Hacker News Reader

> I'm surprised there's no discussion here about the inflammatory role of vegetable oils (aka seed oils).

Because there's very little scientific evidence to be concerned about seed oils themselves and a lot to show that they're fine to good for you.

If you want to talk specifically about inflammation, there's not really any evidence that inflammatory markers in humans are increased by seed oils themselves, e.g. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.ATV.0000163185.28...

The idea that seed oils cause inflammation is largely based on mechanistic studies that don't seem to bear out when the larger and more complex ecosystem of our biology is introduced.

> And my question to everyone is, what is the mechanism by which seed/vegetable oils could lead to rashes? The only theory I've heard has been around omega-3/6 balance, but I am looking for alternative theories.

Canola oil has high levels of omega-3s. If it was the omega-3/6 balance theory then it would be one of the best options for oil use.

Individuals can have bad reactions for a variety of reasons, of course. And there is a very high correlation between seed oils and food that is just generally shitty for you, so if you cut them out of your diet you are also cutting a lot of garbage out, which will likely have an impact independent of the oils themselves, and this is likely what drives a good portion of anecdotal positive experiences.

There are countless peer reviewed studies and articles on both sides of the argument sure - but the sheer volume of anecdotal evidence and the overwhelming consensus across 100K and even 1M+ subreddits against seed oils is unique. You don’t see this level of unified backlash against most other everyday substances.

Tbh the evidence in the literature on seed oils is actually overwhelmingly in their favour. Studies that find in the opposite direction are few and far between, comparatively.

So then we’re just left with “lots of people on the internet believe a thing to be true, surely there’s something in it.”

Hopefully I don’t need to come up with a counter example here, you can just see how poor an argument this is.

Let’s not forget the entire field of dietary fat and heart disease was dead wrong for decades while the real culprit was sugar. Alzheimer’s research? Decades of faked studies, costing billions. Peer review is hardly the gold standard if universities are dependent on corporate and government money.

The flood of case reports online about seed oils causing issues makes it obvious there's a problem. Ignoring this isn’t just unwise it’s willfully blind.

At best, seed oils might work for some but they’re clearly harmful to a large portion of people.

Not sure what you’re basing that claim on. There are boatloads of data suggesting that replacing SFA with PUFA leads to a 20-30% reduction in CVD events.

Does added sugar seem to be a risk factor too? Sure.

There are floods of case reports online about vaccines causing autism, but I’d hope you wouldn’t think that it’s obvious there’s a problem there too? Such reports should not be the driver of our reasoning when we have high quality studies on the question.

When the public raises concerns or points out issues, it’s important not to take it personally or make it political. These are valuable data points that warrant investigation.

Personally regarding autism, I believe neurotoxins might be contributing to inflammation in the brain, while nutrient deficiencies could be affecting cognitive function, with the root cause of both issues being a fungal infection of the gut, related biofilm formation (blocking nutrient absorption in the small intestine which is where b1 is absorbed) and intestinal permeability. Cross-examine the symptoms of Wernicke encephalopathy (b1 deficiency of the brain) and autism and it is rather surprising how similar these are. Its the rule that the majority of autistic people have small intestinal problems often incorrectly blamed on the brain. The fungal infection is simply an overgrowth due to low number of bacteria. Autistic people have been found to have extremely low numbers and types of bacteria in their microbiome.

Do MMR vaccines have anything to do with this? I would hazard a guess that people with the problem I just mentioned may be at increased risk of adverse events occurring after MMR vaccine intake. Their bodies are already in trouble and MMR vaccines are the straw that breaks the camels back and these case reports online regarding autism and MMR vaccines are entirely valid and useful but the scientific community are unfortunately individually too compartmentalized in their trained medical specializations be it brain, digestive system, infectious diseases and such.

It sounds like you find speculation based on anecdotes more compelling than evidence from higher up the evidence hierarchy. That’s obviously your preference and you’re welcome to it.

When I’m discussing an issue and my interlocutor ends up having to bite a bullet like “I think MMR vaccines might contribute to autism based on speculation and the reports of people on the internet”, then I’m happy to take my hands off the wheel - it’s now clear their standards of evidence are very low.

Since you’ve openly admitting to it then I’ve achieved what I came to do:

1. See if I’m wrong in my view (it doesn’t seem like I am)

2. Ensure that anyone reading can see that in order to believe seed oils are harmful, one has to have a completely wild epistemic framework. You’ve admitted you think MMR vaccines might contribute to the development of autism based on a completely evidence-free view that such vaccines might be “the straw that breaks the camels back.”

I think this conversation has probably run its course - you believe things based on what I would consider anti-scientific reasoning, as you’re welcome to do. I don’t think wild speculation is a useful tool for making inferences about the world. We’re unlikely to bring each other round to our own views on this, I suspect.

Except the human studies we have suggest that seed oils are probably not inflammatory. A few examples are listed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xTaAHSFHUU

It is important to remember that the title of this post is "Saturated fat: the making and unmaking of a scientific consensus".

And the author of the article has a long history of misrepresenting science and has direct financial incentive to push her specific view.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

The BMJ got in trouble for believing her and had to issue retractions because of it:

https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/26/9616122/bmj-nina-teichol...

There is no evidence that Nina Teicholz should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her arguments and plenty of evidence that she should be treated with skepticism.

Behaving like bullies trying to prevent people that agree with the author to discuss isn't in the spirit of this forum.

> Except the human studies we have suggest that seed oils are probably not inflammatory. A few examples are listed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xTaAHSFHUU

which part of that do you consider bullying? is it any opinion that goes against the underdog?

I don’t know about rashes and reactions. But in health circles, seed oils are generally considered safe and retain higher nutritional value if cold pressed. This makes them suitable at least for salads, but not frying.

> As a challenge to anyone objecting to this comment,

You are free to comment whatever you want, but I don’t see any evidence to support your hypothesis on a population wide basis.

>I ask you to look up the history of canola oil and say whether such a substance would be accepted into the food supply today.

If you are referring to genetically modified rapeseed plants to be herbicide resistant, then it would most definitely be accepted into the food supply today. Genetically modifying plants still happens all over the world.

It's funny, you're the only person who replied who mentioned my challenge, and it's clear you aren't familiar with the history of canola oil, nor are any of the other people replying. You "don't see any evidence" sounds so authoritative, like you are familar with the topic!

The relevant modification is with respect to erucic acid, which pre-modification, was 50% of the content of rapeseed oil, and which provably causes heart lesions in mammals.

There's no way that someone today could take a plant that naturally produces a useful but toxic industrial lubricant, modify it to be less toxic, and then start feeding it to humans. But in the 1970s you could still get away with stuff like that.

> There's no way that someone today could take a plant that naturally produces a useful but toxic industrial lubricant, modify it to be less toxic, and then start feeding it to humans. But in the 1970s you could still get away with stuff like that.

Why? I am not seeing the causation. Tomatoes came from a family of plants that are not edible, and now they are consumed worldwide.

Could it be some other chemical to blame that you are exposed to day-to-day? With so many additives, preservatives, colorants, detergents, cleaning products, cosmetics, perfumes, paints, disinfectants, plastic packaging, synthetic clothing, herbicides, pesticides, glues in furniture, car exhaust, rubber dust, and other chemicals around us, canola oil would not be my first guess of something causing rashes or allergies.

Your daughter might simply be allergic to a substance in one of these oils and may not be reflective of the experience of the population at large.

Although not probable in this case as far as I know: if vegetable oils seem to cause problems for you, you should be aware of sitosterolemia (phytosterolemia), caused by rare mutations in genes ABCG5 and ABCG8. It needs to be homozygous for symptoms.

(I have it, discovered by a full-genome sequencing by myself, accidentally around the age of 50.)

wow, that's extremely useful and interesting! Can you say more about your condition? Did you have any symptoms? Which company did you use for the full-genome sequencing?

It looks like the treatment involves avoiding vegetable oils, but in her case there are no visible xanthomas.

I don't know if you're familiar with Ray Pete, but he writes about seed oils and the affect they have on our health.

https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml

You said that you suspect it is the heating of the oils, but even the oil found in ice creme has been heated somewhere in the process unless it is cold pressed. Can she eat sun flower seeds, olives or avocado without a reaction? Have you tried coconut oil as an alternative?

> there's no discussion here about the inflammatory role of vegetable oils (aka seed oils)

that's because it's literally a 4chan /pol/ schizo theory

you didn't respond to my challenge, look up the history of canola oil and erucic acid and at least familiarize yourself before dismissing

Paul Saladino advocates a theory that humans cannot handle a lot of linoleic acid in the diet: it decreases the performance of membranes, particularly of mitochondria (which in turn causes insulin resistance, obesity and other problems cause by chronic lack of ATP).

Saladino says that it would have been impossible for an ancestral human (particularly in Northern Eurasia where meat from grass-eating animals constituted the majority of calories) to get more than about 3% of calories as linoleic acid whereas the US average is now about 11%. Sunflower seed oil for example is 67% linoleic. corn oil, 53%, soybean oil, 52%. (Most of the omega-6 fatty acid in the human diet is linoleic acid.)

Here is Paul Saladino explaining it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j75kc5qamXs

Paul Saladino isn't a credible source of information or theories. He's a non-practicing psychiatrist and social media influencer who's gotten rich making contrarian videos and selling supplements.

I've learned a lot from people who make Youtube videos for a living.

Watching Youtube videos can make us believe we understand a topic better, but that's not necessarily the case. And without a good understanding of that topic to begin with, it's hard to know why we're wrong.

Imagine watching a super compelling Youtube video explaining why dinosaurs never existed, and so you now think that's a credible hypothesis. You would probably know more facts about dinosaurs and paleontology than the average person, but I'd argue that your understanding of dinosaurs has actually gone down.

I see a similar thing happening here. You and Paul are able to cite lots of facts about Linoleic Acid. But there's a whole body of experimental human research showing that, if anything, LA-rich oils probably slightly improve insulin sensitivity, inflammation, lipids etc. But Paul either isn't aware of this or chooses not to show you because it contradicts his claims. So you're left with the wrong impression about LA and seed oils, despite thinking that your understanding has gone up.

To be fair, there's a difference between "people who make YouTube videos for a living" and people who make videos to spout contrarian "theories" so they can sell snake oil.

Well, at least they don't sell seed oil :)

My understanding is that the culprit is partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs). Which are chemically the same thing (it seems?) as polyunsaturated fats.

We need our carbon chains to be consistenty hydrogenated one way or the other, but not with both types in one molecule.

My understanding is that just vegetable oils are generally bad for cooking because of how they retain heat. Even if they have a high smoke point, it's easier for them to get to it.

Have you doing that she has the same issue with coconut oil? Specifically, the saturated ones that come in a jar?