Dysregulation of hypothalamic gene expression by soybean oil in mice (2020)
universityofcalifornia.edu
universityofcalifornia.edu
I think science reporting should be more like that. It's ok to have an article that says well we found a link but we are not clear yet on what's the exact cause, but we know what's not the cause
Aside from the clickbait-y headline of course.
As a European, I would have guessed it was rapeseed oil when I first saw the headline.
However all rapeseed oil sold in both the US and EU are these low (less than 2%) eurcic acid varieties.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed_oil
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erucic_acid
* https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR...
* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1870/corrigendum/2019...
So for any intents & purposes in the context of a conversation about consumers consuming food products, all rapeseed oil is canola oil.
“Do not throw out your tofu, soymilk, edamame, or soy sauce,” said Frances Sladek, a UC Riverside toxicologist and professor of cell biology. “Many soy products only contain small amounts of the oil, and large amounts of healthful compounds such as essential fatty acids and proteins.”
As an aside, BC Melnik has multiple studies published proving that pasteurized milk causes direct delivery of bovine DNA into human cells. And he has been proving this since 2009 in MANY published papers. STOP DRINKING MILK unless it is UHT or highly fermented (yogurt).
And in American milk consumption has plummeted since the 70’s, these disease have done the opposite.
skepticism is required.
my argument is that while Irish people did suffer a lot of diseases over the millennia that dairy was a major component of their diet, those diseases were not the modern ones and definitely not in the same prevalence. Ergo I’m skeptical of a claim that dairy is causing many of the common modern western diseases such as that paper claims. If it were a cause, type 2 diabetes and all the others would have been rampant historically.
Additionally, as I also noted, since America’s milk consumption has plummeted while the diseases have skyrocketed it’s a bit perplexing to conclude milk could be a significant factor. The trends simply do not add up.
Finland has the highest milk consumptions and also one of the highest life expectancies. higher than the US. Seems a little odd if milk is supposedly causing disease.
Hence I’m skeptical. The trends do not add up.
I can't vouch for the study as I haven't read it, but it's quite reductive to dismiss what appears to be a comprehensive study mainly focused on biological pathways because there happens to be a negative correlation between Irish people drinking milk and rates of modern disease.
Let’s upend diets on this latest fad of studies! No matter that both historical and modern trends raise questions about the conclusion, let’s upend people diets!
Happy now?
P.s. Also skeptical doesn’t mean that something isn’t possible. Just a word to the wise.
But that paper is only 1/3 about milk, it also cites high glycemic index carbs and saturated fats as being causes. Health issues around low fiber high glycemic carbs is not a new or novel claim
Going back to the ethnic groups it cites as seeing increased acne with adoption of “western” diets. It’s not a surprise or novel finding that a diet of ultra processed high glycemic low fiber and all the other issues with the convenience food diet causes health issues. It is interesting they cite a group known for lactose intolerance and blame dairy.
They cite one disease as creating a natural experiment, and yet don’t mention lactose intolerance.
And this new paper is just about acne, not the wide range of modern afflictions mentioned before.
Dairy very well could have negative impacts, but it also could be the next aluminum or eggs.
I’m not going to argue with eating less refined carbs and sugars and eating more vegetables. That’s well supported advice.
Latching onto select dietary papers and then extrapolating to broad conclusions is a hallmark of what’s wrong with how the media and people understand nutrition science.
I was not attempting to setup a straw man and attack you with it. While inciteful it was not an underhanded attack.
Followup: how good are those studies? From that link I can’t determine their research institute and without a background in this area I have no way to evaluate the claims.
Disclosure:
The author reports no conflict of interest in this work.Oh god, the milk is turning us into cows!
What specific characteristics of UHT milk makes it "not even milk anymore"? 1 year shelf life doesn't really count, unless you specifically care about milk spoiling within a certain amount of time.
Spoiled milk = youghurt made with the wrong kind of bacteria. UHT milk does not spoil like pasteurized milk because not even lactobacteria bothers with it.
I'd rather drink homemade rice milk. At least that one is prone to alcoholic fermentation.
Why Pubmed even indexes this journal is beyond me.
Also consider that basically everything you eat contains miRNA. If it works for milk, it will work for everything else. But it probably won't, since none of this makes sense (since your digestive system has enzymes that will eliminate all of your dietary nucleic acids, and bile to disrupt any vesicles that contain miRNA) and also it seems like a lot of these claims that dietary miRNA can even make it into your bloodstream are unreproducible: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628849/
Can you honestly say to yourself you don't need this to be true? It certainly would be convenient if making one small dietary change could lead to huge health benefits.
I know mice are not people but look at all the different tissues the miRNAs accumulate in mice. And there is some evidence that milk consumption turbocharges acne in humans which may be caused by more than the sugar content of it.
There is no way this stuff is healthy just looking at its proliferative effects. It has a shotgun effect on so many proliferative pathways.
Look, I know you can't hear this, but these papers are really bad. They cite papers that have really poorly designed experiments that don't actually show what they claim to show. It's surprising, but you can publish papers that are obviously wrong.
Here's a non-scientific analogy: say you're on a desert island, and there are a bunch of rabbits and one wolf (you can also see the whole island from wherever you stand - it's extremely small - so you know there's nothing else hiding anywhere). You immediately throw the wolf into a solar-powered wood chipper, and subsequently observe that the rabbits and healthy and happy. But then a year later all the rabbits are gone. You then tell me: "I know, the wolf must have eaten them!" Uh...no. They drowned and floated away, or dug burrows underground, or you ate them in a fever dream and forgot about it. But the wolf has been gone for a long time.
Your digestive tract is basically the wood chipper. Exosomes are little droplets of oil that contain water and other water-soluble molecules on the inside. But bile (which your body produces) will dissolve them. Everything that's on the inside spills out and is digested further.
RNA and DNA that might be inside exosomes also gets digested. You produce enzymes that chop them up into individual bases, so any information they contained is destroyed. A double wood chipper!
So when I read these papers and they claim miRNAs in exosomes are flooding all over your body, I have to wonder how they measured that. And the answer is: never by sequencing, which would be definitive. They always use some method that is guaranteed to generate false positives, like just using a fat-soluble dye to label the exosomes. That dye is going to keep infiltrating the body long after the exosomes themselves have been digested. Or they just mix exosomes with cell cultures and pretend like that's meaningful.
Again, I urge people to abandon any non-plant based foods, but these claims about miRNA are unscientific and contradict an enormous body of evidence.
And it barely even mentions transfer of genetic material from milk.
Believing that someone is better off drinking and eating a concoction of seed oils vs. animal derived fats or milk has become a form of religious doctrine. I’m happy to see others finally coming around to the scam.
Saturated animal fats have their own specific problems. The science is clear on that. It's not just soy oil, it's not just animal fat, it's not just sugar, it's not just refined flours. It's all of them.
Michael Pollan's advice is still best: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."