Hacker News Reader

Comment by Workaccount2 | Hacker News Reader

RFK's playbook is to wake up, check what the crunchy moms on instagram are cackling about, issue policy based on the comments sections.

View on HN

Remove whatever politics you might believe from the equation.

Is beef tallow a better option for a cooking fat? I think it is.

Our own health department has completely removed objectivity from their process. It doesn't matter if they say something right or wrong now, they've completely lost our trust.

I don’t particularly trust any claims from previous administrations’ health departments, let alone this one.

Politics aside, the omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.

You've made this comment three times so far.

That changes my perception from "maybe that's a good point" to "spammers should die painfully."

I’m with you, repeating it is like low effort copy pasta when they should’ve put effort into backing up that claim.

Compared to what and for what purpose?

Olive oil? Peanut oil? No and (mostly) no.

Compared to hydrogenated margarine that was pushed a couple of decades ago before we learned about trans-fats? Of course.

If you use it when cooking for guests, you should disclose that you're using it (especially for non-meat dishes) because it may add extra fat that they're not OK with or consider inappropriate for personal dietary consumption (they're vegetarian, don't eat beef products, whatever).

I have a friend for whom we can't use anything that has sunflower oil in it, which is _really hard to avoid_ in surprising ways (there are spice blends that I use which have a bit of sunflower oil in the mixes).

Politics aside, the omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.

Omega ratio matters most taking total intake of 3 and 6 into account. Since tallow is overwhelmingly saturated fat, it's a moot point what the ratio is. The remedy to low omega-3 is just to consume more dominant EPA/DHA and even ALA sources. Omega 6 won't fly off the charts except through consuming lots of packaged boxed foods and ultraprocessed foods, which overwhelming use vegetable oils like soybean or sunflower (North American fat consumption has skyrocketed over a century mostly owing to these foods). Even if you consume some nuts or seed oil now and then, just consume fish or a supplement.

Arguably the "healthiest" cooking oil is olive oil. If we're looking at just the fatty acids though, replacing SFA with PUFAs is a stronger predictor of lower CVD and all-cause mortality.

Tallow is still higher in long chain SFAs than vegetable saturated fats, which are less healthy than short and medium chain SFAs (but neither is as good as PUFAs).

That sort of overwhelms the omega ratios. As I understand it, both fish oil and (fresh) flax seed oil are still better than tallow.

With RFK's dismantling of good science, politics can't be put aside, as his reasons are essentially "because I said so".

Avocado, canola, olive oil would all be way better. Beef tallow is really high in saturated fat

The omega6:3 ratio and PUFA content of tallow is favorable.

Canola and other seed oils are made using toxic solvents which are not full removed from the final product.

Go look up the studies of actual outcome data when replacing saturated fats with seed oils. Seed oils do much better

Are you sure?

Sydney heart diet study: Seed oil group had something like 62% higher death rate.

Minnesota coronary experiment: replaced saturated fats with seed oil, cholesterol dropped, but for every 30 mg/dL drop risk of death went up something like 20%.

Several recent meta analyses also indicate no real benefit migrating from saturated fats to seed oils. The only silver lining I have seen is there is some evidence replacing them for people who have had a coronary event already. So, no, I don't think the evidence supports "seed oils do much better" in a general sense.

I don't have time to look into the sydney heart study but I know for the minnesota experiment they, not knowing how bad it was at the time, used margarine with high trans fats as the replacements. Also had a huge 95% drop out rate

Actually on a quick check the sydney study looks to be the exact same

What are all the grifters going to do when AI can reliably tell people if a study is shit?

Look at a meta review. There are a ton of these studies and the overwhelming evidence is that saturated fat is associated with CVD and ACM, PUFAs are not.

> Canola and other seed oils are made using toxic solvents which are not full removed from the final product.

This is simply untrue. Independent bodies all over the world regularly test commercially available oils for toxic solvents. While the solvent Hexane is indeed commonly used in the extraction of refined vegetable oils, it is later removed in the refining process.

For example Stiftung Warentest, an independent consumer advocacy organization tested 23 rapeseed oils available in German supermarkets and they all came out clean [1].

A few years earlier, they tested 25 "specialty oils" and found traces of Hexane in only one of them - but still way below the EU threshold of 1 mg/kg. [2]

Here is a study from Japan that tested a bunch of vegetable oils and came to the conclusion that none of the products contained dangerous levels of Hexane. The maximum amount the researchers found was 42.6 µg/kg (again way below the EU threshold) - but in most samples the amount they found was so low they couldn't even get a reading or they didn't find any Hexane at all.

Besides, for cold-pressed oils, no solvents are used at all.

[1] https://www.test.de/Rapsoel-im-Test-1816151-0/

[2] https://www.test.de/Gourmet-Oele-Fast-jedes-zweite-ist-mange...

[3] https://openaccesspub.org/experimental-and-clinical-toxicolo...

These studies are done to rebuff claims by people whose cohort largely overlaps with those who believe that homeopathic medicine is legit. It's not gonna change squat in their minds.

have you seen the amount of antibiotics, hormones and ammonia used in meat production?

In some meat production, not all meat production, yes.

It's probably still better to avoid eating french fries regardless of what they're fried in. That would probably lead to better health outcomes regardless.

Unless you're claiming that it tastes better, then sure, beef tallow is pretty tasty.

If you are eating french fries once or twice a year they probably are not bad for you (by enough to matter, and perhaps even good if they give some micro nutriant you are not getting elsewhere). And then by all means eat them friend in beef tallow because that tastes better.

If you are eating french fries twice a week - which seems to be common - they are bad for you. Clean up your diet, eat a larger variety of food.

Hey! You forgot to mention about its favorable omega 6 to omega 3 ratio. /s

How is “I think it is” a more valuable contribution than what the parent said?

Discussing the subject without reactionary political takes is more valuable.

> Is beef tallow a better option for a cooking fat? I think it is.

Better compared to what? Better than refined canola? Probably. Better than good quality, cold-pressed vegetable oils? Probably not. It's not great for heart health.

He's almost the perfect example of the colloquial stereotype of "Dunning Kruger Syndrome", which is why he's so dangerous.

I've made this example before, but it bears repeating.

I know absolutely nothing about chemistry, medicine, or healthcare policy. I am wholly unqualifed to be in charge of anything involving healthcare. Suppose that, despite all reason, I am appointed into a HHS secretary anyway. This would be bad, but because I know that I know nothing, my potential for damage is actually pretty limited. I would have to defer a lot of decisions to advisors, who would likely be doctors and chemists and data scientists. I probably wouldn't make a lot of "progress", and I would likely more or less just maintain the status quo, but I probably wouldn't make things much worse.

RFK Jr. is the worst, because he doesn't know any more about health or medicine than I do, but because he's read a bunch of idiotic blogs and Facebook pages he thinks he knows better than the entire medical establishment, and because he thinks he knows everything he feels qualified to start cutting funding for American medical research and blame everything on people not eating enough beef fat.

People have been (understandably) focusing on Trump's descent into authoritarianism, but it's possible that that gets somewhat fixed once he's out of office, but I think that the damage that RFK Jr. has done to our medical research establishment might be irreparable. He is uniquely dangerous.

He seems to be aware of his lack of knowledge: https://youtu.be/AGq_Q7tVLCU?si=Qcw_cQHoqbBc5dgW

Yet still here we are

I think he's actively lying with this to have some amount of plausible deniability.

If you look at pseudoscience "alternative health" treatments on YouTube, they always have some disclaimer saying "This is not medical advice, I am not a physician, please consult your doctor", and then immediately go on to tell you about how injecting yourself with ozone or drinking paint thinner will cure all your diseases. I think it's just a legal disclaimer, not like they are actually aware that what they're doing is bullshit.

> he thinks he knows better than the entire medical establishment

I think you have missed the part about why we are in this situation.

People are absolutely fed up with the medical establishment. There is no way to twist this.

The solution is to fix the medical establishment, not to appoint a person trained by Facebook moms and and natural food blogs.

Yes, I agree.

Now, everyone trying to fix the medical establishment is immediately called an anti vaxxer, science denier, etc.

At some point it was inevitable that we get someone who can shrug these labels off because they do not have a scientific reputation that can be killed with these labels.

My point is, again, we are in this situation because sane attempts to fix things has not worked. To an extent that people will literally try anything.

If your “fixes” for the medical establishment include spreading unsubstantiated fear mongering about vaccines and science denial then you would be right to be classified as an anti vaxxer and a science denier.

I think you might be missing the posters point. He agrees with you on nearly every point you are making. He is however expanding on that saying that the problem is something of a self-own by the combination of science, science reporting, and science driven policy. Trust was so thoroughly lowered that there was almost no avoiding an event like Trump/RFK. It can be true that 1. RFK is not qualified and is likely to make things worse. 2. This is partly the responsibility of the establishment for squandering the trust that the public put in them.

Right.

It's funny that my point about 'every attempt to fix the medical establishment is branded as science denial' was branded as science denial :)

Nice recursive proof.

> everyone trying to fix the medical establishment is immediately called an anti vaxxer, science denier, etc.

That's because the thought leaders who are fed up with the medical establishment are gaining traction by spreading anti-vax and science denial ideas and not calling out specific medical establishment (other than "big pharma is a boogie man!"). So, it's hard to take their position seriously (even though, I too and anti medical establishment)

That was not my point, of course antivaxxers and science deniers exist and should not be taken seriously.

I meant - the medical establishment is notorious for attacking every opposition, especially when it comes to policy, with those labels.

That guarantees scientists who stand to lose their careers won't bother trying to fix anything. That's how you get asshats like RFK Jr.

> Now, everyone trying to fix the medical establishment is immediately called an anti vaxxer, science denier, etc.

Well they keep showing up with shitty unverified claims...are we supposed to treat their shitty claims as valid just because they're against the grain?

It's also good to keep an eye on the graft. It's funny how pretty much every big personality in the alt-med space has totally awesome products to sell you that Big Science won't let you know about.

Maybe you missed my point.

I claim that every credible opposition to the medical establishment has been branded as science denial for decades, so much that scientists and researchers won't even bother any more for the sake of their careers.

That's how you get the people you are talking about.

Which credible oppositions that were branded as science denial do you have in mind, specifically?

My own memory of opposition to the medical establishment in past decades inevitably flows to homeopathy, colloidal silver, and other nonsense. There's always been a lot of kooks and grifters trying to make a buck off the gullible by playing on their paranoia.

The most prominent historical example is Semmelweis, dude wanted doctors to start washing hands. Was ridiculed, bullied, and abused into insanity.

I'll leave out mrna vaccines and gender related examples to avoid politically charged examples and people missing the forest for the trees.

Here are some more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Abramson (Read his book!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Olivieri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_(psychiatrist)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey

You can google the general topic and see that there are hundreds more, but none of these individuals managed to become prominent or well known because they just gave up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com