The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
The large amount of interventional data comparing higher saturated fat to higher polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) diets (Minnesota Coronary Study, Sydney Diet Heart, etc.) showing the dangers of PUFA has also been ignored for this same reason.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
there are multiple interventional trials which are not epidemiology they are not observational that show specifically the minnesota coronary study and the sydney diet heart hypothesis that when you give people more linoleic acid there is more incidence of heart disease and also more incidence of cancer and earlier death
and the best trials Minnesota coronary Rose cor oil and potentially Sydney diet heart study which Hamley considers to be adequately controlled trials all suggest that polyunsaturated fats are bad for cardiovascular outcomes