A different take in the same way an astrologist's blog gives us a different take on the planet Saturn.

If anything Ray Peat, a quack, says is true, then why do things like PUFAs improve human health outcomes in the literature? He says PUFAs cause atherosclerosis and SFA protects against it, so why does human outcome data show the opposite? And how many animal studies is he going to bring up?

Ray Peat is a good example of how far contrarianism will take you in the nutrition celeb space. Probably because we like to decide on what we want to eat first and then shop for claims that support it which is 10000x easier than deciding on what to eat based on the greatest evidence.

Here's a good post that summarizes some PUFA literature in response to the social media "seed oil" scare: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...