Paul Saladino· MD
how much could this study have been confounded by healthy user bias and unhealthy user bias
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.
how much could this study have been confounded by healthy user bias and unhealthy user bias
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.
What I would say when it comes to healthy user bias, what you typically see is like no effect of something that should be bad or it'll be inconsistent in the research literature. But it's hard to argue converging lines of evidence. If your if your position is that seed oils are uniquely delterious, it's hard to argue converging lines of evidence when one of the major things you really should see is if people eat more linoleic acid, the effect should be so powerful. If they're the primary driver of cardiovascular disease, which is what some of these people claim, that effect should be powerful enough that even if they were doing other healthy behaviors, that you should still see something and certainly not a protective effect.
If your if your position is that seed oils are uniquely delterious, it's hard to argue converging lines of evidence when one of the major things you really should see is if people eat more linoleic acid, the effect should be so powerful.