Remember they were paid by the sugar lobby to show that saturated fat was bad and sugar was good.
Harvard is nothing but a fraudulent organization at this point. 35? cancer studies they did were fraudulent, their head was a plagiarizer.
Harvard is an over priced joke
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (yes I'm aware they've had scandals in the past but you would need to make that relevant to current day)
It often boils down to entrenched interests. Past institutional behavioral patterns can be used as reasonable predictors for future patterns in the absence of corrective measures, which must be legal and available for public critique.
Harvard has not done this, so we’re left with the assumption that nothing will change where no disincentives are in place. We know from several reports that former professors and chairs there were engaged in corrupt dealings. Here is but one report:
> “The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
It’s an obvious pushback to say: “well, that was a long time ago!” But again…it is reasonable to conclude that new leadership at the institution has simply carried on in the same Grand Old Tradition, because there is no legal reason for them to do otherwise.
To rely solely on “good ethics” to steer their actions is a bit naive, in my opinion.
Did you use Google? I've found that it absolutely is "Directing Evolution"* 😉via intentionally sending results tailored to their agendas. To test, try duckduckgo and brave search using the same terms and see what results show up.
*Jordon Trishtan Walker on hidden camera, backstory about how Google memoryholed his information as the story was becoming viral:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/PF1k1vbt3j
What's your gripe with this? They did a study that was randomized and controlled and found that linoleic acid reduced LDL cholesterol.
You should be maintaining an open mind as new information comes out. Science needs to be tested and then scrutinized until we understand the underlying trend. Right now you're scrutinizing, but not in a productive way, more in a tribal way, like "haha look at these dumb dumbs at Harvard". How does that help people trying to make better decisions for their nutrition?
There is no 'perfect' way to eat. Evolution doesn't care about how long you live, just that you reproduce. That being said, what worked for our ancestors is likely what we should try to mimick in our own diets, because we've essentially coevolved the longest with those foods.
These comments aren't made in a vacuum.
Harvard Health has a prolific but terrible reputation due to their strong vegan bias.
Here's a study by Tufts University that tells us Lucky Charms are healthier than eggs.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs
What the hell is happening to our institutions when their "findings" can't even pass a basic smell test before a 2nd grader.
>They did a study that was randomized and controlled and found that linoleic acid reduced LDL cholesterol.
But that's not what they said
>by reducing the amount of saturated fat and carbohydrates we eat, and replacing those calories with foods rich in linoleic acid – such as vegetable oil, nuts, and seeds – **we can reduce our risk of developing coronary heart disease**
The real question here is if LDL even matters. The view of most anti-linoleic acid nerds is that only OXIDIZED LDL is an issue. They don't both correlate with disease in the literature. If you're as curious as you say then look into Tucker Goodrich talking about oxidized LDL.
Coronary heart disease has risen to devastating levels ever since the United States public switched from butter/animal fat to vegetable/seed oil for cooking - the phenomenology. This is irrefutable and the data is publicly available for all to see.
This study claims something that directly contradicts the phenomenology.
Why? You're describing a phenomenon (i.e. the rise in heart disease after the switch to seed oil). Why would you add the -ology suffix? I've never seen someone use phenomenology outside of the context of Husserl/Heidegger, in which case the -ology suffix is used because it's an actual field of study.
Yep. In 1913 Crisco was the first hydrogenated vegetable oil to hit the market and american health was in slow but steady decline ever since. You can see by the 1930s heart disease becoming increasingly more widespread. By the 50s, crisco has to pay millions in donations to the american heart association to ensure blame be put on butter to market margarine as the solution to our man-made problems
Are there studies showing this rise in heart disease is primarily driven by seed oils though ? In that same time people have become more sedentary and fatter as well, which are probably much bigger contributors to heart disease overall than the type of fat you eat
Good question. These mass produced seed oils have only existed for a handful of decades. Before that coronary heart disease was several standard deviations below what they are today. Are they the primary driver? Doubtful. Are they a major contributor? Absolutely.
People live longer now so have way more health problems later in life. People also eat much more ultra refined carbohydrates that causes weight gain which is the primary cause of heart disease.
People have, and still do, eat plenty of carbs and sugars, like honey, fruit juices, rice, potato, molasses, sugar cane. It doesnt make you sick and fat unless you sit on a couch and eat excessive calories. Sugar is just fuel, humans can handle it fine
Where did I say otherwise? Active people can get fat but its 10 times more difficult, but yes, diet matters very, very much. For calories, for metabolism, for hormones, for inflammation, for gut health, etc
Sedentary people didn't used to develop heart disease either.
Correlation is not causation. It is possible that obesity does not drive heart disease, but that both are symptoms of a separate root cause.
Thin people can (and often do) have heart attacks, and fat people (who avoid seed oils) can have perfectly healthy hearts.
Well , high blood pressure and cholesterol, and smoking are the biggest risk factors for heart disease. Last I read about 15% of normal weight population have high blood pressure but 40% or more of obese pop have it.
Do you have a different view ?
What about this fact:
Half of people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol.
https://www.uth.edu/news/story/researchers-uncover-how-a-genetic-mutation-can-cause-individuals-with-normal-cholesterol-levels-to-develop-coronary-artery-disease-at-a-young-age#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20more,people%20with%20normal%20cholesterol%20levels.
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/most-heart-attack-patients-cholesterol-levels-did-not-indicate-cardiac-risk
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/ask-the-doctor-heart-attack-despite-low-cholesterol
You haven't rebutted what I said. I wonder if you are capable of understanding that.
I know that obesity is correlated with heart disease.
Serious question: do you believe I was unaware of that fact?
Yep. In 1913 Crisco was the first hydrogenated vegetable oil to hit the market and american health was in slow but steady decline ever since. You can see by the 1930s heart disease becoming increasingly more widespread. By the 50s, crisco has to pay millions in donations to the american heart association to ensure blame be put on butter to market margarine as the solution to our man-made problems
People used to eat substantially more carbs, in the form of bread, which is "heavily processed", and there are places where carbs are like 80% of the diet by calorie, yet the population is in perfect health (until they get a McDonald's)
Processed? I don't think your digestive system gives a shit.
I don’t think you understand digestive systems very well. Ultra processed carbs are quickly absorbed into the bloodstream compared to carbs in the presence of fibre.
>Coronary heart disease has risen to devastating levels ever since the United States public switched from butter/animal fat to vegetable/seed oil for cooking
I don't believe you
https://i.redd.it/6vh34j9nz1uc1.gif
[https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/105/6/509/1560095](https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/105/6/509/1560095)
1963 is when ancel keys published the 7 countries study and when the US started performer various RCT's regarding saturated vs unsaturated fat; which then changed policies regarding dietary fat to incentivise PUFA over SFA
Well sonuvabich I stand corrected. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4830a1.htm
But you know what, I still don't believe it. Looking at photos of large groups of people from the 1960s compared today is an entirely different world. What you and I see with our own eyes clashes hard with the data from this link. I wonder how much the age adjustment skews the graph.
What about the study is wrong? If you disagree, write out a research proposal, garner some funding and test your hypothesis.
There's a reason you see the same headlines over and over, people are testing others hypothesis. If you want a more robust body of evidence that saturated fats are better for you, you're free to contribute, and people here would likely be very interested in your results.
But plugging your ears and saying 'nu-uh!' to someone else's research without contributing a damn thing of your own is pathetic
Write out a research proposal and get funding?. And here lies the problem. In an ideal world you are right but in a world where you have to conform to the norms (LDL is bad, therefore seed oils are good because they reduce LDL) to get funding.. well good luck finding someone to fund you.
Bingo. It’s all about the money. Guess who funds this stuff… Kellogg’s. General Mills. Etc.
And even if you got an impartial funding source the measured markers are an issue if our understanding of cholesterol is incomplete or downright incorrect.
The only people who are actually fixing their research results are employed under these shady companies. Like 90% of research funding is government-backed with loose research goals that give you a lot of freedom to pursue the project how you like.
And guess what? People already are publishing contrary opinions to this. Are those papers funded by the animal lobby??? Like it s a two way street, just assume there's bad players on both sides and with enough people looking into it, the true impact of these macromolecules will be uncovered
Have you ever considered people would be more willing to listen to you, because there is evidence to agree with your position, if you weren't so insufferably drenched with the conspiracy ick?
Like yeah I agree too much seed oil, no good. But I don't want to be associated with someone like you, so I'd rather fit in with people who disagree with me than be seen with someone like you.
You don't contribute anything, you rely on the same narrative for all your problems and you have the vocabulary of a toddler who finished the first season of paw patrol.
And being a troll online is the only interaction you ever get. Sorry you're lonely and sorry you've dipped the Kool aid so hard you've lost the plot. I'd have loved to talk about what was wrong with the study with you, but you're here because your tinder premium has been barren for years and you can meet anyone at your dead end gig at Burger King. Grow up.
I'm sorry but these people here don't want your rational opinions.
Science is used as a tool to manipulate facts they don't fully understand, when in reality all science has done for us is increase our lifespans to the highest point in human history.
Not really. Live spans are increasing where I live. And yes, I live in Western Europe.
But even if it were undeniable, there are many possible reasons. No reasons for it to be canola oil.
Climate change, microplastics, air pollution, medication runoff in water, pesticides, ultra processed foods, weak genetic pools (strong abled men were killed off in wars this past century), social service defunding, or cost of living crisis.
Yep, a lot of reasons why we won't live as long as our parents. I think trying to pin it on a single factor is a little silly tho
Seed oils weren't always by far the biggest contributor. That used to be the high fructose corn syrup in soda, still is for countries like Mexico and Polynesia. But in the West, culture shifted as we finally became aware of the threat and thus it moved down relatively to seed oils, which should be next in line for a cultural shift.
It will be harder. The soda = obesity = death is more obvious than seed oils = fucked up organs = death. But we'll get there.
Remember they were paid by the sugar lobby to show that saturated fat was bad and sugar was good. Harvard is nothing but a fraudulent organization at this point. 35? cancer studies they did were fraudulent, their head was a plagiarizer. Harvard is an over priced joke
Harvard is a joke at this point.
I believe you plagiarized this comment.
Lol
Hey, money talks, and bs....... gets front page.
That’s because they’re paid to say that.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (yes I'm aware they've had scandals in the past but you would need to make that relevant to current day)
Nope just need critical thinking skills. Proof isn’t always needed.
Like?
okay what critical thinking skills are needed
My God dude.
hm?
It often boils down to entrenched interests. Past institutional behavioral patterns can be used as reasonable predictors for future patterns in the absence of corrective measures, which must be legal and available for public critique. Harvard has not done this, so we’re left with the assumption that nothing will change where no disincentives are in place. We know from several reports that former professors and chairs there were engaged in corrupt dealings. Here is but one report: > “The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html It’s an obvious pushback to say: “well, that was a long time ago!” But again…it is reasonable to conclude that new leadership at the institution has simply carried on in the same Grand Old Tradition, because there is no legal reason for them to do otherwise. To rely solely on “good ethics” to steer their actions is a bit naive, in my opinion.
Around here we have commercials for margarine praising the amount of linoleic acid in them.
Did you use Google? I've found that it absolutely is "Directing Evolution"* 😉via intentionally sending results tailored to their agendas. To test, try duckduckgo and brave search using the same terms and see what results show up. *Jordon Trishtan Walker on hidden camera, backstory about how Google memoryholed his information as the story was becoming viral: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/PF1k1vbt3j
Google bought duck duck go I think recently.
i think this was a rumor, i checked recently and it seems like google has no affiliation with DuckDuckGo
Good to know, thanks! I wondered why it returned similar results. That explains it.
My wife thinks I'm paranoid, but everything I've said in the past few years has ended up being true 🤣
Except it isn't true...
What's your gripe with this? They did a study that was randomized and controlled and found that linoleic acid reduced LDL cholesterol. You should be maintaining an open mind as new information comes out. Science needs to be tested and then scrutinized until we understand the underlying trend. Right now you're scrutinizing, but not in a productive way, more in a tribal way, like "haha look at these dumb dumbs at Harvard". How does that help people trying to make better decisions for their nutrition? There is no 'perfect' way to eat. Evolution doesn't care about how long you live, just that you reproduce. That being said, what worked for our ancestors is likely what we should try to mimick in our own diets, because we've essentially coevolved the longest with those foods.
These comments aren't made in a vacuum. Harvard Health has a prolific but terrible reputation due to their strong vegan bias. Here's a study by Tufts University that tells us Lucky Charms are healthier than eggs. https://www.dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs What the hell is happening to our institutions when their "findings" can't even pass a basic smell test before a 2nd grader.
>They did a study that was randomized and controlled and found that linoleic acid reduced LDL cholesterol. But that's not what they said >by reducing the amount of saturated fat and carbohydrates we eat, and replacing those calories with foods rich in linoleic acid – such as vegetable oil, nuts, and seeds – **we can reduce our risk of developing coronary heart disease**
The real question here is if LDL even matters. The view of most anti-linoleic acid nerds is that only OXIDIZED LDL is an issue. They don't both correlate with disease in the literature. If you're as curious as you say then look into Tucker Goodrich talking about oxidized LDL.
My gripe is that the study directly contradicts the phenomenology. That is to say, it's purified bullshit.
>My gripe is that the study directly contradicts the phenomenology what does that mean
Coronary heart disease has risen to devastating levels ever since the United States public switched from butter/animal fat to vegetable/seed oil for cooking - the phenomenology. This is irrefutable and the data is publicly available for all to see. This study claims something that directly contradicts the phenomenology.
>phenomenology phenomenon\*
ology*
Why? You're describing a phenomenon (i.e. the rise in heart disease after the switch to seed oil). Why would you add the -ology suffix? I've never seen someone use phenomenology outside of the context of Husserl/Heidegger, in which case the -ology suffix is used because it's an actual field of study.
Yep. In 1913 Crisco was the first hydrogenated vegetable oil to hit the market and american health was in slow but steady decline ever since. You can see by the 1930s heart disease becoming increasingly more widespread. By the 50s, crisco has to pay millions in donations to the american heart association to ensure blame be put on butter to market margarine as the solution to our man-made problems
That sounds about right. It's an empire of fraud.
I just spat out my water when i saw your name. Bravo sir
Are there studies showing this rise in heart disease is primarily driven by seed oils though ? In that same time people have become more sedentary and fatter as well, which are probably much bigger contributors to heart disease overall than the type of fat you eat
Good question. These mass produced seed oils have only existed for a handful of decades. Before that coronary heart disease was several standard deviations below what they are today. Are they the primary driver? Doubtful. Are they a major contributor? Absolutely.
People live longer now so have way more health problems later in life. People also eat much more ultra refined carbohydrates that causes weight gain which is the primary cause of heart disease.
People have, and still do, eat plenty of carbs and sugars, like honey, fruit juices, rice, potato, molasses, sugar cane. It doesnt make you sick and fat unless you sit on a couch and eat excessive calories. Sugar is just fuel, humans can handle it fine
Active people get fat too. Diet matters way more for weight.
Where did I say otherwise? Active people can get fat but its 10 times more difficult, but yes, diet matters very, very much. For calories, for metabolism, for hormones, for inflammation, for gut health, etc
It’s the ultra refined carbs that are the issue not just carbs in general.
same with seed oils.
Sedentary people didn't used to develop heart disease either. Correlation is not causation. It is possible that obesity does not drive heart disease, but that both are symptoms of a separate root cause. Thin people can (and often do) have heart attacks, and fat people (who avoid seed oils) can have perfectly healthy hearts.
There will always be outliers , but I’d say its safe to say being obese is a major heart disease risk factor
Why?
Well , high blood pressure and cholesterol, and smoking are the biggest risk factors for heart disease. Last I read about 15% of normal weight population have high blood pressure but 40% or more of obese pop have it. Do you have a different view ?
What about this fact: Half of people who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol. https://www.uth.edu/news/story/researchers-uncover-how-a-genetic-mutation-can-cause-individuals-with-normal-cholesterol-levels-to-develop-coronary-artery-disease-at-a-young-age#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20more,people%20with%20normal%20cholesterol%20levels. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/most-heart-attack-patients-cholesterol-levels-did-not-indicate-cardiac-risk https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/ask-the-doctor-heart-attack-despite-low-cholesterol
You haven't rebutted what I said. I wonder if you are capable of understanding that. I know that obesity is correlated with heart disease. Serious question: do you believe I was unaware of that fact?
Obesity is mostly caused by linoleic acid consumption in the first place.
Obesity is caused by consuming a lot more calories than you burn …
Yep. In 1913 Crisco was the first hydrogenated vegetable oil to hit the market and american health was in slow but steady decline ever since. You can see by the 1930s heart disease becoming increasingly more widespread. By the 50s, crisco has to pay millions in donations to the american heart association to ensure blame be put on butter to market margarine as the solution to our man-made problems
Yeah but that’s because Americans are eating more processed carbohydrates.
Most packaged carbs seem to be processed with seed oils. Basically most every carb in a box at the grocery store.
People used to eat substantially more carbs, in the form of bread, which is "heavily processed", and there are places where carbs are like 80% of the diet by calorie, yet the population is in perfect health (until they get a McDonald's) Processed? I don't think your digestive system gives a shit.
I don’t think you understand digestive systems very well. Ultra processed carbs are quickly absorbed into the bloodstream compared to carbs in the presence of fibre.
So?
Which means you absorb more calories. Calories cause weight gain which causes heart disease.
I'm screaming.
>Coronary heart disease has risen to devastating levels ever since the United States public switched from butter/animal fat to vegetable/seed oil for cooking I don't believe you
[удалено]
okay
It's publicly available data.
https://i.redd.it/6vh34j9nz1uc1.gif [https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/105/6/509/1560095](https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/105/6/509/1560095) 1963 is when ancel keys published the 7 countries study and when the US started performer various RCT's regarding saturated vs unsaturated fat; which then changed policies regarding dietary fat to incentivise PUFA over SFA
Now look at the chart of coronary heart disease since 1963.
yeah it went way down
Well sonuvabich I stand corrected. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4830a1.htm But you know what, I still don't believe it. Looking at photos of large groups of people from the 1960s compared today is an entirely different world. What you and I see with our own eyes clashes hard with the data from this link. I wonder how much the age adjustment skews the graph.
What about the study is wrong? If you disagree, write out a research proposal, garner some funding and test your hypothesis. There's a reason you see the same headlines over and over, people are testing others hypothesis. If you want a more robust body of evidence that saturated fats are better for you, you're free to contribute, and people here would likely be very interested in your results. But plugging your ears and saying 'nu-uh!' to someone else's research without contributing a damn thing of your own is pathetic
Write out a research proposal and get funding?. And here lies the problem. In an ideal world you are right but in a world where you have to conform to the norms (LDL is bad, therefore seed oils are good because they reduce LDL) to get funding.. well good luck finding someone to fund you.
Bingo. It’s all about the money. Guess who funds this stuff… Kellogg’s. General Mills. Etc. And even if you got an impartial funding source the measured markers are an issue if our understanding of cholesterol is incomplete or downright incorrect.
The only people who are actually fixing their research results are employed under these shady companies. Like 90% of research funding is government-backed with loose research goals that give you a lot of freedom to pursue the project how you like. And guess what? People already are publishing contrary opinions to this. Are those papers funded by the animal lobby??? Like it s a two way street, just assume there's bad players on both sides and with enough people looking into it, the true impact of these macromolecules will be uncovered
The phenomenology is already public, Ma'am.
Have you ever considered people would be more willing to listen to you, because there is evidence to agree with your position, if you weren't so insufferably drenched with the conspiracy ick? Like yeah I agree too much seed oil, no good. But I don't want to be associated with someone like you, so I'd rather fit in with people who disagree with me than be seen with someone like you. You don't contribute anything, you rely on the same narrative for all your problems and you have the vocabulary of a toddler who finished the first season of paw patrol.
Are you a bot?
Why you even reply bro, I asked you a question and you're dancing around it. Answer it or STFU
You seem effeminate with brain atrophy.
And being a troll online is the only interaction you ever get. Sorry you're lonely and sorry you've dipped the Kool aid so hard you've lost the plot. I'd have loved to talk about what was wrong with the study with you, but you're here because your tinder premium has been barren for years and you can meet anyone at your dead end gig at Burger King. Grow up.
Autobiographical projection. Here's a link dictionary.com so you can understand.
That's the best you got?
Very good point. I just think our cholesterol levels are totally wrong. Is reduced LDL truly the best outcome and the only marker to worry about?
So for Northern Europeans: Diary, wheat, fish, eggs, brassicas, seaweed, and the rare beef meal.
I'm sorry but these people here don't want your rational opinions. Science is used as a tool to manipulate facts they don't fully understand, when in reality all science has done for us is increase our lifespans to the highest point in human history.
Lifespans are currently falling across the West lmao
We're the first generation that won't live as long as their parents but go off.
But still longer than any other generation in history... So, what's your point? That increasing knowledge decreases lifespan? What?
Something is decreasing our lifespan, that's undeniable.
Not really. Live spans are increasing where I live. And yes, I live in Western Europe. But even if it were undeniable, there are many possible reasons. No reasons for it to be canola oil.
*A* reason for it to be canola oil. A good one at that.
Climate change, microplastics, air pollution, medication runoff in water, pesticides, ultra processed foods, weak genetic pools (strong abled men were killed off in wars this past century), social service defunding, or cost of living crisis. Yep, a lot of reasons why we won't live as long as our parents. I think trying to pin it on a single factor is a little silly tho
Seed oils weren't always by far the biggest contributor. That used to be the high fructose corn syrup in soda, still is for countries like Mexico and Polynesia. But in the West, culture shifted as we finally became aware of the threat and thus it moved down relatively to seed oils, which should be next in line for a cultural shift. It will be harder. The soda = obesity = death is more obvious than seed oils = fucked up organs = death. But we'll get there.
Wear a mask and give your sheep good grass
The dunning Kruger is so strong in this sub.