Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
if you look at those data you can make a very compelling case that omega-6 polyunsaturated fats as substituted for saturated fats could actually be viewed as harmful but then you look at a whole bunch of other data and you think no any harm associated with those fats is purely due to the confounders of what they track with the seed oils that show up in lowquality foods and junk Foods it's not the seed oil that's the problem it's the junk food that's the problem
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.
they can't answer the questions that are still vexing me like are omega-6 polyunsaturated fats inherently healthy or harmful this is a very vexing question and I'm sitting here trying to write about it in a book and I don't know what to say because I've seen pretty compelling evidence for example looking at the unpublished initially unpublished data from the Minnesota coronary experiment that completed in 1973 didn't get published in its first rendition till 1989 and then wasn't reexamined and republished until I don't know something like 2013
there's nothing in nutrition that I'm more confused about than the role of uh Omega 6 puas