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 trial has been criticized since it was believed that the experimental group consumed considerable amounts of trans fats from Miracle Margarine. However, a significant reduction in serum cholesterol of the experimental group suggests that trans fats intake was not significant, as trans fats are known to increase cholesterol levels.
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.
interestingly Sydney diet heart study has been criticized because the experimental group received a margarine that could have had trans fat in it rather than the control group so this is the reverse of what I was talking about the other studies but it's important to note that trans fats consistently raise LDL cholesterol and if you look at Syd diet heart study the experimental groups LDL cerol went down so no one really knows how much trans fat intake the experimental group in the Sydney diet heart study got from something called Miracle margarine but if their LDL level is any indication the experimental group got more polyunsaturated fats or less trans fats than the control group regardless I think that some people would say Sydney diet heart is not valid I think there's a strong argument because of the lowering of the LDL in the experimental group that they did not receive a significant amount of trans fats but Sydney diet heart remains a gray study