4 ms·

RFK's playbook is to wake up, check what the crunchy moms on instagram are cackling about, issue policy based on the comments sections.

bowmessage 9mo ago
Remove whatever politics you might believe from the equation. Is beef tallow a better option for a cooking fat? I think it is.
- babypuncher 9mo ago
  Our own health department has completely removed objectivity from their process. It doesn't matter if they say something right or wrong now, they've completely lost our trust.
  - bowmessage 9mo ago
    I don’t particularly trust any claims from previous administrations’ health departments, let alone this one. Politics aside, the omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.
    - dsr_ 9mo ago
      You've made this comment three times so far. That changes my perception from "maybe that's a good point" to "spammers should die painfully."
      - stephenitis 9mo ago
        I’m with you, repeating it is like low effort copy pasta when they should’ve put effort into backing up that claim.
- halostatue 9mo ago
  Compared to what and for what purpose? Olive oil? Peanut oil? No and (mostly) no. Compared to hydrogenated margarine that was pushed a couple of decades ago before we learned about trans-fats? Of course. If you use it when cooking for guests, you should disclose that you're using it (especially for non-meat dishes) because it may add extra fat that they're not OK with or consider inappropriate for personal dietary consumption (they're vegetarian, don't eat beef products, whatever). I have a friend for whom we can't use anything that has sunflower oil in it, which is _really hard to avoid_ in surprising ways (there are spice blends that I use which have a bit of sunflower oil in the mixes).
  - bowmessage 9mo ago
    Politics aside, the omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.
    - lanfeust6 9mo ago
      Omega ratio matters most taking total intake of 3 and 6 into account. Since tallow is overwhelmingly saturated fat, it's a moot point what the ratio is. The remedy to low omega-3 is just to consume more dominant EPA/DHA and even ALA sources. Omega 6 won't fly off the charts except through consuming lots of packaged boxed foods and ultraprocessed foods, which overwhelming use vegetable oils like soybean or sunflower (North American fat consumption has skyrocketed over a century mostly owing to these foods). Even if you consume some nuts or seed oil now and then, just consume fish or a supplement. Arguably the "healthiest" cooking oil is olive oil. If we're looking at just the fatty acids though, replacing SFA with PUFAs is a stronger predictor of lower CVD and all-cause mortality.
    - halostatue 9mo ago
      Tallow is still higher in long chain SFAs than vegetable saturated fats, which are less healthy than short and medium chain SFAs (but neither is as good as PUFAs). That sort of overwhelms the omega ratios. As I understand it, both fish oil and (fresh) flax seed oil are still better than tallow. With RFK's dismantling of good science, politics can't be put aside, as his reasons are essentially "because I said so".
- AstroBen 9mo ago
  Avocado, canola, olive oil would all be way better. Beef tallow is really high in saturated fat
  - bowmessage 9mo ago
    The omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable. Canola and other seed oils are made using toxic solvents which are not full removed from the final product.
    - AstroBen 9mo ago
      Go look up the studies of actual outcome data when replacing saturated fats with seed oils. Seed oils do much better
      - bitexploder 9mo ago
        Are you sure? Sydney heart diet study: Seed oil group had something like 62% higher death rate. Minnesota coronary experiment: replaced saturated fats with seed oil, cholesterol dropped, but for every 30 mg/dL drop risk of death went up something like 20%. Several recent meta analyses also indicate no real benefit migrating from saturated fats to seed oils. The only silver lining I have seen is there is some evidence replacing them for people who have had a coronary event already. So, no, I don't think the evidence supports "seed oils do much better" in a general sense.
        AstroBen 9mo ago
        I don't have time to look into the sydney heart study but I know for the minnesota experiment they, not knowing how bad it was at the time, used margarine with high trans fats as the replacements. Also had a huge 95% drop out rate Actually on a quick check the sydney study looks to be the exact same
        Workaccount2 9mo ago
        What are all the grifters going to do when AI can reliably tell people if a study is shit?
- tombert 9mo ago
  It's probably still better to avoid eating french fries regardless of what they're fried in. That would probably lead to better health outcomes regardless. Unless you're claiming that it tastes better, then sure, beef tallow is pretty tasty.
  - bluGill 9mo ago
    If you are eating french fries once or twice a year they probably are not bad for you (by enough to matter, and perhaps even good if they give some micro nutriant you are not getting elsewhere). And then by all means eat them friend in beef tallow because that tastes better. If you are eating french fries twice a week - which seems to be common - they are bad for you. Clean up your diet, eat a larger variety of food.
- m000 9mo ago
  Hey! You forgot to mention about its favorable omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. /s
- an0malous 9mo ago
  How is “I think it is” a more valuable contribution than what the parent said?
  - dimitrios1 9mo ago
    Discussing the subject without reactionary political takes is more valuable.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- waysa 9mo ago
  > Is beef tallow a better option for a cooking fat? I think it is. Better compared to what? Better than refined canola? Probably. Better than good quality, cold-pressed vegetable oils? Probably not. It's not great for heart health.
tombert 9mo ago
He's almost the perfect example of the colloquial stereotype of "Dunning Kruger Syndrome", which is why he's so dangerous. I've made this example before, but it bears repeating. I know absolutely nothing about chemistry, medicine, or healthcare policy. I am wholly unqualifed to be in charge of anything involving healthcare. Suppose that, despite all reason, I am appointed into a HHS secretary anyway. This would be bad, but because I know that I know nothing, my potential for damage is actually pretty limited. I would have to defer a lot of decisions to advisors, who would likely be doctors and chemists and data scientists. I probably wouldn't make a lot of "progress", and I would likely more or less just maintain the status quo, but I probably wouldn't make things much worse. RFK Jr. is the worst, because he doesn't know any more about health or medicine than I do, but because he's read a bunch of idiotic blogs and Facebook pages he thinks he knows better than the entire medical establishment, and because he thinks he knows everything he feels qualified to start cutting funding for American medical research and blame everything on people not eating enough beef fat. People have been (understandably) focusing on Trump's descent into authoritarianism, but it's possible that that gets somewhat fixed once he's out of office, but I think that the damage that RFK Jr. has done to our medical research establishment might be irreparable. He is uniquely dangerous.
- AstroBen 9mo ago
  He seems to be aware of his lack of knowledge: https://youtu.be/AGq_Q7tVLCU?si=Qcw_cQHoqbBc5dgW https://youtu.be/AGq_Q7tVLCU?si=Qcw_cQHoqbBc5dgW Yet still here we are
  - tombert 9mo ago
    I think he's actively lying with this to have some amount of plausible deniability. If you look at pseudoscience "alternative health" treatments on YouTube, they always have some disclaimer saying "This is not medical advice, I am not a physician, please consult your doctor", and then immediately go on to tell you about how injecting yourself with ozone or drinking paint thinner will cure all your diseases. I think it's just a legal disclaimer, not like they are actually aware that what they're doing is bullshit.
- 9mo ago

bowmessage 9mo ago

Remove whatever politics you might believe from the equation. Is beef tallow a better option for a cooking fat? I think it is.

babypuncher 9mo ago
Our own health department has completely removed objectivity from their process. It doesn't matter if they say something right or wrong now, they've completely lost our trust.
- bowmessage 9mo ago
  I don’t particularly trust any claims from previous administrations’ health departments, let alone this one. Politics aside, the omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.
  - dsr_ 9mo ago
    You've made this comment three times so far. That changes my perception from "maybe that's a good point" to "spammers should die painfully."
    - stephenitis 9mo ago
      I’m with you, repeating it is like low effort copy pasta when they should’ve put effort into backing up that claim.
halostatue 9mo ago
Compared to what and for what purpose? Olive oil? Peanut oil? No and (mostly) no. Compared to hydrogenated margarine that was pushed a couple of decades ago before we learned about trans-fats? Of course. If you use it when cooking for guests, you should disclose that you're using it (especially for non-meat dishes) because it may add extra fat that they're not OK with or consider inappropriate for personal dietary consumption (they're vegetarian, don't eat beef products, whatever). I have a friend for whom we can't use anything that has sunflower oil in it, which is _really hard to avoid_ in surprising ways (there are spice blends that I use which have a bit of sunflower oil in the mixes).
- bowmessage 9mo ago
  Politics aside, the omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.
  - lanfeust6 9mo ago
    Omega ratio matters most taking total intake of 3 and 6 into account. Since tallow is overwhelmingly saturated fat, it's a moot point what the ratio is. The remedy to low omega-3 is just to consume more dominant EPA/DHA and even ALA sources. Omega 6 won't fly off the charts except through consuming lots of packaged boxed foods and ultraprocessed foods, which overwhelming use vegetable oils like soybean or sunflower (North American fat consumption has skyrocketed over a century mostly owing to these foods). Even if you consume some nuts or seed oil now and then, just consume fish or a supplement. Arguably the "healthiest" cooking oil is olive oil. If we're looking at just the fatty acids though, replacing SFA with PUFAs is a stronger predictor of lower CVD and all-cause mortality.
  - halostatue 9mo ago
    Tallow is still higher in long chain SFAs than vegetable saturated fats, which are less healthy than short and medium chain SFAs (but neither is as good as PUFAs). That sort of overwhelms the omega ratios. As I understand it, both fish oil and (fresh) flax seed oil are still better than tallow. With RFK's dismantling of good science, politics can't be put aside, as his reasons are essentially "because I said so".
AstroBen 9mo ago
Avocado, canola, olive oil would all be way better. Beef tallow is really high in saturated fat
- bowmessage 9mo ago
  The omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable. Canola and other seed oils are made using toxic solvents which are not full removed from the final product.
  - AstroBen 9mo ago
    Go look up the studies of actual outcome data when replacing saturated fats with seed oils. Seed oils do much better
    - bitexploder 9mo ago
      Are you sure? Sydney heart diet study: Seed oil group had something like 62% higher death rate. Minnesota coronary experiment: replaced saturated fats with seed oil, cholesterol dropped, but for every 30 mg/dL drop risk of death went up something like 20%. Several recent meta analyses also indicate no real benefit migrating from saturated fats to seed oils. The only silver lining I have seen is there is some evidence replacing them for people who have had a coronary event already. So, no, I don't think the evidence supports "seed oils do much better" in a general sense.
      - AstroBen 9mo ago
        I don't have time to look into the sydney heart study but I know for the minnesota experiment they, not knowing how bad it was at the time, used margarine with high trans fats as the replacements. Also had a huge 95% drop out rate Actually on a quick check the sydney study looks to be the exact same
        Workaccount2 9mo ago
        What are all the grifters going to do when AI can reliably tell people if a study is shit?
tombert 9mo ago
It's probably still better to avoid eating french fries regardless of what they're fried in. That would probably lead to better health outcomes regardless. Unless you're claiming that it tastes better, then sure, beef tallow is pretty tasty.
- bluGill 9mo ago
  If you are eating french fries once or twice a year they probably are not bad for you (by enough to matter, and perhaps even good if they give some micro nutriant you are not getting elsewhere). And then by all means eat them friend in beef tallow because that tastes better. If you are eating french fries twice a week - which seems to be common - they are bad for you. Clean up your diet, eat a larger variety of food.
m000 9mo ago
Hey! You forgot to mention about its favorable omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. /s
an0malous 9mo ago
How is “I think it is” a more valuable contribution than what the parent said?
- dimitrios1 9mo ago
  Discussing the subject without reactionary political takes is more valuable.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
waysa 9mo ago
> Is beef tallow a better option for a cooking fat? I think it is. Better compared to what? Better than refined canola? Probably. Better than good quality, cold-pressed vegetable oils? Probably not. It's not great for heart health.

tombert 9mo ago

He's almost the perfect example of the colloquial stereotype of "Dunning Kruger Syndrome", which is why he's so dangerous. I've made this example before, but it bears repeating. I know absolutely nothing about chemistry, medicine, or healthcare policy. I am wholly unqualifed to be in charge of anything involving healthcare. Suppose that, despite all reason, I am appointed into a HHS secretary anyway. This would be bad, but because I know that I know nothing, my potential for damage is actually pretty limited. I would have to defer a lot of decisions to advisors, who would likely be doctors and chemists and data scientists. I probably wouldn't make a lot of "progress", and I would likely more or less just maintain the status quo, but I probably wouldn't make things much worse. RFK Jr. is the worst, because he doesn't know any more about health or medicine than I do, but because he's read a bunch of idiotic blogs and Facebook pages he thinks he knows better than the entire medical establishment, and because he thinks he knows everything he feels qualified to start cutting funding for American medical research and blame everything on people not eating enough beef fat. People have been (understandably) focusing on Trump's descent into authoritarianism, but it's possible that that gets somewhat fixed once he's out of office, but I think that the damage that RFK Jr. has done to our medical research establishment might be irreparable. He is uniquely dangerous.

AstroBen 9mo ago
He seems to be aware of his lack of knowledge: https://youtu.be/AGq_Q7tVLCU?si=Qcw_cQHoqbBc5dgW https://youtu.be/AGq_Q7tVLCU?si=Qcw_cQHoqbBc5dgW Yet still here we are
- tombert 9mo ago
  I think he's actively lying with this to have some amount of plausible deniability. If you look at pseudoscience "alternative health" treatments on YouTube, they always have some disclaimer saying "This is not medical advice, I am not a physician, please consult your doctor", and then immediately go on to tell you about how injecting yourself with ozone or drinking paint thinner will cure all your diseases. I think it's just a legal disclaimer, not like they are actually aware that what they're doing is bullshit.
9mo ago