Peter Attia· MD
The core arguments against seed oils: the four main claims underlying the idea that seed oils are uniquely harmful, and how well they hold up once major confounders are addressed
Loading…
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 core arguments against seed oils: the four main claims underlying the idea that seed oils are uniquely harmful, and how well they hold up once major confounders are addressed
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.
The core arguments that seed oils are uniquely harmful need to be addressed by considering major confounders.
So what I would say if the the statement is seed oils are uniquely delletterious to human health. Even if we take the trans fats out of it and if you're going to allow those to be included, you have to have I call it logical symmetry, which is if I'm going to allow this confounding variable to support my point, I also have to allow your confounding variables to support your point.