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 you'll find is that when they give the rats cancer saturated fats were protective like the first study i showed and the polyunsaturated fats made the outcomes way worse the altered lipid composition of the mucosa may increase the sensitivity of the colon to the carcinogen and the excess of arachidonic acid or its metabolites maybe the primary agents have co carcinogenesis of colon tumors
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.
when they do that with saturated fat there was no increase in tumor burden but when they fed rats unsaturated fat they had a significantly higher incidence of colon tumors than they did with the saturated fat