[HN Gopher] Thoughts on Seed Oil
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Thoughts on Seed Oil
        
       Author : paulpauper
       Score  : 79 points
       Date   : 2024-04-18 17:13 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (dynomight.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.substack.com)
        
       | criddell wrote:
       | I think the final paragraph is a great way to frame it:
       | 
       | > Look, I wish strong seed oil theory were true. That would be
       | great. All we'd have to do is reformulate our Cheetos with
       | different oil, and then we could go on merrily eating Cheetos.
       | 
       | The problem with our (Western) diet isn't that we're using seed
       | oil. It's the diet itself.
        
         | tempsy wrote:
         | Fries fried in canola oil is very different than fries fried in
         | tallow.
         | 
         | The author seems to suggest that it's all the same because "of
         | course fries are junk food" but there is a significant health
         | difference if you recognize that reusing seed oils at high
         | frying temps over and over again degrades the oil in a way that
         | is not the same as with saturated fats.
        
           | atrus wrote:
           | That's actually indirectly mentioned in the article, where
           | they talk about how the polyunsaturated fats can be turned
           | into transfats at temps over 200C.
        
             | tempsy wrote:
             | Yet the author insists it doesn't matter because "of course
             | Cheetos are junk food", even though it's just a fried corn
             | puff.
        
             | joshuahaglund wrote:
             | Deep fryers are usually 175 to 190C so trans fats shouldn't
             | be much of a concern. I'm more concerned about everything
             | else about deep fried foods -- being high calorie, low
             | nutrient, zero fiber. The choice of oil is irrelevant
        
               | tempsy wrote:
               | Yeah that's absurd. Go to a fast food place and they are
               | reusing the oil over and over again for as long as
               | possible. Believing that the vegetable oil is in a non
               | degraded state by the time they switch it out is naive.
               | 
               | That is going to create a lot of oxidative stress and
               | inflammation.
        
           | elevatedastalt wrote:
           | Excessive saturated fat consumption is not going to be good
           | for your LDL levels.
        
             | shrimp_emoji wrote:
             | Aren't cholesterol meds good and cheap enough now that you
             | basically never even have to worry about your cholesterol?
             | 
             | On top of that, it's all genetics and pointless to worry
             | about. Just enjoy the ride. BD
        
               | elevatedastalt wrote:
               | Did a Pharma exec write this message?
        
             | tempsy wrote:
             | The high cholesterol scare is another thing that needs to
             | be explored.
             | 
             | You are operating under the assumption that raising
             | cholesterol levels is somehow a terrible thing.
        
           | tshaddox wrote:
           | Tallow is more expensive, so if it were the only option,
           | fried food would be less profitable. And that would mean
           | there would be less fried food in our diets.
        
             | PHGamer wrote:
             | so a good thing? i think the big probably with all these
             | substitutions is they are to make us eat more of the bad
             | thing. if you could only eat fried food or sweets on an
             | occasion then no issue. however, those are the things that
             | are made cheap.
             | 
             | then again maybe its cause those taste the best due to
             | being evolutationary selected and companies arent trying to
             | kill us but get us to buy whatever our bodies easily go
             | for.
        
         | tshaddox wrote:
         | Ah, but does the diet cause the seed oil, or does the seed oil
         | cause the diet? I suspect our diets would be better if
         | addictive unhealthy food was less profitable.
        
       | bodhi_mind wrote:
       | A lot of actual research is being done on how gut microbiota
       | affects inflammation, disease, immune system. Obviously health is
       | a complicated subject that includes genetics and environment.
        
       | moltar wrote:
       | I'm not convinced the author of this post did enough research.
       | Because some of the best resources were not mentioned. The
       | leading meta researcher in this field is the author of the Fire
       | in a Bottle blog who argues that linoleic acid itself doesn't
       | necessarily make you fat. But it triggers torpor in animals to
       | trigger pathways to start accumulating fat. It's like a trigger
       | from nature. Because usually linoleic acid rich foods are
       | available around fall which is when animals need to store weight
       | before the winter.
        
         | Vegenoid wrote:
         | I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'this field', and I'd
         | never heard of this person, but in spending a few minutes
         | looking him up, his work and his online presence - I find it
         | hard to believe that 'the leading meta researcher in this
         | field' is a very accurate description. I'd be curious for some
         | more information justifying that.
        
       | jtriangle wrote:
       | It's very likely that you can blame most of what gets blamed on
       | seed oil on diets that are abundant in simple carbohydrates, and
       | seed oils are likely contributing in some way that's yet to be
       | studied, but, eliminating those simple carbohydrates likely fixes
       | things.
       | 
       | I do like the sentiment of the article though, very science-
       | positive with a healthy side of skepticism.
        
         | smolder wrote:
         | I doubt simple sugars are a serious threat by themselves
         | either. The dose makes the poison. Straight candy is bad for
         | you but having sugary cereal or an energy bar occasionally is
         | not an issue. Industrialized diets encourage us to overcome
         | calorie dense, overly processed foods. The biggest factor in
         | disease related to that kind of diet could just be that the
         | proportions of things are out of whack.
        
       | OJFord wrote:
       | The BMI percentiles over time chart is presumably meant to be
       | shocking, but also shocking to me is how far back it goes being
       | so high. The median [edit: 50yo] American would be obese in the
       | UK as far back as [50yos' births in] 1920; I know it's a
       | stereotype but I didn't realise it was that accurate (or as
       | accurate as even that I mean).
       | 
       | (Edit softens it a little, but still. It's on track to break US's
       | own BMI obese line at 30 before long, I think it's sometimes
       | called an epidemic and rightfully so in that sense? If the
       | _median_ person in a country has a problematic characteristic
       | that 's crazy isn't it, should be a bigger deal?)
        
       | AlexErrant wrote:
       | > My real worry about seed oil theory is that it's a distraction.
       | 
       | Which do you think is worse: smoking, or seed oils?
       | 
       | Which do you think is worse: smoking, or not exercising?
       | 
       | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
       | 
       | Look at Figure 2C in particular. The hazard ratio of smoking is
       | 1.41. The hazard ratio between "Low" (<25th percentile) and
       | "Below Average" (25th-49th percentile) cardiovascular health is
       | 1.95.
       | 
       | In other words, it is better to be a smoker than in the lower 25%
       | of non-exercisers. By far. It's not even close.
       | 
       | Seed oils are 100% a distraction. Once you're in the upper 2.3%
       | of vo2max for your age/sex, _then_ you have the right to worry
       | about seed oils. Until then, save your energy for interval
       | training.
       | 
       | Minor in the minors, major in the majors.
        
         | doublepg23 wrote:
         | Are you aware of research that studies cigar smoking
         | specifically?
         | 
         | I've never been a cigarette smoker but enjoy a cigar a few
         | times (2-3) a week in the summer (4 months or so out of the
         | year). Obviously not smoking is better, but I'd like to have
         | hard data what kind of risk I'm taking.
         | 
         | Ex: is the risk similar to two drinks a day, is the risk
         | similar to enjoying a bonfire or is it similar to an entire
         | pack of cigarettes.
        
           | aklemm wrote:
           | I've been curious about this as well. For me I smoke maybe
           | 2/month...one cigar a week at the very most. My guess is it's
           | negligible compared to all the other toxic clouds we walk
           | through in a given week. But hard data would be useful to
           | see.
           | 
           | Edit: Table 1 might have our answers https://cancercontrol.ca
           | ncer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08...
        
           | DebtDeflation wrote:
           | Pipe smoking is even better. The 1964 Surgeon Generals report
           | found that so long as you don't inhale or smoke more than 3
           | bowls per day, pipe smokers actually lived an average of 2
           | years longer than NONSMOKERS.
        
           | JauntTrooper wrote:
           | Cigar and Pipe smoking increases the risk of oral, throat,
           | and esophageal cancers at a similar rate to cigarettes.
           | 
           | Here's one study:
           | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755640/
        
         | tempsy wrote:
         | The idea that someone can't or shouldn't focus on both exercise
         | and diet is nonsense, as if you can't do both at the same time.
        
         | tshaddox wrote:
         | You seem to be hiding an assumption, which is that it only
         | makes sense to completely solve the highest hazard ratio before
         | even considering the next highest hazard ratio. But why would
         | that be the case?
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _it only makes sense to completely solve the highest hazard
           | ratio before even considering the next highest hazard ratio.
           | But why would that be the case?_
           | 
           | Seed-oil harm is nowhere close to the second-highest hazard.
           | That's the point. If you're obsessing around optimising your
           | oil consumption for health, you're probably missing lower-
           | hanging fruit. It's fine to optimise on around the margins,
           | but any more attention than that--assuming you are not a
           | researcher--is overkill.
        
         | arcticbull wrote:
         | Speaking of smoking, it's been shown to have a significant
         | impact on obesity. In that, it dramatically lowers your body
         | weight because it increases your energy expenditure and
         | decreases your hunger. Nicotine is a stimulant. As soon as you
         | stop taking nicotine, your BMI is going up. The delta between
         | smoker and non-smoker BMI in this study was 1.5kg/m^2 [1]
         | 
         | The article argues that the median increase in BMI over time
         | was 0.05kg/m^2/yr and the prevalence of smoking over the last
         | 20 years dropped from like 60% to 10%. So smoking rate is going
         | to account for a non-trivial amount of the increased median
         | BMI.
         | 
         | If it's true as you say that it's better to be a smoker now
         | than a non-smoker -- it's only because you're going to lose
         | weight, and that's your biggest risk factor for all-cause
         | mortality.
         | 
         | If it's just to lose weight then you're probably better off
         | with ozempic than a pack of American Spirits.
         | 
         | Also I dislike the article's use of BMI over very long
         | timescales, going back to the 1800s. BMI is fine for most
         | people these days (because most people have a lot of weight on
         | them, see the article) but a lot of the 1800s BMI gain was
         | probably just due to better nutrition not higher fat
         | percentages. Over long time horizons we probably want to
         | measure waist-to-height ratio or body fat percentages. The
         | 1890s BMI delta was probably all lean mass, and good-to-neutral
         | whereas the 1990s BMI delta was probably all fat mass and
         | overwhelmingly bad.
         | 
         | Anyways, it's almost certainly not seed oils.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/
        
       | danbolt wrote:
       | I find the seed oil skepticism makes sense on kind of a
       | lifestyle-y, psychic level. Like, the rhetoric always feels all-
       | over-the-place like the author mentions compared to research on
       | trans fat. It always struck me as a more emotional thing.
       | 
       | Like, it lets people afraid of a seemingly scary, industrialized,
       | effeminate, world feel virtuous, contrarian, and protected by
       | tradition. Plus, you get to eat steaks and butter!
        
       | addicted wrote:
       | I've no real comment on the seed oils, etc. but I don't
       | understand how someone can look at the "Animals vs plant based
       | added fats and oils per capita" chart and conclude first that
       | seed oils have increased in our diet relative to animal fats, and
       | not the glaring fact that total fats have increased dramatically
       | in our diets.
        
       | darth_avocado wrote:
       | > Anything fried, obviously, but also instant noodles, chips,
       | crackers, tortillas, cereal, energy bars, canned tuna, processed
       | meats, plant-based meat, coffee creamer, broths, frozen dinners,
       | salad dressing, and sauces. Also: Baby food, infant formula, and
       | sometimes even ice cream or bread. People eat a lot more
       | vegetable oil.
       | 
       | The root of all evil is pretty out in front. When I was growing
       | up outside of US, everything we cooked was in peanut oil, coconut
       | oil, rice bran oil and cotton seed oil. Obesity was a rare
       | occurrence and so were heart conditions for adults. But all of
       | our food was entirely home made with the exception of the rare
       | cola, chocolates and ice cream for celebrations. Fast forward 30
       | years, there isn't a single item in stores that doesn't have palm
       | oil. Palm oil is the choice of cooking oil in restaurants. And
       | cooking at home has significantly gone down. Obesity and heart
       | diseases are now common. My parents have a much worse health in
       | their 60s than my grandparents did in their 60s. I have a worse
       | health than my parents did at my age despite being more conscious
       | about health and actively working towards it.
       | 
       | Seed oils are not a problem, how much of it we have is a problem.
        
         | rickdeckard wrote:
         | _> Palm oil is the choice of cooking oil in restaurants_
         | 
         | That's interesting, do you have any source for that? Is that in
         | US?
         | 
         | I know Palm oil is used in food production because it's neutral
         | in taste, easy to process at industrial scale and overall
         | stable in its characteristics.
         | 
         | As a European, using Palm oil as cooking oil sounds crazy
         | because it actually provides no benefit in a kitchen at all...
        
       | byyoung3 wrote:
       | My opinion is there doesn't seem to be any concerning evidence
       | that not eating seed oils is bad. Therefore I avoid them, as
       | there is little downside and high potential upside.
        
         | Vegenoid wrote:
         | Unless, as mentioned in the article, your saturated fat intake
         | increases, which seems to be more measurably bad for you than
         | seed oils. Of course, you might disagree with that assessment.
        
       | temp6624 wrote:
       | My gut instinct is that seed oils are probably bad, but I don't
       | have hard evidence of this. Instead, I see them as a proxy for
       | highly processed foods. Usually it's pretty accurate: If you find
       | a seed oil in the ingredients list there's a good chance you'll
       | also find other nasty stuff like HFCS, various preservatives,
       | added sugar, and so on. Real food doesn't need seed oils and
       | often times it's added for the benefit of the processing machines
       | rather than the food.
       | 
       | Eat real food, avoid processed crap, and you are 99% of the way
       | there.
        
       | kelipso wrote:
       | I like how a bunch of posters here pooh poohed microplastics
       | until more and more research came out and they couldn't keep
       | their heads in the sand anymore. Don't worry, the same thing will
       | happen here too.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-18 23:01 UTC)