'(“Linolenic” is a typo, surprisingly common in these sorts of papers—they meant to write “Linoleic”, as the context makes clear; linoleic (LA), but not alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), is a precursor to arachidonic acid (AA).)'
If the authors of the paper, rather than the editors of the journal, wrote the introduction, that's not very confidence-instilling.
'seed oils used to make ultra processed junk food'
Is that really the largest contribution to diet? What about people who go through a lot of salad dressing, commercial or homemade, which is made with seed oil? That seems pretty substantial.
It depends on the definition, of course. The most widely used one, NOVA, does not consider industrial seed oils to be ultra-processed, but equivalent to butter. Which I think is stupid.
Sometimes I'm perplexed by scientists who cherry pick studies or misread them to suit their prejudices. Sometimes I am not.
I understand the motivation for the nutrition policy analysts at the USDA, FDA, CDC, and NIH who defend seed oils. Government agencies have incredibly long institutional memories. Employees work there for decades, and any very influential ones will have fought battles to change things that have contributed to the status quo. This makes them reluctant to change their view, and their level of influence has a collateral impact on others at the institution. Plus, there's a disdain for newcomers or outsiders who dissent but haven't fought the battles, the contempt for laymen who contest their opinions, and the professional clout they gain from influencing industry & academia.
I can also understand the motivation behind academic defenders of seed oils. They face many of the same institutional forces that gov't nutrition policy analysts face. Also, they frequently collaborate with gov't policy analysts, so there's a question of loyalty (which creates a feedback loop with their partners in government).
I can also understand the motivation for people who work with medical institutions. They face all of the above factors, plus they use government recommendations so that they avoid opening windows of professional liability, like IT professionals who default to Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle.
And, of course, everyone knows the entrenched interests involved in product development in the food industry.
I'm not saying any of this is good, just that I understand the motivations.
Nevertheless, plenty of independent nutritional scientists work in fields much less encumbered by the factors that influence gov't, academia, medical instutions, and the food industry. They're persuing careers in food & nutrition media, public speaking, nutritional workshops, health coaching, policy advocary, etc.
What is their motivation for misreading & cherrypicking studies to suit their prejudices? Is it just that they place so much blind faith in the network of information that comes out of gov't, academia, and medical institutions? Or are they just stupid?
'(“Linolenic” is a typo, surprisingly common in these sorts of papers—they meant to write “Linoleic”, as the context makes clear; linoleic (LA), but not alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), is a precursor to arachidonic acid (AA).)'
If the authors of the paper, rather than the editors of the journal, wrote the introduction, that's not very confidence-instilling.
If they get the rest of it right I'm not too concerned.
I get n-6 and n-3 backwards all the time. Drives me nuts.
I realize that. My comment was partly tongue in cheek.
'seed oils used to make ultra processed junk food'
Is that really the largest contribution to diet? What about people who go through a lot of salad dressing, commercial or homemade, which is made with seed oil? That seems pretty substantial.
Are french fries considered ultra processed?
It depends on the definition, of course. The most widely used one, NOVA, does not consider industrial seed oils to be ultra-processed, but equivalent to butter. Which I think is stupid.
I did a thread about it here:
https://x.com/TuckerGoodrich/status/1507125047403507724
Sometimes I'm perplexed by scientists who cherry pick studies or misread them to suit their prejudices. Sometimes I am not.
I understand the motivation for the nutrition policy analysts at the USDA, FDA, CDC, and NIH who defend seed oils. Government agencies have incredibly long institutional memories. Employees work there for decades, and any very influential ones will have fought battles to change things that have contributed to the status quo. This makes them reluctant to change their view, and their level of influence has a collateral impact on others at the institution. Plus, there's a disdain for newcomers or outsiders who dissent but haven't fought the battles, the contempt for laymen who contest their opinions, and the professional clout they gain from influencing industry & academia.
I can also understand the motivation behind academic defenders of seed oils. They face many of the same institutional forces that gov't nutrition policy analysts face. Also, they frequently collaborate with gov't policy analysts, so there's a question of loyalty (which creates a feedback loop with their partners in government).
I can also understand the motivation for people who work with medical institutions. They face all of the above factors, plus they use government recommendations so that they avoid opening windows of professional liability, like IT professionals who default to Microsoft, IBM, or Oracle.
And, of course, everyone knows the entrenched interests involved in product development in the food industry.
I'm not saying any of this is good, just that I understand the motivations.
Nevertheless, plenty of independent nutritional scientists work in fields much less encumbered by the factors that influence gov't, academia, medical instutions, and the food industry. They're persuing careers in food & nutrition media, public speaking, nutritional workshops, health coaching, policy advocary, etc.
What is their motivation for misreading & cherrypicking studies to suit their prejudices? Is it just that they place so much blind faith in the network of information that comes out of gov't, academia, and medical institutions? Or are they just stupid?
Most funding comes from the government, and publishing is through people who are part of the system you describe well.
Massive pressure to conform, and a few scalps hanging on the wall to show what happens if you don't.
"To be a dissenter was the be unfunded because the peer-review system rewards conformity and excludes criticism."
Mann, G. V. (1977). Diet-Heart: End of an Era. New England Journal of Medicine, 297(12), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197709222971206