Yeah, I feel like the soy myth has been disproven time and time again but won’t die already.
This and seed oils get hit with the exact same playbook, then disregard significant chunks of the world that have zero issues with them.
This and seed oils get hit with the exact same playbook, then disregard significant chunks of the world that have zero issues with them.
But for a list speaking from a position of expertise it felt quite jarring to see it included as a definitive "don't" and made me wonder about the agenda of GP (soy with respect to fertility is indelibly linked with the far-right "soyboy" meme).
As a chemist the idea that phytoestrogens might have the same impact as estrogen isn't completely buck-wild, but also as a chemist I know that two isomers with the exact same composition can have wildly different effects in the human body. So I'd need to see a lot of solid evidence before treating is as anything more than a myth spread by misinterpreted studies of red-clover consumption in Australian sheep from the 1940s.
[0]: https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/pdf
I can see why that would make you wonder. However, a few years ago, the French TV did a take on soy and products containing derivates [0] (French only, unfortunately). It warned about possible effects on the endocrine system.
In relation to your point, there are two notable things:
1. It focused mainly on effects in females (never heard of a "soygirl" meme)
2. French TV is not affiliated with the alt-right (or any right) in any way, shape, or form. It has a reputation of being quite left-leaning. And that's by French standards.
[0] https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/alimentation/perturbateurs...
I’m asking sincerely. It seems to me like they’re better than some alternatives if only to reduce saturated fat intake, but generally speaking, if any refined fat is avoided it’s probably to your benefit.
I often wonder if people think seed oils are bad because they eat way too much of it in general. Kind of like, if you take a shot of windex every morning you shouldn’t be surprised when you become ill, but instead people expect it to make them healthy (not actually comparing canola with windex).
Canola oil in particular seems most interesting. Its nutrient composition is more impressive than olive oil.
As for your theory, seed oils only make up 7% of US diet calories. Saturated fat makes up more than twice that. Replacing saturated fat with canola seems like an uncontroversial outcome improvement.
I’m certainly in favour of exchanging saturated fat for canola. I believe it was Finland where they made a big push to use canola rather than butter and the health outcomes seemed significant. There were confounding factors, but nonetheless, it was clear that a reduction in saturated fats yielded better life expectancy and lower rates of heart disease. The results were actually in line with what prior research indicated. Finland went from a lowest life expectancy in the world to one of the highest over decades, likely in part because of that transition away from dairy fats.
In that sense I think canola is amazing. I personally avoid both (of course it’s impossible to do so 100% of the time), but I fully support people choosing relatively healthier options.