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.
What I'm saying, and actually if you read the Ramsden paper, they more or less make this point, is this is highly inconsistent with the current um diet heart hypothesis and that we need to be more humble about our knowledge based on the evidence and not make sweeping recommendations like chop saturated fat, increase unsaturated fat, and LDL is bad, and if you lower it, it's good. It's again the the idea of the myopic focus on LDL.
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.
I mean Anel Keys >> and that's this stuff >> that's this study. Wow. Yeah. So it wasn't originally published um Anel Keys obviously was in favor of the hypothesis that polyunsaturated fats were good for humans. He was kind of the beginning of this diet hard hypothesis and this didn't fit his results.