Peter Attia· MD
Basically it comes down to do I believe that trans fats are less problematic than you believe? Because if I believe that trans fats are actually not harmful, then that would take away your argument.
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.
Basically it comes down to do I believe that trans fats are less problematic than you believe? Because if I believe that trans fats are actually not harmful, then that would take away your argument.
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.
So they again there was a most I don't want to say most a large portion of what they consumed was safflower based margarine which at the time again was 25 to 40% trans fats.
So this is a tough one to score, Lane, because on the one hand, you know, it looks pretty bad for polyunsaturated fats here. Every time you eat them, it just seems to move you in the wrong direction, except for the linoleic uh VA study. >> Well, there's a few different uh human randomized control trials. So, the the VA study was So, there's several strengths to this study. >> First off, it was >> Tell us what the study was about. Yeah. So it was in uh so it was in veterans homes. Um the food intake was controlled. They provided it to the participants and it was I think around 850 participants and the average follow-up I believe was just under nine years. So that's actually a pretty long study for this >> not confounded by trans fats. >> And they did show I I again I don't have the raw numbers in front of me. I think it was around a 20 or 30% reduction in risk. It was though it did not reach statistical significance as well. So it had a it it didn't have a wide confidence interval. It was actually quite narrow but it crossed unity. >> So it had a 18% reduction in overall risk. Uh but it was.56 to 1.21 was your confidence intervals. Um but this is one that's on the other side of what you said a moment ago. They included omega-3s if we believe that.