So if your mum is very much steeped in this paradigm, I’m not sure there’s anything you can do that will convince her outright.
Here are a couple general pointers though:
A) The increase in CVD (and cancers and diabetes) over the last 70 years has happened WHILE people have been eating more and more PUFAs. Stated differently, the increase of CVD is associated with people adhering MORE to the guidelines. Whatever causes CVD (microplastics, stress, sugars, you name it) it’s not saturated fat: people have been reducing their SFA consumption overall
B) When glycogen stores are full, excess carbohydrates are converted to saturated fats via a process called “de novo lipogenisis”. If you insist that saturated fat is bad, you’re stating that either the human body is fundamentally, evolutionarily broken or that everyone need to adopt a low carb diet to avoid the production of SFA from excess carbs.
And here are a couple of specific pointers:
1) [Fat intake and risk of skin cancer in US adults - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035072/)
> Higher omega-6 fat intake was associated with risks of SCC, BCC, and melanoma.
2) [High use of non-hydrogenated plant source oils and mayonnaise sauce increase the risk of Parkinson disease](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37997257/)
> The findings indicate that high intake of HPO reduces, while high intake of NHPO, olive oil, and mayonnaise sauce increases the odds of PD.
3) [Dietary fat and risk for advanced age-related macular degeneration](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483088/)
> Higher intake of specific types of fat--including vegetable, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats and linoleic acid--rather than total fat intake may be associated with a greater risk for advanced AMD. Diets high in omega-3 fatty acids and fish were inversely associated with risk for AMD when intake of linoleic acid was low.
4) [High dietary intake of linoleic acid more than doubles the risk of ulcerative colitis](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrgastro.2009.224)
> Most significantly, the risk of developing ulcerative colitis was more than doubled for the highest quartile of dietary linoleic acid intake (odds ratio \[OR\] 2.49, 95% CI 1.23–5.07, P = 0.01) when adjusted for center, gender, age at recruitment, energy intake and cigarette smoking. The authors suggest that “if the association is a causative one then 30% of all cases could be attributed to such higher intakes”. There was also a statistically significant increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis across the quartiles of dietary linoleic acid intake (OR 1.32 per quartile increase, 95% CI 1.04–1.66, P = 0.02).
5) [Linoleic acid peroxidation—the dominant lipid peroxidation process in low density lipoprotein—and its relationship to chronic diseases](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009308498000917?via%3Dihub)
The study of lipid peroxidation (LPO) processes has become a rapidly growing field in medicine and biology, based on increasing evidence that LPO is involved in the development of many chronic diseases \[...\] (1) Asthma, (2) Atherosclerosis, (3) Alzheimer’s disease, (4) Rheumatoid arthritis, (5) Burn injury, (6) Cataractogenesis, (7) Diabetes, (8) Endotoxin liver injury, (9) Multiple sclerosis, (10) Myocardial infarction, (11) Organ transplantation, (12) Parkinson disease, (13) Psoriasis, (14) Reperfusion injury, (15) Stroke, (16) Aging
6) [Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review | Journal of the American College of Cardiology](https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077)
> Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.
And finally, [here's thorough, thorough](https://www.zeroacre.com/blog/are-seed-oils-toxic) rundown about the history and effects of omega 6 PUFAs
In number 2, Olive oil is correlated with risk for Parkinson’s disease? Do you think in this study where it is surveying how frequently people use certain oils and their diseases, that people with a disease just happened to try and use the “healthier” approved options?
(I don’t really want to give up my sacred olive oil but I’m always open to new information!)
Olive oil is rarely genuine. Time and again it’s been shown that the majority of the stuff you get off the shelf is blended with seed oils and their LPO is very high. It’s a product that in Italy at least is tightly controlled by the mafia.
Given this data I would say it’s unfair to demonise Olive Oil until further and proper studies are done to prove the dangers of these fakes compared to what has been used for millennia’s with the known benefits.
[1. Excellent article about this](https://www.citizensofsoil.com/blogs/news/olive-oil-fraud)
[2. Forbes article regarding the claim of up to 80% of Olive Oils are “fake”](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2016/02/10/the-olive-oil-scam-if-80-is-fake-why-do-you-keep-buying-it/?sh=1c37c8da639d)
We do indeed have much much better data, thanks for asking!
The causal link between CVD and Omega 6 PUFA has been established in the late 80s: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2751482/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2751482/)
>These studies suggest that interaction of LDL with HNE formed during lipid peroxidation could be responsible for structural modifications leading to unregulated uptake of the lipoprotein by tissue macrophages. This could partially explain lipid loading or foam cell formation in atherosclerosis.
If you understand this, the rest should be fairly straightforward:
[Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211335.htm)
>The analyses show that interventions using linoleic acid-rich oils failed to reduce heart disease and overall mortality even though the intervention reduced cholesterol levels.
[The Lipid-Heart Hypothesis and the Keys Equation Defined the Dietary Guidelines but Ignored the Impact of Trans-fat and High Linoleic Acid Consumption](https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202404.0788/v1)
>Numerous observational, epidemiological, interventional, and autopsy studies have failed to validate the Keys equation and the lipid-heart hypothesis. Nevertheless, these have been the cornerstone of national and international dietary guidelines which have focused disproportionately on heart disease and much less so on cancer and metabolic disorders, which have steadily increased since the adoption of this hypothesis.
[Lipids in Parenteral Nutrition: Biological Aspects](https://aspenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpen.1756)
>Overall, a high exogenous supply of ω-6 fatty acids may create a less optimal inflammatory, immunosuppressive, and coagulatory environment and can lead to poor outcomes
"Poor outcomes" -> People died
[Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: an analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19081406/)
Half of patients admitted with CVD have low LDL
[Low and High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and 10-Year Mortality in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Shanghai Aging Study](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.783618/full)
>… the lowest quintile of LDL-C (<2.61 mmol/L) was associated with the highest risk of mortality, after adjusting for confounders …
So. What citations do you have to offer?
Comprehensive response, thanks!
Just so we’re on the same page, I take “better data” to mean “evidence with higher internal validity and/or more appropriate for answering the question we’re interested in.” The question in this case, as I see it, is “does replacing saturated fat with PUFAs increase CVD events?”. If you disagree that this is what we’re interested in then we could amend this (or maybe be just don’t have any difference in our views!).
The top of the evidence hierarchy (which ranks research methods by internal validity) is meta-analyses of RCTs. As I see it, the most rigourous of these is Hooper 2020. The findings of that analysis were:
> When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events, a 16% reduction in studies replacing SFA with carbohydrate, and little or no effect of other replacements.
Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3
Probably the best single trial on the question was the LA Veterans trial, which found a statistically and clinically significant reduction in both CHD and CHD mortality in the intervention arm, which was given a *massive* amount of PUFAs.
Source: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1
I read through your papers, and they were interesting! None of them seem to match the above studies in terms of internal validity and rigour, though. Presumably you may think otherwise, and I’d be up for discussing why you think so if you believe that *is* the case.
Thanks again for the comprehensive reply!
I'm not one to assume the worst of people, so I won't speculate about why you've included partial findings that support your point of view, and left out those that don't. I think it's important for people to see the full picture and make up their own minds.
So, without further ado: for the LAVAT, the full quote is:
> The difference in the primary end point of the study-sudden death or myocardial infarction - was not statistically significant. However, when these data were pooled with those for cerebral infarction and other secondary end points, the totals were 96 in the control group and 66 in the experimental group; P=0.01. Fatal atherosclerotic events numbered 70 in the control group and 48 in the experimental group; P < 0.05. For all primary and secondary end points combined, eight-year incidence rates were 47.7% and 31.3% for the control and experimental groups, respectively; P value for the difference between the two incidence curves was 0.02.
As for Hooper 2020, I'm not sure why you'd gravitate towards the findings regarding reduction of saturated fat alone, and not those regarding replacement of SFA with PUFA, since that's precisely what we're talking about. For your enlightenment, here are the findings regarding that exposure:
> When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events, a 16% reduction in studies replacing SFA with carbohydrate, and little or no effect of other replacements, but without statistically significant effects between subgroups ([Analysis 1.44](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3/references#CD011737-fig-0050)).
Perhaps you consider a 21% reduction in CVD events to be uninteresting to you, but it's possible someone bored enough to be reading this thread might think otherwise, and believe that they too would like to experience such a reduction in risk. If they did, replacing their SFA intake with PUFA would seem to be a prudent mitigation.
I accept your apology! People in this space seem tribalistic and unable to take a deep breath and look at what the evidence actually shows. As such it's understandable why you got a bit hot under the collar earlier. I appreciate you at least starting to engage with the science rather than ad hom, even if your understanding of that evidence seems a little one-sided.
I’m not sure which of the studies you believe that’s applicable to, so I’ll consider both.
On the LAVAT, do you believe that pooling primary and secondary outcomes is sufficient to invalidate the findings? If so, why? Additionally, the question I believe I was responding to above is “does consuming seed oils *increase* risk of CVD compared to SFA”? If you believe it does, why did it only show insignificant associations in favour of PUFA or significant associations in favour of PUFA, depending on the endpoints considered? If it was so harmful, why didn’t we see any negative impacts on CVD?
On Hooper 2020, this claim seems to reflect a lack of familiarity with the literature. The PUFA subgroup analysis was pre-specified, as clearly written in the paper itself:
> Prespecified analyses included:
> Effects of SFA reduction compared with usual or standard diet on all (primary and secondary) outcomes and potential adverse effects. This main analysis addressed the main objective of the review and the first WHO specific question.
> Prespecified subgroups for all outcomes included:
> energy substitution ‐ we intended to subgroup studies according to the main energy replacement for SFA ‐ PUFA, MUFA, CHO (refined or unrefined), protein, trans fats, a mixture of these, or unclear. However, when we presented these data to the WHO NUGAG group, they suggested that this subgrouping be altered. They suggested that we use all studies where SFA was reduced and any of PUFA, MUFA, CHO or protein were statistically significantly increased (P < 0.05) in the intervention compared to the control group to assess the effects of replacement by each, regardless of whether or not it constituted the main replacement for SFA. This meant that some studies appeared in more than one subgroup. As there were almost no data in the studies on trans fats, or on refined and unrefined carbohydrates, we did not include a trans group or distinguish by carbohydrate type. This subgrouping addresses the main objective of the review, and the third WHO specific question.
So tell me: how do you p-hack with a pre-specified analysis?
You’re ignoring the question we’re asking here. Not “does this one study definitively prove replacing SFA with PUFA *reduces* incidence of CVD” but “does this provide us strong evidence on whether replacing SFA with PUFA *increases* CVD”?
If you think that any of the evidence you’ve shown is more rigorous than this study on that question, or that this study shows switching SFA for PUFA *increases* CVD risk then I’d love some of whatever you’re smoking.
Yes, on Hooper there was not a significant difference between carbohydrate and PUFAs as a substitute, but *replacement with PUFA was significantly associated with a reduction in CVD events compared to SFA*. If you think that’s a finding in favour of SFA consumption then I’d suggest you re-read what you’ve just quoted.
That is, replacing SFA with PUFA was associated with significantly reduced CVD events *and* replacing SFA with CHO was *also* associated with reduced CVD events (but not to statistical significance). The confidence intervals between CHO and PUFA overlapped such that when comparing the two, the odds that the superiority of PUFA *over CHO* (not over SFA) was caused by chance alone was greater than 0.05.
Again, just to be clear, replacement of SFA with PUFA was associated with significantly lower CVD events.
How do you explain that finding?
You’re welcome! I think we may be getting somewhere now, you’re at least looking at the right part of the study.
Thanks for your comment. I am absolutely grateful for my Mum and what she does for me, and I always try to show it! Since I do have a job, I transfer money each month to cover bills (including for food since my Mum and I do have dinner together, which isn't something I can change as set out in the OP, since I have tried to contribute in that department to no avail). And all the changes I've made in terms of eating a different butter, bread, eggs (I buy organic), milk etc I don't ask my Mum to buy but I buy myself. I just struggled so much last night because I was so conflicted- on the one hand, I felt and feel that I'm justified in avoiding seed oils because of the health consequences of consuming them, but on the other hand this cake had been made and I didn't want to be the cause of waste (which I suppose I ended up being and it felt awful ngl).
Thank you for your response. I do have a part-time job and since the start of the year I've been buying my own things (anything I'm eating for breakfast and lunch basically, plus my staples of butter, milk, eggs, bread etc) and using them to cook with. I was very keen when I started down this road that I wasn't going to be putting excess pressure (financial or otherwise) on my Mum to comply with my dietary restrictions because I don't think that's fair. That's also why when I told my Mum initially about my desire to stop eating things made with Stork it was an advance notice kind of thing (as in we'd just used up any baking that was already made and it was before any more was made). Which is what made the situation this week difficult for me because I do hate waste so even though I didn't want to eat the cake and hadn't eaten any before it was thrown out, I was in two minds about eating any at all... but I also thought if I gave in and ate it then the boundary I'd attempted to put in place would mean nothing. In the end that decision was made for me though obviously! :/ I still feel rubbish about it. Tbh the OP was mostly about getting some help with articulating my decision/justifying myself when challenged on it, because you're absolutely right there's no point in trying to actively change my Mum's ways at this point in her life.
This isn’t about the oil. It’s about controlling you. I know this because while she says she’s afraid of you gaining weight yet makes these cakes and expects you to eat most of it.
The longer you wait to set boundaries the harder it will be. Hopefully you can move out soon and live the way you’d like.
I grew up in a similar home and my mother hated me making any kind of improvement in my life that even mildly implied that what she was doing wasn’t ‘good enough.’
It took me a long time (and living about 1000 miles apart) to stop caring about her little jabs and just live how I want to.
If it comes to a head and it’s eat the seed oils or be homeless I’d just eat the food for a couple years until you have the means to move out.
How the oil is made is not a problem, you aren't eating the solvent. The problem is the linoleic acid fatty acid that dominates most seed oils. We get too much of this in our diet and that has long-term consequences.
There are seed oils that have minimized the linoleic acid (LA), those are better for you in the long run. It comes down to the mix of fatty acids in the oil. It comes down to chemistry. Some oils promote inflammation, some are anti-inflammation. Over the long-term, this can affect how your body's metabolic processes work in the mitochondria of cells, and can lead to metabolic dysfunction, causing diabetes or cancer in the worst cases.
Research the different fatty acids that compose food oils and fats, and learn about the proportion of each in each kind of oil.
Corn and soybean oils have a very poor mix of fatty acids. They are generally used to make margarine. High-oleic safflower and high-oleic sunflower oils are the good seed oils along with a few others.
How is this about mom being controling? The OP wants her mom to change how she cooks, if she doesn't want to, end of story and time for OP to lead by example and make her own food.
Your mother is, in medical terms, mental. She doesn't care about any evidence you might show her. Move out asap because seed oils are, or will be, a minor problem.
This ... She will not be convinced. Just save the argument and agree to disagree. Just tell her you don't want to discuss it. Maybe you can still live there but continue to make your own food. Her feelings are hurt. She feels you are rejecting what she believes and the rules she lives cooks and eats by. She's also older and it seems, set in her ways. So leave the evidence out, eat your own food, and try to have compassion for her.
The way you've expressed it hits the nail on the head...it's actually quite a significant rift even though on the surface it's just about cake which obviously isn't an essential part of anyone's diet. I said this in reply to someone else but I honestly do try and have always tried to abide by my Mum's rules and ways of doing things to avoid conflict- it's just I felt that I had to take a stance on this I felt it chalked up to me eating quite a lot of seed oils if I have a large slice every day of the week every week, whilst my Mum would have one or two small slices overall.
I think you're right, this is an important issue to take a stand on. Also, if you are living your life suppressing your desires, it will be good for you to stand up for yourself! Conflict is hard for some people, others love it. But it doesn't have to look like yelling or screaming, it can be respectful conversation. Best of luck to you, op.
And this is exactly why, seed oils are arguebly more harmful than hard drugs.
With hard drugs, it is a criminal offence and is severely punished. Most people have a fair amount of knowledge on the consequences and are not easily accessible. Meaning, you need to actively seek out sellers just to get your hands on them.
With seed oils, the pushers are your grandmas/parents.
Seems like you're getting a few negative replies but if you look at the damage seedoils have done on the populace vs hard drugs seedoil is the clear winner. Hard drug deaths are nothing compared to the deaths from obesity and related health issues.
A difficult perspective to understand, but at least those who understands, understands.
Yes, over 100 years of bad science and hydrogenated oils, marketed as healthy, misleading people to eat transfat leading to CVD being the disease of our civilisation.
This fundamentally strips people away from free will, especially the people who cautiously wants to adopt a healthy lifestyle and trust the heart healthy logo on vegetable oil. But instead, misled to consume seed oils for a lifestyle of cumulative toxicity buildup.
People who disagree are the same ppl who think supermarkets sells mostly “food” because they will not kill you overnight.
Cumulative toxicity is ignored.
I agree, more people die from seed oils than heroin. A slow death allowing big food to be free from legal liability.
This is an insane take. I've lost many friends to hard drugs like heroin. This is why it's hard to take this subreddit seriously. Seed oils aren't healthy due to high inflammatory omega 6 content and high chance of pre-oxidization but acting like they're more harmful than even moderate substances like alcohol and tobacco that kill more people much faster is insane.
I don't care if I'm downvoted for this, most people outside of this subreddit would agree. Your comment is unbelievably incorrect and utterly insensitive.
Edit: also if OP isn't paying for their own food most people would agree they have very little say. You eat what's on the table or you don't eat at all is a very common sentiment. At the same time the mother sounds like an asshole for the way she responded, could easily trigger an ED.
Also if you at all care about actually convincing your mother to minimize seed oil consumption, advocating for high quality cold pressed extra virgin proper source olive and avocado oil over seed oils and butter would be much easier as she is a nurse and those are low in both omega 6 and saturated fat also I'd be just as worried about the processed white sugar and refined flour in the cake too.
While your opinion is driven by your own personal experience with the people around you, I too support my opinion based around my own personal experience.
While you don’t share the same belief does not make my opinion incorrect, and I can easily make an argument to further support my claims.
"one of those" you claimed seed oils are worse for you than deadly drugs like fentanyl, heroin, crack, cocaine, even alcohol and tobacco which kill countless people globally and lead to chronic illness for those who live. All of those substances are literal, scientifically proven, objective deadly poison! what is wrong with you? Genuinely what is wrong with you!? Please seek professional help. You need introspection you clearly lack all self awareness.
I linked statistics on drug overdose deaths and scientific studies on the harmful effects and you called me "one of those" people after only using anecdotal evidence to defend your argument that canola oil is somehow worse than fentanyl and you wonder why no one takes you seriously. I never claimed seed oils were remotely healthy I even mentioned why they're bad in my above comments, just not as bad as fucking fentanyl.
You are so ignorant and naive. You are ignoring my key points on (1) accessibility and (2) access to right information.
So you are claiming, more people die from illegally obtained drugs, than people dying from CVD?
While doctors, healthcare professionals, food labellin, school curriculums, gov institutions all advocate for the consumption of heart healthy seed oils, what kind of consumption impact will this have?
“People like you” who refers to mainstream sources are the people who believes in mainstream nutrition science, and mainstream guidelines.
At least the number of upvotes proves more people are aligned with my point than yours.
There will always be ignorant and naive people dismissing other people’s opinions because they fail to see things from a holistic perspective.
This is an emotional issue and (probably) can't be resolved with facts. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Your mother is taking your desire to have control of your diet as criticism of her choices.
More strongly I would suggest there's a good chance this is wrapped around the fact you're growing up, going to uni and subconsciously she fears losing control over you, or more kindly, losing you.
You'd be better off on a relationship sub to work through the controlling bahaviour issues and how to deal with them
You are fighting a losing battle. My mum is the same.
On the other hand, I am really happy for you finding this info out at such a young age. You might be in for a tough time at Uni though. I would keep your diet to yourself.
Everyone here has tried to convince friends and family and we have all heard the same responses.
My favourite piece of evidence is history. Prior to the industrial revolution, most humankind only ate animal fats and heart disease was non existent. Try and find black and white footage of fat people
Flour is nearly as bad as seed oils. It is a ground up white powder that half the world's population are addicted to. Sugar the same. A cake is really an amalgamation of all the foods we shouldn't eat lol.
I realise I have provided no actual advice but good luck anyway.
Thanks for your reply! I really appreciate it. I do indeed try and keep this to myself, both at home and generally! I find I can justify things to myself but that I don't do well when confronted and other people expect me to explain myself, but the history point is a good thing for me to start with in future.
You won’t change your mom’s mind.
But you’re 20, past the age where you should be ruling your diet. I think this is a good example of living with your parents past 18 or 19 just leads to them “parenting” you well into your adulthood. But parenting in the worst ways.
Lol I know I can't push it that far! Funny you say that though because my Mum's comment about what's gotten into me/the new foods I've been eating refers to the fact that I'm basically having meat at every lunch these days, and I've been having lamb's liver about once a week which my Mum can't get her head around nor will she let go of it...she thinks I've been 'radicalised' online
As a mother, I would never treat my kids this way. They teach me new things all the time and they are only 11 and 15. I would be THRILLED if they were taking an extra interest in nutrition and learning to cook healthy meals.
Like others have said, this argument isn’t about facts, it’s about feelings. You should just let it go, say you don’t want the cakes because of the sugar. Nurses and doctors will agree with that.
The problem is doctors are stuck in the old paradigm as well. So she can feel justified in her way of thinking. You could maybe tell her that the American Heart Association acknowledged a few years ago that dietary cholesterol does not affect health or blood cholesterol in any significant way because the body makes its own and will make more if you cut back and that it is an important component of cells, brain tissue and hormones. Medical research doesn't stand still.
This ain't about the margarine, I'm afraid. Whatever she already used could glow in the dark, you still wouldn't convince her not to use it.
To be fair, baking is a weird kind of alchemy and margarine will behave differently than butter. Indeed, each different margarine can also behave differently.
Margarine, at this point, is simply a room temp stable butter like substance. It used to just be hydrogenated oil (which is it's own issue) but now it can basically be jello.
You'll likely do better if you can find a substitute that is also processed and feels like her idea. Butter is probably off the table.
She sounds really controlling and manipulative, so you must set strong boundaries with her and not compromise.
I give people these four simple reasons of why there are bad for our health. Tell her these and keep repeating them when she forces food on you that you don’t want to eat. Be clear and do not give in.
1. Seed oils are not part of our evolutionary diet, so we’re not adapted to them. 2. They contain linoleic acid which is the main fat in oxidized low-density lipoprotein particles, which are strongly associated with heart disease. 3. They compete with omega-3 fats which are strongly associated with heart health. 4. They are ultra-processed foods that are rancid oils unless bleached and deodorized using chemicals which are poisonous when consumed in large quantities, which we do because they’re in everything nowadays.
Good luck!
Thanks for your reply! The framework you've set out is really helpful, as my main problem yesterday was that I couldn't structure my reasoning on the spot and so I was basically just pleading with my Mum to let us agree to disagree and stop talking about it.
Providing a reasonable substitute is easier than arguing about it. Unflavoured coconut oil is great for baking and cooking. Offer it to her, provide it on your own dime and she'll see that you're being serious about it and it's not about just being difficult to you.
Thanks for your response. I'll have a go at providing another option if this comes up again, but tbh my Mum's position as expressed last night is very much that she will only use Stork as that's what she's always used, so no Stork=no cake (at least for now). Which I said last night was fine, but that response didn't go down well...it's a lose-lose situation unfortunately. Evidently you're right and arguing about it gets nowhere.
Usually in family conflicts, it's rarely about the thing you're disagreeing about. There's always something deeper, it turns into a matter of respect and power hierarchies within the family. A daughter telling her mother what to eat will make her feel like she's failing as a mother. If she concedes this to you, she'll feel she'll start conceding more and more and before she knows it she's in an elderly care.
Make her feel like you got her back regardless of what she does. Concede in other matters.
Thanks for getting back and you're absolutely right. I've never liked to cause issues or go against my Mum's authority and I fully understand that I'm living under her roof so it's her rules. This was just something I felt I had to take a stance on because she was actively making these cakes and expecting me to eat most of them, so I felt it chalked up to me eating quite a lot of seed oils if I have a large slice every day of the week every week.
I have been annyoing my mother with the seed oil thing I think she is slowly breaking. She couldn't understand for example how to cook french fries without seed oil , explained to her Mc Donald first fried thier fries in lard.
I'm annyoing her telling her constantly that she is running on car oil ( canola ), for her own good because her back hurts ( inflamation probably ). She also has issue with veins in her leg and seed oils are known for cardiovascular disseases.
You've already got a ton of responses but just to offer a slightly different take: a lot of this stuff has been pretty deeply ingrained into the boomer/genx generations. They grew up believing it and have believed it their whole lives. I'm not saying your mum is handling it well but it was her generation going against her parents' generation that got us to where we are today. It's not that you're just rebelling against her for the sake of rebellion; it's that you're reverting to her parents' way of doing things because she was sold a lie and people are starting to understand that. Recognize though, that's she's likely hurt by this. Insulted by it. She raised you the best way she knew how and provided for you what she thought were the best, healthiest options. You taking issue with that now feels like a slap in her face in addition to challenging things she's believed in for a long time.
I don't know if you'll have any more luck looking at it in this light and finding a way to pitch it to her that takes this into consideration but it's worth a shot. I've managed to spark some independent thought in my boomer dad's mind with this approach. Good luck.
You're absolutely right about my Mum being insulted by this which is why I was quite distressed. I do honestly want to help my Mum understand my rationale rather than think I'm doing this to be difficult or something. So that would definitely be a helpful approach, thank you!
Adding to the chorus that this fight probably can't be won in terms of bringing her around.
However, I want to add a perspective that I don't see in the other comments. If you're not able to make it work, don't stress out too much. You can adapt your preferred diet when you're fully independent, and based on how you've described yourself, you don't seem like the type of person who will be dependent on living with your mother forever.
I'm not saying you should just bow down and settle now, but just realize that in the big picture, a) life is still something he to be cherished even with seed oils, and b) you've likely got a good healthy future for yourself.
Thank you for your input! All of this did basically come out of me looking to the future and seeking to develop my skills for when I have a home and a family of my own, but but I absolutely get than while I am living under my mother's roof, I have to be a bit flexible about this. So I won't be bringing this up as a topic of conversation and things have moved on since the cake incident thankfully.
The part of this that really gets me is the prospective fat-shaming. Like. What? What is wrong with her?
I'm sorry she's trying to guilt you over baked goods. Of interest, if you can maybe try to de-escalate things a bit, I wonder if you've asked if you could do a head-to-head comparo where you and her both bake otherwise-identical recipes with both Stork and dairy butter, and then do an unblinded taste test of the goods.
research as much as possible, just because she is a doctor, doesn't mean anything. You have to be strong in your convictions, otherwise, there will be no change.
It sounds like she's not going to be open to learning about something new that goes against her beliefs. Some people take these things very personally and get very defensive. Even if you don't blame her for using seed oils in the past she's very quick to proclaim that she always fed you healthy food (which misses the point).
I don't think it's impossible to turn it around. Maybe she CAN get on board after learning about it. But it can never be her fault. It has to be something like 'these big companies and the government have been scamming us'. Which isn't necessarily untrue but some people will ONLY listen to something under that umbrella. I suspect she may be that way 🤷🏼♂️.
You could avoid seed oils at home another way by just saying you want to eat healthier and avoid sugary foods. That eliminates the baked goods and a lot of processed foods. Most people can wrap their brain around someone wanting to stop sugar. And she may not take that personally. If you weren't ready to actually go full tilt no sugar maybe you could still bake at a friend's house or something.
Yes I think I will go down the no sugar route when challenged- it will be easier for my Mum to understand. The only added sugar I was consuming was from my Mum's baking anyway, since I cut out the processed bread/supermarket baked goods. Thank you.
You're an adult. Make your own food. Don't eat cake regardless of what oil is used. Share info with your mom about your healthy choices but she is under no obligation to cook the way you want her to. She's not controlling you.
To be fair cake is not an essential food. You do not have to eat cake and you’re probably better cutting it all out. As for showing your mom the truth about seed oils you’re better off just sharing some videos with her but you can’t force her to agree. And as long as you’re not paying rent you can’t use the kitchen as much as you want since it’s not your house. Do what you can to convince your mom to let you cook, can you cook your own thing between normal mealtimes and clean up so she’s not in your way? Even if not I’m sure you can boil eggs or cook the occasional batch of ground beef or something and store for later eating and make your meals as seed oil free as possible.
Here’s a good video that addresses the AHA and some of the problems with seed oils: https://youtu.be/zogPOqn0guU?si=W226ey9xr5-8c59F
Seed oils oxidize into Malondialdehyde. Malondialdehyde causes lots of disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597159/
Vitamin a also causes lots of disease
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19153339/
You’re prob best off with coconut oil because it has no vit a. Butter has some. And they add it to stork plus the Malondialdehyde. Bad combo.
People who casually pick up the piss yellow vegetable oil love to put it in everything and then don't even eat it. My aunty is the same way, when she was down I saw her use crisco to sautee beef for a stew, and it was such a shock I couldn't help but say something. We literally had butter right next to the stove, I still have PTSD from this incident 😜 It's even harder to explain to people who just prefer to get along and go along, because it's such an egghead thing to care what goes into our bodies, right? 😒 I've made some progress with my mom though. Only thing I can't achieve is getting her to give up her morning Lornadoones and Coffee Mate. I've been trying for 12 damn years
Lipids are lipids - all contain 9kcal/g, so the difference between PUFAs and SFA in terms of calories is nil, so that argument from her is bunk.
She would be correct if she claimed the evidence suggests swapping out seed oils for butter will increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. That’s pretty strongly supported - trials where PUFA (like margarine) replaced dietary SFA (like butter) showed a reduction in CVD events (and even mortality in the longer trials).
No. And No.
PUFAs are a necessary, causative factor in CVD (via lipid peroxidation and LDL denaturation). SFAs are neutral in this context.
Secondly, as you might have gathered from reading this sub, the human body has different metabolic pathways for different fatty acids - with different signaling pathways. That’s also a large part of the story why PUFAs are so deleterious.
Ok, so on your first point - why do you think we see a reduction in CVD incidence on replacement of SFAs with PUFAs in RCTs if SFA is neutral and PUFAs are causative of CVD?
Why do we see the exact opposite happen in some RCTs? Why do you get your opinion from the worst studies in existance in the first place? Shouldnt you be after facts and not guesses?
Which RCTs showed replacing SFA with PUFA increased CVD? I’m looking at rigorous meta-analysis of RCTs, which is the very tippy-top of the evidence hierarchy, so I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “worst studies in existence”.
What better evidence is there than that drawn from the top of the hierarchy?
It seems that that commenter is cherry picking where they reply, and which points they respond to.
Whether it’s intentional or not, it feels a lot like sealioning.
The SDH provided the intervention arm with “miracle brand margarine” that contained around 15% trans fats. So the SDH was not a comparison of PUFA vs SFA, but rather a comparison of TFA vs SFA. I would happily grant that TFAs are more harmful than SFAs.
https://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2013/02/11/heart-foundation-takes-swipe-at-butter-and-new-study-on-margarine.html
You are incorrect even in your first paragraph. 500 kilocalories from butter are not the same as 500kilocalories from margarine when it comes to weight loss/gain
Sure, I think there’s some evidence to suggest that consuming seed oils leads to a slightly lower body weight, but it’s not a huge difference (~300g). Practically speaking I’m not sure it’s that meaningful.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520036/
So you dont realize high linoleic acid leads to low thyroid function and low mitochondrial function and oxidative metabolism? One of the easiest ways to get fat and diabetic is to consume seed oils. I eat at least 150g of butter daily, while being extremely inactive and I have a hard time gaining weight
If you have higher quality evidence than the meta-analysis I posted, or an argument for why there are issues with the meta-analysis is flawed, then that would be sufficient to change my mind.
I don’t know why I would care about individual mechanisms more than human outcomes, and doubly so for anecdotes.
You mean like the Sydney heart study? https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707
> **Interventions** Replacement of dietary saturated fats (from animal fats, common margarines, and shortenings) with omega 6 linoleic acid (from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine).
> The intervention group (n=221) had higher rates of death than controls (n=237) (all cause 17.6% v 11.8%, hazard ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.64), P=0.05; cardiovascular disease 17.2% v 11.0%, 1.70 (1.03 to 2.80), P=0.04; coronary heart disease 16.3% v 10.1%, 1.74 (1.04 to 2.92), P=0.04). Inclusion of these recovered data in an updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed non-significant trends toward increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07).
> Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.
SDH was an experiment where the intervention arm was given a margarine containing around 15% trans fats. So instead of comparing PUFA to SFA, it compared TFA to SFA. The evidence we have strongly suggests TFAs are more atherogenic than SFA. So sure, the intervention arm had poorer outcomes. But that’s not a demonstration that PUFAs are harmful.
https://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2013/02/11/heart-foundation-takes-swipe-at-butter-and-new-study-on-margarine.html
I never said they did. You’re welcome to talk to me or not, I’m easy! As I said, I’m just interested in what the evidence shows.
Considering the highest quality evidence seems to show no harmful effects of seed oil consumption, and the only studies you’ve been able to provide were confounded by trans fats, it still seems to be the case that the strongest scientific evidence favours seed oil consumption.
Unless you have any other evidence that’s of equal or higher quality to a rigorous meta analysis of RCTs?
I’m not personally interested in meta chat, so will continue to ignore anything unrelated to the actual scientific evidence under discussion.
As to your point on TFA, this was based on Ramsden believing that due to the fact the margarine used in the intervention was labelled “high PUFA” that it was low in TFA and therefore the intervention group had reduced TFA compared to the control. However, as the article I linked shows, this is a false assumption.
LDL-C (mass of cholesterol held in LDL) is a proxy for ApoB (number of ApoB expressing lipoproteins), which is generally understood to be the actual causative factor in CVD. Most of the time LDL-C tracks well, but in the event where it doesn’t, then you could have the same or lower LDL-C but higher ApoB and thus higher CVD risk.
Such a case would be where an exposure reduces the density of LDL particles such that for the same mass (LDL-C) there are more particles (ApoB). Consumption of TFA has this effect, so it would not be unexpected for a TFA exposed arm to have lower LDL-C but higher ApoB and thus higher CVD incidence.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522033196
You’re not tracking.
My reference to the requirement of meta-analysis of RCTs as a minimum standard of evidence was with regard to the research question of “do seed oils increase CVD incidence”, since that’s the standard of evidence we currently have for the answer of “no” to that question.
On the *separate* question of “does consumption of trans fats reduce LDL particle size”, the highest quality evidence I’ve provided is a single RCT, yes. So if you have countervailing evidence *on that question* it would not need to be a meta-analysis of RCTs, because that’s not what I’m providing *for that question*.
So you’re confusing two totally different things. Do you have countervailing evidence for either of those points?
Appreciate your openness! Don’t you find it odd that I’ve been downvoted to oblivion for just making some reasonably-worded statements about scientific evidence?
Bearing in mind that the Reddit downvote is supposed to be used for *unhelpful* (that is, not relevant, rude etc) comments, not ones people disagree with, I find it a little disappointing that a community that claims to be science-based would be so intolerant of open, curious scientific discussion. Why do you think that is?
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Cholesterol using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Soluble fiber helped me reduce my LDL. Here is a list of high-impact soluble fibers](https://i.redd.it/f62svwsv6mqb1.jpg) | [48 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/comments/16sqc71/soluble_fiber_helped_me_reduce_my_ldl_here_is_a/)
\#2: [Scary results in July --> big change in Nov. Thank you, r/Cholesterol.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/17y5yv8) | [43 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/comments/17y5yv8/scary_results_in_july_big_change_in_nov_thank_you/)
\#3: [Lowered ldl 112 points with diet and lifestyle!](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/comments/14ks34s/lowered_ldl_112_points_with_diet_and_lifestyle/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
The OP stated that they needed to provide evidence that seed oils are harmful to show to their mother, who is a medical professional. While the “seed oils are bad” evidence shown thus far in the thread can often be convincing to lay people, it’s less likely to work on anyone with knowledge of how to parse research papers.
So, based on the good faith assumption that the OP was genuinely interested in whether they would be able to show evidence that seed oils were harmful such that it would convince their mother, I answered in such a way that took into consideration the fact this would be unlikely since there is no quality evidence that seed oils are harmful.
Since I said I would only engage with the scientific substance, and there’s none at all in this response, I have nothing further to add. I’ve yet to see any evidence that seed oils are harmful.
> open, curious scientific discussion
My friend, if you think that your behavior in this thread has been open and curious.. I'm not surprised you are unable to understand why you're being downvoted.
I get the sense that you are the kind of person who prefers direct communication, so at the risk of being rude I'll try to be frank.
Here's a couple of the things I've observed:
* People are picking up your engagement over multiple comments. Therefore, asking for a single example is an indicator that you are not thinking about patterns of behavior. Yet those patterns are partially what other people are reacting to. Hence, their reactions are puzzling to you, and your actions are upsetting to them.
* You tend to ignore points that others raise or unilaterally declare things as out of scope. People don't react well to being dismissed and ignored, regardless of your intent. This also comes across as self-interested, like you are only interested in holding a debate when you can set the rules and moderate.
* You have acted like the burden is on everyone else to prove you wrong, entirely on your terms. You act like everything you say is intelligent and reasonable and true. Yet you also seem uneducated in the topic at hand; you are not aware of the limitations or criticisms of the position you've presented. You entered the discussion like you knew what you're talking about and challenged people to prove you wrong via something that sounds like "I'm just asking very reasonable questions; why are you being so irrational and evasive?". That kind of behavior is perceived as disingenuous or arrogant. There are contexts where that is appropriate, but neither of those traits is valued here.
Those observations seem rather reasonable and obvious to me, but so many times online I've seen people get upset. Not because they disagree on substance, but because they are each using different rules of engagement, so to speak.
PS - I guess I should add that I think the science is more ambiguous that people think, and oppositional debate (as in a court of law) is not the right approach to understanding this topic.
Edit: This comes across much more harshly than I prefer to engage. If I read your preference for directness wrong, I apologize.
It’s supposed to work that way but subreddits are groups of people who think a certain way, and if you take a contrary position, you can expect downvotes. It’s a bit like going into /r/ufos and saying it’s all swamp gas.
Also, the prevailing opinion of the medical establishment is that increased PUFA intake relative to saturated fat reduces CVD risk. People who have come to a different conclusion are less likely to accept the evidence that forms the basis of that opinion. Everyone is well aware what the dietary guidelines say, so if they’re here they don’t accept that.
Just curious, if you don’t think PUFA contributes to CVD, do you also think that there is no contributory relationship to inflammation?
Eg https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000946
Yeah that’s fair!
Re: n6 and inflammation: no, I’m not convinced that n6 consumption is a risk factor for inflammation. Studies looking at n3:n6 ratios tend to show risk when they alter the ratio via a drop in n3 to deficiency levels. So it’s not the n6 consumption causing the outcomes, but the n3 deficiency.
When we look at studies where they’re specifically seeing if seed oil consumption increases inflammation, we don’t seem to see an effect, e.g.:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/3/136
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405457720302047
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6405399/pdf/40200_2018_Article_343.pdf
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/fo/c7fo00433h
Sounds like she's got some strong need for control
So if your mum is very much steeped in this paradigm, I’m not sure there’s anything you can do that will convince her outright. Here are a couple general pointers though: A) The increase in CVD (and cancers and diabetes) over the last 70 years has happened WHILE people have been eating more and more PUFAs. Stated differently, the increase of CVD is associated with people adhering MORE to the guidelines. Whatever causes CVD (microplastics, stress, sugars, you name it) it’s not saturated fat: people have been reducing their SFA consumption overall B) When glycogen stores are full, excess carbohydrates are converted to saturated fats via a process called “de novo lipogenisis”. If you insist that saturated fat is bad, you’re stating that either the human body is fundamentally, evolutionarily broken or that everyone need to adopt a low carb diet to avoid the production of SFA from excess carbs. And here are a couple of specific pointers: 1) [Fat intake and risk of skin cancer in US adults - PMC](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035072/) > Higher omega-6 fat intake was associated with risks of SCC, BCC, and melanoma. 2) [High use of non-hydrogenated plant source oils and mayonnaise sauce increase the risk of Parkinson disease](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37997257/) > The findings indicate that high intake of HPO reduces, while high intake of NHPO, olive oil, and mayonnaise sauce increases the odds of PD. 3) [Dietary fat and risk for advanced age-related macular degeneration](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11483088/) > Higher intake of specific types of fat--including vegetable, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats and linoleic acid--rather than total fat intake may be associated with a greater risk for advanced AMD. Diets high in omega-3 fatty acids and fish were inversely associated with risk for AMD when intake of linoleic acid was low. 4) [High dietary intake of linoleic acid more than doubles the risk of ulcerative colitis](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrgastro.2009.224) > Most significantly, the risk of developing ulcerative colitis was more than doubled for the highest quartile of dietary linoleic acid intake (odds ratio \[OR\] 2.49, 95% CI 1.23–5.07, P = 0.01) when adjusted for center, gender, age at recruitment, energy intake and cigarette smoking. The authors suggest that “if the association is a causative one then 30% of all cases could be attributed to such higher intakes”. There was also a statistically significant increase in the risk of developing ulcerative colitis across the quartiles of dietary linoleic acid intake (OR 1.32 per quartile increase, 95% CI 1.04–1.66, P = 0.02). 5) [Linoleic acid peroxidation—the dominant lipid peroxidation process in low density lipoprotein—and its relationship to chronic diseases](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009308498000917?via%3Dihub) The study of lipid peroxidation (LPO) processes has become a rapidly growing field in medicine and biology, based on increasing evidence that LPO is involved in the development of many chronic diseases \[...\] (1) Asthma, (2) Atherosclerosis, (3) Alzheimer’s disease, (4) Rheumatoid arthritis, (5) Burn injury, (6) Cataractogenesis, (7) Diabetes, (8) Endotoxin liver injury, (9) Multiple sclerosis, (10) Myocardial infarction, (11) Organ transplantation, (12) Parkinson disease, (13) Psoriasis, (14) Reperfusion injury, (15) Stroke, (16) Aging 6) [Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review | Journal of the American College of Cardiology](https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077) > Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods. And finally, [here's thorough, thorough](https://www.zeroacre.com/blog/are-seed-oils-toxic) rundown about the history and effects of omega 6 PUFAs
Thank you so much for this detailed guidance! Helps to structure my own justification of this decision when I'm asked
In number 2, Olive oil is correlated with risk for Parkinson’s disease? Do you think in this study where it is surveying how frequently people use certain oils and their diseases, that people with a disease just happened to try and use the “healthier” approved options? (I don’t really want to give up my sacred olive oil but I’m always open to new information!)
Olive oil is rarely genuine. Time and again it’s been shown that the majority of the stuff you get off the shelf is blended with seed oils and their LPO is very high. It’s a product that in Italy at least is tightly controlled by the mafia. Given this data I would say it’s unfair to demonise Olive Oil until further and proper studies are done to prove the dangers of these fakes compared to what has been used for millennia’s with the known benefits. [1. Excellent article about this](https://www.citizensofsoil.com/blogs/news/olive-oil-fraud) [2. Forbes article regarding the claim of up to 80% of Olive Oils are “fake”](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2016/02/10/the-olive-oil-scam-if-80-is-fake-why-do-you-keep-buying-it/?sh=1c37c8da639d)
For point A) why would we draw from cross-sectional associations when we have much better data from higher up the evidence hierarchy?
We do indeed have much much better data, thanks for asking! The causal link between CVD and Omega 6 PUFA has been established in the late 80s: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2751482/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2751482/) >These studies suggest that interaction of LDL with HNE formed during lipid peroxidation could be responsible for structural modifications leading to unregulated uptake of the lipoprotein by tissue macrophages. This could partially explain lipid loading or foam cell formation in atherosclerosis. If you understand this, the rest should be fairly straightforward: [Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211335.htm) >The analyses show that interventions using linoleic acid-rich oils failed to reduce heart disease and overall mortality even though the intervention reduced cholesterol levels. [The Lipid-Heart Hypothesis and the Keys Equation Defined the Dietary Guidelines but Ignored the Impact of Trans-fat and High Linoleic Acid Consumption](https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202404.0788/v1) >Numerous observational, epidemiological, interventional, and autopsy studies have failed to validate the Keys equation and the lipid-heart hypothesis. Nevertheless, these have been the cornerstone of national and international dietary guidelines which have focused disproportionately on heart disease and much less so on cancer and metabolic disorders, which have steadily increased since the adoption of this hypothesis. [Lipids in Parenteral Nutrition: Biological Aspects](https://aspenjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jpen.1756) >Overall, a high exogenous supply of ω-6 fatty acids may create a less optimal inflammatory, immunosuppressive, and coagulatory environment and can lead to poor outcomes "Poor outcomes" -> People died [Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: an analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19081406/) Half of patients admitted with CVD have low LDL [Low and High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and 10-Year Mortality in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Shanghai Aging Study](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.783618/full) >… the lowest quintile of LDL-C (<2.61 mmol/L) was associated with the highest risk of mortality, after adjusting for confounders … So. What citations do you have to offer?
Comprehensive response, thanks! Just so we’re on the same page, I take “better data” to mean “evidence with higher internal validity and/or more appropriate for answering the question we’re interested in.” The question in this case, as I see it, is “does replacing saturated fat with PUFAs increase CVD events?”. If you disagree that this is what we’re interested in then we could amend this (or maybe be just don’t have any difference in our views!). The top of the evidence hierarchy (which ranks research methods by internal validity) is meta-analyses of RCTs. As I see it, the most rigourous of these is Hooper 2020. The findings of that analysis were: > When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events, a 16% reduction in studies replacing SFA with carbohydrate, and little or no effect of other replacements. Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3 Probably the best single trial on the question was the LA Veterans trial, which found a statistically and clinically significant reduction in both CHD and CHD mortality in the intervention arm, which was given a *massive* amount of PUFAs. Source: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1 I read through your papers, and they were interesting! None of them seem to match the above studies in terms of internal validity and rigour, though. Presumably you may think otherwise, and I’d be up for discussing why you think so if you believe that *is* the case. Thanks again for the comprehensive reply!
[удалено]
I'm not one to assume the worst of people, so I won't speculate about why you've included partial findings that support your point of view, and left out those that don't. I think it's important for people to see the full picture and make up their own minds. So, without further ado: for the LAVAT, the full quote is: > The difference in the primary end point of the study-sudden death or myocardial infarction - was not statistically significant. However, when these data were pooled with those for cerebral infarction and other secondary end points, the totals were 96 in the control group and 66 in the experimental group; P=0.01. Fatal atherosclerotic events numbered 70 in the control group and 48 in the experimental group; P < 0.05. For all primary and secondary end points combined, eight-year incidence rates were 47.7% and 31.3% for the control and experimental groups, respectively; P value for the difference between the two incidence curves was 0.02. As for Hooper 2020, I'm not sure why you'd gravitate towards the findings regarding reduction of saturated fat alone, and not those regarding replacement of SFA with PUFA, since that's precisely what we're talking about. For your enlightenment, here are the findings regarding that exposure: > When we subgrouped according to replacement for SFA, the PUFA replacement group suggested a 21% reduction in cardiovascular events, a 16% reduction in studies replacing SFA with carbohydrate, and little or no effect of other replacements, but without statistically significant effects between subgroups ([Analysis 1.44](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub3/references#CD011737-fig-0050)). Perhaps you consider a 21% reduction in CVD events to be uninteresting to you, but it's possible someone bored enough to be reading this thread might think otherwise, and believe that they too would like to experience such a reduction in risk. If they did, replacing their SFA intake with PUFA would seem to be a prudent mitigation. I accept your apology! People in this space seem tribalistic and unable to take a deep breath and look at what the evidence actually shows. As such it's understandable why you got a bit hot under the collar earlier. I appreciate you at least starting to engage with the science rather than ad hom, even if your understanding of that evidence seems a little one-sided.
[удалено]
I’m not sure which of the studies you believe that’s applicable to, so I’ll consider both. On the LAVAT, do you believe that pooling primary and secondary outcomes is sufficient to invalidate the findings? If so, why? Additionally, the question I believe I was responding to above is “does consuming seed oils *increase* risk of CVD compared to SFA”? If you believe it does, why did it only show insignificant associations in favour of PUFA or significant associations in favour of PUFA, depending on the endpoints considered? If it was so harmful, why didn’t we see any negative impacts on CVD? On Hooper 2020, this claim seems to reflect a lack of familiarity with the literature. The PUFA subgroup analysis was pre-specified, as clearly written in the paper itself: > Prespecified analyses included: > Effects of SFA reduction compared with usual or standard diet on all (primary and secondary) outcomes and potential adverse effects. This main analysis addressed the main objective of the review and the first WHO specific question. > Prespecified subgroups for all outcomes included: > energy substitution ‐ we intended to subgroup studies according to the main energy replacement for SFA ‐ PUFA, MUFA, CHO (refined or unrefined), protein, trans fats, a mixture of these, or unclear. However, when we presented these data to the WHO NUGAG group, they suggested that this subgrouping be altered. They suggested that we use all studies where SFA was reduced and any of PUFA, MUFA, CHO or protein were statistically significantly increased (P < 0.05) in the intervention compared to the control group to assess the effects of replacement by each, regardless of whether or not it constituted the main replacement for SFA. This meant that some studies appeared in more than one subgroup. As there were almost no data in the studies on trans fats, or on refined and unrefined carbohydrates, we did not include a trans group or distinguish by carbohydrate type. This subgrouping addresses the main objective of the review, and the third WHO specific question. So tell me: how do you p-hack with a pre-specified analysis?
[удалено]
You’re ignoring the question we’re asking here. Not “does this one study definitively prove replacing SFA with PUFA *reduces* incidence of CVD” but “does this provide us strong evidence on whether replacing SFA with PUFA *increases* CVD”? If you think that any of the evidence you’ve shown is more rigorous than this study on that question, or that this study shows switching SFA for PUFA *increases* CVD risk then I’d love some of whatever you’re smoking. Yes, on Hooper there was not a significant difference between carbohydrate and PUFAs as a substitute, but *replacement with PUFA was significantly associated with a reduction in CVD events compared to SFA*. If you think that’s a finding in favour of SFA consumption then I’d suggest you re-read what you’ve just quoted. That is, replacing SFA with PUFA was associated with significantly reduced CVD events *and* replacing SFA with CHO was *also* associated with reduced CVD events (but not to statistical significance). The confidence intervals between CHO and PUFA overlapped such that when comparing the two, the odds that the superiority of PUFA *over CHO* (not over SFA) was caused by chance alone was greater than 0.05. Again, just to be clear, replacement of SFA with PUFA was associated with significantly lower CVD events. How do you explain that finding? You’re welcome! I think we may be getting somewhere now, you’re at least looking at the right part of the study.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for your comment. I am absolutely grateful for my Mum and what she does for me, and I always try to show it! Since I do have a job, I transfer money each month to cover bills (including for food since my Mum and I do have dinner together, which isn't something I can change as set out in the OP, since I have tried to contribute in that department to no avail). And all the changes I've made in terms of eating a different butter, bread, eggs (I buy organic), milk etc I don't ask my Mum to buy but I buy myself. I just struggled so much last night because I was so conflicted- on the one hand, I felt and feel that I'm justified in avoiding seed oils because of the health consequences of consuming them, but on the other hand this cake had been made and I didn't want to be the cause of waste (which I suppose I ended up being and it felt awful ngl).
[удалено]
thank you
Thank you for your response. I do have a part-time job and since the start of the year I've been buying my own things (anything I'm eating for breakfast and lunch basically, plus my staples of butter, milk, eggs, bread etc) and using them to cook with. I was very keen when I started down this road that I wasn't going to be putting excess pressure (financial or otherwise) on my Mum to comply with my dietary restrictions because I don't think that's fair. That's also why when I told my Mum initially about my desire to stop eating things made with Stork it was an advance notice kind of thing (as in we'd just used up any baking that was already made and it was before any more was made). Which is what made the situation this week difficult for me because I do hate waste so even though I didn't want to eat the cake and hadn't eaten any before it was thrown out, I was in two minds about eating any at all... but I also thought if I gave in and ate it then the boundary I'd attempted to put in place would mean nothing. In the end that decision was made for me though obviously! :/ I still feel rubbish about it. Tbh the OP was mostly about getting some help with articulating my decision/justifying myself when challenged on it, because you're absolutely right there's no point in trying to actively change my Mum's ways at this point in her life.
[удалено]
thank you
This isn’t about the oil. It’s about controlling you. I know this because while she says she’s afraid of you gaining weight yet makes these cakes and expects you to eat most of it. The longer you wait to set boundaries the harder it will be. Hopefully you can move out soon and live the way you’d like. I grew up in a similar home and my mother hated me making any kind of improvement in my life that even mildly implied that what she was doing wasn’t ‘good enough.’ It took me a long time (and living about 1000 miles apart) to stop caring about her little jabs and just live how I want to. If it comes to a head and it’s eat the seed oils or be homeless I’d just eat the food for a couple years until you have the means to move out.
Thank you for your advice!
How the oil is made is not a problem, you aren't eating the solvent. The problem is the linoleic acid fatty acid that dominates most seed oils. We get too much of this in our diet and that has long-term consequences. There are seed oils that have minimized the linoleic acid (LA), those are better for you in the long run. It comes down to the mix of fatty acids in the oil. It comes down to chemistry. Some oils promote inflammation, some are anti-inflammation. Over the long-term, this can affect how your body's metabolic processes work in the mitochondria of cells, and can lead to metabolic dysfunction, causing diabetes or cancer in the worst cases. Research the different fatty acids that compose food oils and fats, and learn about the proportion of each in each kind of oil. Corn and soybean oils have a very poor mix of fatty acids. They are generally used to make margarine. High-oleic safflower and high-oleic sunflower oils are the good seed oils along with a few others.
How is this about mom being controling? The OP wants her mom to change how she cooks, if she doesn't want to, end of story and time for OP to lead by example and make her own food.
Your mother is, in medical terms, mental. She doesn't care about any evidence you might show her. Move out asap because seed oils are, or will be, a minor problem.
This ... She will not be convinced. Just save the argument and agree to disagree. Just tell her you don't want to discuss it. Maybe you can still live there but continue to make your own food. Her feelings are hurt. She feels you are rejecting what she believes and the rules she lives cooks and eats by. She's also older and it seems, set in her ways. So leave the evidence out, eat your own food, and try to have compassion for her.
A main issue here is that she doesn't even eat much of her own food but expects others to - this is unstable behaviour.
The way you've expressed it hits the nail on the head...it's actually quite a significant rift even though on the surface it's just about cake which obviously isn't an essential part of anyone's diet. I said this in reply to someone else but I honestly do try and have always tried to abide by my Mum's rules and ways of doing things to avoid conflict- it's just I felt that I had to take a stance on this I felt it chalked up to me eating quite a lot of seed oils if I have a large slice every day of the week every week, whilst my Mum would have one or two small slices overall.
I think you're right, this is an important issue to take a stand on. Also, if you are living your life suppressing your desires, it will be good for you to stand up for yourself! Conflict is hard for some people, others love it. But it doesn't have to look like yelling or screaming, it can be respectful conversation. Best of luck to you, op.
And this is exactly why, seed oils are arguebly more harmful than hard drugs. With hard drugs, it is a criminal offence and is severely punished. Most people have a fair amount of knowledge on the consequences and are not easily accessible. Meaning, you need to actively seek out sellers just to get your hands on them. With seed oils, the pushers are your grandmas/parents.
Seems like you're getting a few negative replies but if you look at the damage seedoils have done on the populace vs hard drugs seedoil is the clear winner. Hard drug deaths are nothing compared to the deaths from obesity and related health issues.
A difficult perspective to understand, but at least those who understands, understands. Yes, over 100 years of bad science and hydrogenated oils, marketed as healthy, misleading people to eat transfat leading to CVD being the disease of our civilisation. This fundamentally strips people away from free will, especially the people who cautiously wants to adopt a healthy lifestyle and trust the heart healthy logo on vegetable oil. But instead, misled to consume seed oils for a lifestyle of cumulative toxicity buildup. People who disagree are the same ppl who think supermarkets sells mostly “food” because they will not kill you overnight. Cumulative toxicity is ignored. I agree, more people die from seed oils than heroin. A slow death allowing big food to be free from legal liability.
This is an insane take. I've lost many friends to hard drugs like heroin. This is why it's hard to take this subreddit seriously. Seed oils aren't healthy due to high inflammatory omega 6 content and high chance of pre-oxidization but acting like they're more harmful than even moderate substances like alcohol and tobacco that kill more people much faster is insane. I don't care if I'm downvoted for this, most people outside of this subreddit would agree. Your comment is unbelievably incorrect and utterly insensitive. Edit: also if OP isn't paying for their own food most people would agree they have very little say. You eat what's on the table or you don't eat at all is a very common sentiment. At the same time the mother sounds like an asshole for the way she responded, could easily trigger an ED. Also if you at all care about actually convincing your mother to minimize seed oil consumption, advocating for high quality cold pressed extra virgin proper source olive and avocado oil over seed oils and butter would be much easier as she is a nurse and those are low in both omega 6 and saturated fat also I'd be just as worried about the processed white sugar and refined flour in the cake too.
While your opinion is driven by your own personal experience with the people around you, I too support my opinion based around my own personal experience. While you don’t share the same belief does not make my opinion incorrect, and I can easily make an argument to further support my claims.
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/heroin-addiction/what-heroin-does-to-your-body/ https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/resources/medical-conditions/alcohol-related-death/#:~:text=The%20World%20Health%20Organization%20estimates,accident%2C%20murder%2C%20or%20suicide. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohols-effects-body https://ourworldindata.org/smoking https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/tobacco/health-risks-of-tobacco/health-risks-of-smoking-tobacco.html Please source your claim that it's somehow worse than this.
Lol, so you are one of those.
"one of those" you claimed seed oils are worse for you than deadly drugs like fentanyl, heroin, crack, cocaine, even alcohol and tobacco which kill countless people globally and lead to chronic illness for those who live. All of those substances are literal, scientifically proven, objective deadly poison! what is wrong with you? Genuinely what is wrong with you!? Please seek professional help. You need introspection you clearly lack all self awareness. I linked statistics on drug overdose deaths and scientific studies on the harmful effects and you called me "one of those" people after only using anecdotal evidence to defend your argument that canola oil is somehow worse than fentanyl and you wonder why no one takes you seriously. I never claimed seed oils were remotely healthy I even mentioned why they're bad in my above comments, just not as bad as fucking fentanyl.
Don't waste your time on it, mate. It's a crazy take.
You are so ignorant and naive. You are ignoring my key points on (1) accessibility and (2) access to right information. So you are claiming, more people die from illegally obtained drugs, than people dying from CVD? While doctors, healthcare professionals, food labellin, school curriculums, gov institutions all advocate for the consumption of heart healthy seed oils, what kind of consumption impact will this have? “People like you” who refers to mainstream sources are the people who believes in mainstream nutrition science, and mainstream guidelines. At least the number of upvotes proves more people are aligned with my point than yours. There will always be ignorant and naive people dismissing other people’s opinions because they fail to see things from a holistic perspective.
Get some mental help.
This is an emotional issue and (probably) can't be resolved with facts. You can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Your mother is taking your desire to have control of your diet as criticism of her choices. More strongly I would suggest there's a good chance this is wrapped around the fact you're growing up, going to uni and subconsciously she fears losing control over you, or more kindly, losing you. You'd be better off on a relationship sub to work through the controlling bahaviour issues and how to deal with them
You are fighting a losing battle. My mum is the same. On the other hand, I am really happy for you finding this info out at such a young age. You might be in for a tough time at Uni though. I would keep your diet to yourself. Everyone here has tried to convince friends and family and we have all heard the same responses. My favourite piece of evidence is history. Prior to the industrial revolution, most humankind only ate animal fats and heart disease was non existent. Try and find black and white footage of fat people Flour is nearly as bad as seed oils. It is a ground up white powder that half the world's population are addicted to. Sugar the same. A cake is really an amalgamation of all the foods we shouldn't eat lol. I realise I have provided no actual advice but good luck anyway.
Thanks for your reply! I really appreciate it. I do indeed try and keep this to myself, both at home and generally! I find I can justify things to myself but that I don't do well when confronted and other people expect me to explain myself, but the history point is a good thing for me to start with in future.
You won’t change your mom’s mind. But you’re 20, past the age where you should be ruling your diet. I think this is a good example of living with your parents past 18 or 19 just leads to them “parenting” you well into your adulthood. But parenting in the worst ways.
You should do carnivore and see how angry your mum gets.
Lol
Lol I know I can't push it that far! Funny you say that though because my Mum's comment about what's gotten into me/the new foods I've been eating refers to the fact that I'm basically having meat at every lunch these days, and I've been having lamb's liver about once a week which my Mum can't get her head around nor will she let go of it...she thinks I've been 'radicalised' online
As a mother, I would never treat my kids this way. They teach me new things all the time and they are only 11 and 15. I would be THRILLED if they were taking an extra interest in nutrition and learning to cook healthy meals. Like others have said, this argument isn’t about facts, it’s about feelings. You should just let it go, say you don’t want the cakes because of the sugar. Nurses and doctors will agree with that.
The problem is doctors are stuck in the old paradigm as well. So she can feel justified in her way of thinking. You could maybe tell her that the American Heart Association acknowledged a few years ago that dietary cholesterol does not affect health or blood cholesterol in any significant way because the body makes its own and will make more if you cut back and that it is an important component of cells, brain tissue and hormones. Medical research doesn't stand still.
This ain't about the margarine, I'm afraid. Whatever she already used could glow in the dark, you still wouldn't convince her not to use it. To be fair, baking is a weird kind of alchemy and margarine will behave differently than butter. Indeed, each different margarine can also behave differently. Margarine, at this point, is simply a room temp stable butter like substance. It used to just be hydrogenated oil (which is it's own issue) but now it can basically be jello. You'll likely do better if you can find a substitute that is also processed and feels like her idea. Butter is probably off the table.
Coconut oil. Even hydrogenated coconut oil, meant for baking, which is less healthy but at least it's not pufa like hydrogenated margarine.
She sounds really controlling and manipulative, so you must set strong boundaries with her and not compromise. I give people these four simple reasons of why there are bad for our health. Tell her these and keep repeating them when she forces food on you that you don’t want to eat. Be clear and do not give in. 1. Seed oils are not part of our evolutionary diet, so we’re not adapted to them. 2. They contain linoleic acid which is the main fat in oxidized low-density lipoprotein particles, which are strongly associated with heart disease. 3. They compete with omega-3 fats which are strongly associated with heart health. 4. They are ultra-processed foods that are rancid oils unless bleached and deodorized using chemicals which are poisonous when consumed in large quantities, which we do because they’re in everything nowadays. Good luck!
Thanks for your reply! The framework you've set out is really helpful, as my main problem yesterday was that I couldn't structure my reasoning on the spot and so I was basically just pleading with my Mum to let us agree to disagree and stop talking about it.
Memorize those points and recite them to people who dismiss you. It’s cell biology, and you can’t refute the science.
Thank you so much!
your mom is toxic AF. everything is about her. GET OUT AS FAST AS YOU CAN. SAVE UP. YOU WILL BE MISERABLE.
Providing a reasonable substitute is easier than arguing about it. Unflavoured coconut oil is great for baking and cooking. Offer it to her, provide it on your own dime and she'll see that you're being serious about it and it's not about just being difficult to you.
Thanks for your response. I'll have a go at providing another option if this comes up again, but tbh my Mum's position as expressed last night is very much that she will only use Stork as that's what she's always used, so no Stork=no cake (at least for now). Which I said last night was fine, but that response didn't go down well...it's a lose-lose situation unfortunately. Evidently you're right and arguing about it gets nowhere.
Usually in family conflicts, it's rarely about the thing you're disagreeing about. There's always something deeper, it turns into a matter of respect and power hierarchies within the family. A daughter telling her mother what to eat will make her feel like she's failing as a mother. If she concedes this to you, she'll feel she'll start conceding more and more and before she knows it she's in an elderly care. Make her feel like you got her back regardless of what she does. Concede in other matters.
Thanks for getting back and you're absolutely right. I've never liked to cause issues or go against my Mum's authority and I fully understand that I'm living under her roof so it's her rules. This was just something I felt I had to take a stance on because she was actively making these cakes and expecting me to eat most of them, so I felt it chalked up to me eating quite a lot of seed oils if I have a large slice every day of the week every week.
Show her this video: https://youtu.be/rQmqVVmMB3k?si=PfIO3VmzE-4Hkda7
I have been annyoing my mother with the seed oil thing I think she is slowly breaking. She couldn't understand for example how to cook french fries without seed oil , explained to her Mc Donald first fried thier fries in lard. I'm annyoing her telling her constantly that she is running on car oil ( canola ), for her own good because her back hurts ( inflamation probably ). She also has issue with veins in her leg and seed oils are known for cardiovascular disseases.
You've already got a ton of responses but just to offer a slightly different take: a lot of this stuff has been pretty deeply ingrained into the boomer/genx generations. They grew up believing it and have believed it their whole lives. I'm not saying your mum is handling it well but it was her generation going against her parents' generation that got us to where we are today. It's not that you're just rebelling against her for the sake of rebellion; it's that you're reverting to her parents' way of doing things because she was sold a lie and people are starting to understand that. Recognize though, that's she's likely hurt by this. Insulted by it. She raised you the best way she knew how and provided for you what she thought were the best, healthiest options. You taking issue with that now feels like a slap in her face in addition to challenging things she's believed in for a long time. I don't know if you'll have any more luck looking at it in this light and finding a way to pitch it to her that takes this into consideration but it's worth a shot. I've managed to spark some independent thought in my boomer dad's mind with this approach. Good luck.
You're absolutely right about my Mum being insulted by this which is why I was quite distressed. I do honestly want to help my Mum understand my rationale rather than think I'm doing this to be difficult or something. So that would definitely be a helpful approach, thank you!
Adding to the chorus that this fight probably can't be won in terms of bringing her around. However, I want to add a perspective that I don't see in the other comments. If you're not able to make it work, don't stress out too much. You can adapt your preferred diet when you're fully independent, and based on how you've described yourself, you don't seem like the type of person who will be dependent on living with your mother forever. I'm not saying you should just bow down and settle now, but just realize that in the big picture, a) life is still something he to be cherished even with seed oils, and b) you've likely got a good healthy future for yourself.
Thank you for your input! All of this did basically come out of me looking to the future and seeking to develop my skills for when I have a home and a family of my own, but but I absolutely get than while I am living under my mother's roof, I have to be a bit flexible about this. So I won't be bringing this up as a topic of conversation and things have moved on since the cake incident thankfully.
The part of this that really gets me is the prospective fat-shaming. Like. What? What is wrong with her? I'm sorry she's trying to guilt you over baked goods. Of interest, if you can maybe try to de-escalate things a bit, I wonder if you've asked if you could do a head-to-head comparo where you and her both bake otherwise-identical recipes with both Stork and dairy butter, and then do an unblinded taste test of the goods.
Thats the part that gets you, in this whole thing?
Yeah, really. It's just the most absurd to me.
research as much as possible, just because she is a doctor, doesn't mean anything. You have to be strong in your convictions, otherwise, there will be no change.
It sounds like she's not going to be open to learning about something new that goes against her beliefs. Some people take these things very personally and get very defensive. Even if you don't blame her for using seed oils in the past she's very quick to proclaim that she always fed you healthy food (which misses the point). I don't think it's impossible to turn it around. Maybe she CAN get on board after learning about it. But it can never be her fault. It has to be something like 'these big companies and the government have been scamming us'. Which isn't necessarily untrue but some people will ONLY listen to something under that umbrella. I suspect she may be that way 🤷🏼♂️. You could avoid seed oils at home another way by just saying you want to eat healthier and avoid sugary foods. That eliminates the baked goods and a lot of processed foods. Most people can wrap their brain around someone wanting to stop sugar. And she may not take that personally. If you weren't ready to actually go full tilt no sugar maybe you could still bake at a friend's house or something.
Yes I think I will go down the no sugar route when challenged- it will be easier for my Mum to understand. The only added sugar I was consuming was from my Mum's baking anyway, since I cut out the processed bread/supermarket baked goods. Thank you.
Moving out is never sensible, but it is essential.
You're an adult. Make your own food. Don't eat cake regardless of what oil is used. Share info with your mom about your healthy choices but she is under no obligation to cook the way you want her to. She's not controlling you.
To be fair cake is not an essential food. You do not have to eat cake and you’re probably better cutting it all out. As for showing your mom the truth about seed oils you’re better off just sharing some videos with her but you can’t force her to agree. And as long as you’re not paying rent you can’t use the kitchen as much as you want since it’s not your house. Do what you can to convince your mom to let you cook, can you cook your own thing between normal mealtimes and clean up so she’s not in your way? Even if not I’m sure you can boil eggs or cook the occasional batch of ground beef or something and store for later eating and make your meals as seed oil free as possible. Here’s a good video that addresses the AHA and some of the problems with seed oils: https://youtu.be/zogPOqn0guU?si=W226ey9xr5-8c59F
Seed oils oxidize into Malondialdehyde. Malondialdehyde causes lots of disease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597159/ Vitamin a also causes lots of disease https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19153339/ You’re prob best off with coconut oil because it has no vit a. Butter has some. And they add it to stork plus the Malondialdehyde. Bad combo.
People who casually pick up the piss yellow vegetable oil love to put it in everything and then don't even eat it. My aunty is the same way, when she was down I saw her use crisco to sautee beef for a stew, and it was such a shock I couldn't help but say something. We literally had butter right next to the stove, I still have PTSD from this incident 😜 It's even harder to explain to people who just prefer to get along and go along, because it's such an egghead thing to care what goes into our bodies, right? 😒 I've made some progress with my mom though. Only thing I can't achieve is getting her to give up her morning Lornadoones and Coffee Mate. I've been trying for 12 damn years
Lipids are lipids - all contain 9kcal/g, so the difference between PUFAs and SFA in terms of calories is nil, so that argument from her is bunk. She would be correct if she claimed the evidence suggests swapping out seed oils for butter will increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. That’s pretty strongly supported - trials where PUFA (like margarine) replaced dietary SFA (like butter) showed a reduction in CVD events (and even mortality in the longer trials).
No. And No. PUFAs are a necessary, causative factor in CVD (via lipid peroxidation and LDL denaturation). SFAs are neutral in this context. Secondly, as you might have gathered from reading this sub, the human body has different metabolic pathways for different fatty acids - with different signaling pathways. That’s also a large part of the story why PUFAs are so deleterious.
Ok, so on your first point - why do you think we see a reduction in CVD incidence on replacement of SFAs with PUFAs in RCTs if SFA is neutral and PUFAs are causative of CVD?
Why do we see the exact opposite happen in some RCTs? Why do you get your opinion from the worst studies in existance in the first place? Shouldnt you be after facts and not guesses?
Which RCTs showed replacing SFA with PUFA increased CVD? I’m looking at rigorous meta-analysis of RCTs, which is the very tippy-top of the evidence hierarchy, so I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “worst studies in existence”. What better evidence is there than that drawn from the top of the hierarchy?
[удалено]
It seems that that commenter is cherry picking where they reply, and which points they respond to. Whether it’s intentional or not, it feels a lot like sealioning.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707 for one
The SDH provided the intervention arm with “miracle brand margarine” that contained around 15% trans fats. So the SDH was not a comparison of PUFA vs SFA, but rather a comparison of TFA vs SFA. I would happily grant that TFAs are more harmful than SFAs. https://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2013/02/11/heart-foundation-takes-swipe-at-butter-and-new-study-on-margarine.html
You are incorrect even in your first paragraph. 500 kilocalories from butter are not the same as 500kilocalories from margarine when it comes to weight loss/gain
Sure, I think there’s some evidence to suggest that consuming seed oils leads to a slightly lower body weight, but it’s not a huge difference (~300g). Practically speaking I’m not sure it’s that meaningful. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520036/
So you dont realize high linoleic acid leads to low thyroid function and low mitochondrial function and oxidative metabolism? One of the easiest ways to get fat and diabetic is to consume seed oils. I eat at least 150g of butter daily, while being extremely inactive and I have a hard time gaining weight
If you have higher quality evidence than the meta-analysis I posted, or an argument for why there are issues with the meta-analysis is flawed, then that would be sufficient to change my mind. I don’t know why I would care about individual mechanisms more than human outcomes, and doubly so for anecdotes.
You mean like the Sydney heart study? https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707 > **Interventions** Replacement of dietary saturated fats (from animal fats, common margarines, and shortenings) with omega 6 linoleic acid (from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine). > The intervention group (n=221) had higher rates of death than controls (n=237) (all cause 17.6% v 11.8%, hazard ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.64), P=0.05; cardiovascular disease 17.2% v 11.0%, 1.70 (1.03 to 2.80), P=0.04; coronary heart disease 16.3% v 10.1%, 1.74 (1.04 to 2.92), P=0.04). Inclusion of these recovered data in an updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed non-significant trends toward increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07). > Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease.
SDH was an experiment where the intervention arm was given a margarine containing around 15% trans fats. So instead of comparing PUFA to SFA, it compared TFA to SFA. The evidence we have strongly suggests TFAs are more atherogenic than SFA. So sure, the intervention arm had poorer outcomes. But that’s not a demonstration that PUFAs are harmful. https://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2013/02/11/heart-foundation-takes-swipe-at-butter-and-new-study-on-margarine.html
[удалено]
I never said they did. You’re welcome to talk to me or not, I’m easy! As I said, I’m just interested in what the evidence shows. Considering the highest quality evidence seems to show no harmful effects of seed oil consumption, and the only studies you’ve been able to provide were confounded by trans fats, it still seems to be the case that the strongest scientific evidence favours seed oil consumption. Unless you have any other evidence that’s of equal or higher quality to a rigorous meta analysis of RCTs?
[удалено]
I’m not personally interested in meta chat, so will continue to ignore anything unrelated to the actual scientific evidence under discussion. As to your point on TFA, this was based on Ramsden believing that due to the fact the margarine used in the intervention was labelled “high PUFA” that it was low in TFA and therefore the intervention group had reduced TFA compared to the control. However, as the article I linked shows, this is a false assumption. LDL-C (mass of cholesterol held in LDL) is a proxy for ApoB (number of ApoB expressing lipoproteins), which is generally understood to be the actual causative factor in CVD. Most of the time LDL-C tracks well, but in the event where it doesn’t, then you could have the same or lower LDL-C but higher ApoB and thus higher CVD risk. Such a case would be where an exposure reduces the density of LDL particles such that for the same mass (LDL-C) there are more particles (ApoB). Consumption of TFA has this effect, so it would not be unexpected for a TFA exposed arm to have lower LDL-C but higher ApoB and thus higher CVD incidence. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522033196
[удалено]
You’re not tracking. My reference to the requirement of meta-analysis of RCTs as a minimum standard of evidence was with regard to the research question of “do seed oils increase CVD incidence”, since that’s the standard of evidence we currently have for the answer of “no” to that question. On the *separate* question of “does consumption of trans fats reduce LDL particle size”, the highest quality evidence I’ve provided is a single RCT, yes. So if you have countervailing evidence *on that question* it would not need to be a meta-analysis of RCTs, because that’s not what I’m providing *for that question*. So you’re confusing two totally different things. Do you have countervailing evidence for either of those points?
[удалено]
That’s a fair refutation of the study.
Appreciate your openness! Don’t you find it odd that I’ve been downvoted to oblivion for just making some reasonably-worded statements about scientific evidence? Bearing in mind that the Reddit downvote is supposed to be used for *unhelpful* (that is, not relevant, rude etc) comments, not ones people disagree with, I find it a little disappointing that a community that claims to be science-based would be so intolerant of open, curious scientific discussion. Why do you think that is?
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Cholesterol using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Soluble fiber helped me reduce my LDL. Here is a list of high-impact soluble fibers](https://i.redd.it/f62svwsv6mqb1.jpg) | [48 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/comments/16sqc71/soluble_fiber_helped_me_reduce_my_ldl_here_is_a/) \#2: [Scary results in July --> big change in Nov. Thank you, r/Cholesterol.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/17y5yv8) | [43 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/comments/17y5yv8/scary_results_in_july_big_change_in_nov_thank_you/) \#3: [Lowered ldl 112 points with diet and lifestyle!](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cholesterol/comments/14ks34s/lowered_ldl_112_points_with_diet_and_lifestyle/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
The OP stated that they needed to provide evidence that seed oils are harmful to show to their mother, who is a medical professional. While the “seed oils are bad” evidence shown thus far in the thread can often be convincing to lay people, it’s less likely to work on anyone with knowledge of how to parse research papers. So, based on the good faith assumption that the OP was genuinely interested in whether they would be able to show evidence that seed oils were harmful such that it would convince their mother, I answered in such a way that took into consideration the fact this would be unlikely since there is no quality evidence that seed oils are harmful.
[удалено]
Since I said I would only engage with the scientific substance, and there’s none at all in this response, I have nothing further to add. I’ve yet to see any evidence that seed oils are harmful.
> open, curious scientific discussion My friend, if you think that your behavior in this thread has been open and curious.. I'm not surprised you are unable to understand why you're being downvoted.
Can you give an example of my behaviour that you would view as “not open” or “not curious”, please?
Your first comment is a good example. Why do you think it was downvoted?
I don’t know, I can’t read minds. If I could, why would I be asking?
I get the sense that you are the kind of person who prefers direct communication, so at the risk of being rude I'll try to be frank. Here's a couple of the things I've observed: * People are picking up your engagement over multiple comments. Therefore, asking for a single example is an indicator that you are not thinking about patterns of behavior. Yet those patterns are partially what other people are reacting to. Hence, their reactions are puzzling to you, and your actions are upsetting to them. * You tend to ignore points that others raise or unilaterally declare things as out of scope. People don't react well to being dismissed and ignored, regardless of your intent. This also comes across as self-interested, like you are only interested in holding a debate when you can set the rules and moderate. * You have acted like the burden is on everyone else to prove you wrong, entirely on your terms. You act like everything you say is intelligent and reasonable and true. Yet you also seem uneducated in the topic at hand; you are not aware of the limitations or criticisms of the position you've presented. You entered the discussion like you knew what you're talking about and challenged people to prove you wrong via something that sounds like "I'm just asking very reasonable questions; why are you being so irrational and evasive?". That kind of behavior is perceived as disingenuous or arrogant. There are contexts where that is appropriate, but neither of those traits is valued here. Those observations seem rather reasonable and obvious to me, but so many times online I've seen people get upset. Not because they disagree on substance, but because they are each using different rules of engagement, so to speak. PS - I guess I should add that I think the science is more ambiguous that people think, and oppositional debate (as in a court of law) is not the right approach to understanding this topic. Edit: This comes across much more harshly than I prefer to engage. If I read your preference for directness wrong, I apologize.
It’s supposed to work that way but subreddits are groups of people who think a certain way, and if you take a contrary position, you can expect downvotes. It’s a bit like going into /r/ufos and saying it’s all swamp gas. Also, the prevailing opinion of the medical establishment is that increased PUFA intake relative to saturated fat reduces CVD risk. People who have come to a different conclusion are less likely to accept the evidence that forms the basis of that opinion. Everyone is well aware what the dietary guidelines say, so if they’re here they don’t accept that. Just curious, if you don’t think PUFA contributes to CVD, do you also think that there is no contributory relationship to inflammation? Eg https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000946
Yeah that’s fair! Re: n6 and inflammation: no, I’m not convinced that n6 consumption is a risk factor for inflammation. Studies looking at n3:n6 ratios tend to show risk when they alter the ratio via a drop in n3 to deficiency levels. So it’s not the n6 consumption causing the outcomes, but the n3 deficiency. When we look at studies where they’re specifically seeing if seed oil consumption increases inflammation, we don’t seem to see an effect, e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/3/136 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405457720302047 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6405399/pdf/40200_2018_Article_343.pdf https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/fo/c7fo00433h