3 ms·

Seed oil critics I've heard uniformly acknowledge that. Then they say the dose makes the poison and show a chart like this one: https://www.reddit.com/media?ur

Seed oil critics I've heard uniformly acknowledge that. Then they say the dose makes the poison and show a chart like this one: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fid8d8n0v5d071.jpg&rdt=63167 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fi... Then they say something like, correlation is not causation but this one is so well fitted with the rise of metabolic disease that it's at least suspicious. I've eliminated vegetable oils from my diet for the last four years, and while that is correlated with metabolic improvements, it's only one major food type I've removed. IMHO the first or second most important effect of removing seed oils from the diet is that it removes other long term deleterious ingredients by association, like flours and sugars. If you haven't tried shopping for seed oil free foods you may be shocked at how much of the grocery store it rules out. Along with the majority of restaurant meals.

legitster 2y ago
There's a lot of problems with this. Starting with the fact that seed oils were not a part of the US diet in the 1800s, but that didn't mean they weren't popular elsewhere. > this one is so well fitted with the rise of metabolic disease Is it though? The problem is that metabolic disease also increases with life expectancy. People are living longer and not dying at child birth - that inherently means we collect diseases with more frequency. And the idea that there were no metabolic diseases at the turn of the century is laughable. Part of the reason sanatoriums were so prevalent and and diet foods were invented were because of the extreme amount of ailments people suffered from their food.