dad 3y ago
    Yea but it’s easier to eliminate the use of seed oils, assuming they are the cause of some harm, versus trying to get lazy people to exercise. You can force people to exercise, but as evidenced in the past few decades, you can force them not to eat as much trans fats.
    • GenerocUsername 3y ago
      This. Sure exercise is a overall bigger impact, but adjusted for effort, eliminating seed oils is likey a higher effort/value proposition, and that means that at scale, more people are likely to follow through