In this specific case, I would assume that the finding would apply to pretty much all mammals. Unless of course, the mice organs convert it to a different chemical compound than us and it's that other one that is doing the damage.
This is going to depend on the mode of action of the active agent, and the coordinating molecules and proteins that lead to presence of the active agent affecting expression of these specific genes.
Let's say the small molecule binds a cell-surface receptor causing a cascade that prompts downregulation or upregulation of a transcription factor. The cell-surface receptor binding domain may differ enough between various mammal species that it has less, or more, of an effect in some species than others, and no effect at all in other species.
I think the important part to assume there is something here that probably affects humans in a similar way is the previous linkage of soy oil to obesity and diabetes in humans.
Yeah, we had cold and hot summers before, I'm not convinced. This is another attack on the crackpot comunity..
In all seriousness it depends on the simalirity of the organs and chemical cycles modeled from mice and men. The bloodbrain barrier and neurons are very similar. And for alot of other systems there are mice bred specifically to recreate human disease simulacra. There are differences and they can be cited when catching a erroneous experiment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14978070/
Just hinting at the difference as a catch all is insufficient.
(it's a fairly common trope on HN, any time there's a breathless clickbait-y title about some research results, there's a high chance it was tested only in mice, results for humans may vary, etc. etc.)
This oil probably wasn't cooked, or used for frying. If they can isolate the active ingredient it would be worthwhile checking the heat stability of said ingredient. Maybe soy oil needs to be reduced in uncooked form (such as for salad or dipping oils) but is fine to use for frying. Maybe it's problematic regardless.
If this effect is also present in humans, I wonder whether people who have been using soy oil for many generations have genetically or epigenetically adapted to moderate or eliminate this effect.
Why are people so weird about corn syrup? If you're fine with other forms of refined sugar you should be fine with corn syrup and vice versa. People make what is essentially corn syrup in the form of invert sugar from sugar cane.
I always have a fun time when people demonize fructose, and then I point out its completely natural organic fruit sugar. (I mention natural and organic in the colloquial way, not the actual definition)
> Unlike glucose, which is directly metabolized widely in the body, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver in humans, where it is directed toward replenishment of liver glycogen and triglyceride synthesis.
Agree that corn syrup is not much worse and essentially the same as refined sugar, but they are both bad in large amounts and added everywhere to our foods.
Yes. Industrial seed oils are the next gluten. The biohacking community has been up on this for a decade or so. The quick headline is the healthiest fats are first tier: animal fat (meat/tallow/ghee) and olive oil, second tier: avocado, coconut. Third tier: more controversial but i believe a few specialty seed/nut oils apply- sesame, walnut, a few others. Basically that’s it, everything else comes with health risks, inflammation, and apparently hormone and other healthy gene expression. “vegetable”, soy, canola, corn“ are all inflammatory and problematic. It’s a good idea to avoid.
Im not sure about where Soy oil fits in, but there seems to be growing evidence that oils made from seeds, often called vegetable oils, are in fact quite bad for you especially when used for cooking.
Peanut oil is so expensive/valuable that the peanut oil is usually extracted and replaced with palm oil,which has its own environmental issues, before the rest of the peanut is used to make peanut butter.
Sunflower oil is in the same category as soybean and canola oil, industrially extracted from seeds and consisting of the type of omega-6 that in any but the most miniscule amounts are harmful in a number of ways, and a poor source of metabolic energy to boot.
Walnut, almond, etc., are good for us, but in small amounts, and don't keep well or withstand heat, all of which make them unsuitable for cooking.
We need to go back to saturated and monounsaturated fats, they are fine, and not actively harmful like the garbage waste products that are 'vegetable oils'.
> consisting of the type of omega-6 that in any but the most miniscule amounts are harmful in a number of ways, and a poor source of metabolic energy to boot.
I have been hearing this for years, but I have never found a reputable scientific source for this claim about omega-6 and omega-3. All I can find are sketchy websites trying to sell something.
I hear this a lot but have never seen anything other than hypothetical mechanisms. I’d be interested to see actual evidence, if there’s any you can share. I’m cautious here because it’s the kind of thing that plays to my own bias.
Nor am I able to assess tradeoffs. Like with the nootropics stuff, I worry about over optimizing (or just plain wasted effort), where the rewards don't merit the effort.
My impression is the metabolism science is progressing quickly. Esp wrt cholesterol. (I have a stubbornly high LDL, hence my interest.) I'm optimistic that sooner than later some consensus will emerge and some one can just tell me the correct answer and I can get back to coding.
Why is it that it's only sketchy websites like this that report on soybean oil and other seed oils? Surely if it were such a big deal, reputable news outlets would have picked up the story, no? What's going on here? Is the whole thing bullshit? Or is big seed oil covering it up?
I think you are out of the loop. You say 'big seed oil' like it's a joke, but that's certainly a thing and a major lobby. There's a reason margerine was promoted as the healthy choice for decades (without 'reputable news sources' picking up on that it is, in fact, poison, and now illegal in most countries).
I always assume these articles are for out of shape people checking their phones while eating McDonalds french fries pretending to worry about their health or really in shape people that only eat organic quail eggs.
I just really doubt that seed oils vs some other fat would be my downfall.
A possible reason for "reputable" news outlets to not report on this is that the link between soybean oil and diabetes/obesity was already known. This paper demonstrates some specific gene regulation effects, but other than the oxytocin-insulin link any other effects are more speculatory.
This information is a decade old. The answer is don't let anyone else dictate what goes in your mouth, and you are, and they'll give you soybean or rapeseed (oops, canola). It's in every fryer in the land, and you lie to yourself to think otherwise.
I really dont see how soybean oil in by itself causes obesity as is stated in the article. If you don exceed your daily caloric intace then you wont gain weight no matter what kind of oil you eat.
CICO is mostly true if you already have a balanced diet, if you eat 2000kcal of ultra processed food you'll have side effects you wouldn't have with a cleaner diet. The body is a fine tuned machine, it doesn't process 100kcal of sugar the same way it processed 100kcal of broccoli
Whilst that is true, in neither case will it extract the full kcal, since that was calculated by completely burning the food (in a calorimeter). If you burn more than 100kcal you will not gain weight no matter what. You might still get fatter, but your total mass cannot increase if you burn more calories than you consume unless you violate conservation of energy.
I am so weirded out that almost nobody seems to acknowledge that calorie numbers have no actual meaning with the way digestion processes food in a human body. Relying on food consumption advice that's based on calorie numbers and math is invariably wrong, the only way it might happen to have any meaningful impact is because low numbers mean lower overall quantities.
Also the way calories are "counted" in exercise is absolutely bogus for individuals because it rarely takes into account their physiology and basically uses made up numbers of various exercise types.
I am guessing that chronic inflammation can lead to weight gain through fluid leakage into tissues (effectively trapping more non-caloric water weight in the body).
Some foods can cause your satiety system to go bad and you then feel hungry and consume more food. Not everyone counts calories and says "oh, I've eaten too much today, better stop", some people (like me) actually feel real pain when they are hungry and going hungry lowers you willpower which you need to keep not eating and inflict pain on yourself.
Literally everyone feels pain when hungry. The trick is realizing its perfectly goddamn normal and you don't have to eat a 1000 calorie meal because of hunger pains.
It's certainly more complicated than that. I spent a year and a half trying to be in a calorie deficit, meticulously tracking every calorie and wasn't able to lose weight, because I wasn't able to stay in a calorie deficit long enough.
Recently switched to keto, which has the primary function of lowering insulin levels and reduction of feelings of hunger. And within 2 months I'm 18 lbs down.
It's not simply a matter of Calories in/calories out, the kinds of calories you eat matter. 2000 calories of donuts vs 2000 of beef are vastly different nutrient profiles and you will have corresponding health effects accordingly.
55 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 51.6 ms ] threadLet's say the small molecule binds a cell-surface receptor causing a cascade that prompts downregulation or upregulation of a transcription factor. The cell-surface receptor binding domain may differ enough between various mammal species that it has less, or more, of an effect in some species than others, and no effect at all in other species.
I think the important part to assume there is something here that probably affects humans in a similar way is the previous linkage of soy oil to obesity and diabetes in humans.
In all seriousness it depends on the simalirity of the organs and chemical cycles modeled from mice and men. The bloodbrain barrier and neurons are very similar. And for alot of other systems there are mice bred specifically to recreate human disease simulacra. There are differences and they can be cited when catching a erroneous experiment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14978070/
Just hinting at the difference as a catch all is insufficient.
(not "genetic changes". this is a badly written article)
If this effect is also present in humans, I wonder whether people who have been using soy oil for many generations have genetically or epigenetically adapted to moderate or eliminate this effect.
I always have a fun time when people demonize fructose, and then I point out its completely natural organic fruit sugar. (I mention natural and organic in the colloquial way, not the actual definition)
> Unlike glucose, which is directly metabolized widely in the body, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver in humans, where it is directed toward replenishment of liver glycogen and triglyceride synthesis.
They are not the same.
Vegetable oil as you know it and it's sold is soybean oil. Maybe another cheap oilseed like canola or corn, but that's it because it's cheap.
Walnut, almond, etc., are good for us, but in small amounts, and don't keep well or withstand heat, all of which make them unsuitable for cooking.
We need to go back to saturated and monounsaturated fats, they are fine, and not actively harmful like the garbage waste products that are 'vegetable oils'.
I have been hearing this for years, but I have never found a reputable scientific source for this claim about omega-6 and omega-3. All I can find are sketchy websites trying to sell something.
seeds- gingelly oil, groundnut oil, sunflower oil, coconut oil, rice bran oil.
Fruit- olive oil, Palmoline oil
Coconut oil is made from the 'flesh', which is the solid endosperm, which is part of the seed.
I don't understand any of the science that I've tried to read (and watch). How misc fats like PUFAs metabolize and so forth.
The Fire In a Bottle guy has explainer videos. Alas, I'm in no way competent enough to judge how good that info is. It seems to jive with other advice, eg Dr Terry Wahls and Dr Rhonda Patrick and Dr Peter Attia. But what do I know? https://fireinabottle.net https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjt6C_7Vgw4&list=PLo4Cmo9MNY...
Nor am I able to assess tradeoffs. Like with the nootropics stuff, I worry about over optimizing (or just plain wasted effort), where the rewards don't merit the effort.
My impression is the metabolism science is progressing quickly. Esp wrt cholesterol. (I have a stubbornly high LDL, hence my interest.) I'm optimistic that sooner than later some consensus will emerge and some one can just tell me the correct answer and I can get back to coding.
This is news to me, would you mind providing a citation or two?
I just really doubt that seed oils vs some other fat would be my downfall.
And of course the Endocrine society did: https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/eureka-2020-part-i-top-e...
A possible reason for "reputable" news outlets to not report on this is that the link between soybean oil and diabetes/obesity was already known. This paper demonstrates some specific gene regulation effects, but other than the oxytocin-insulin link any other effects are more speculatory.
> potentially impacting energy metabolism
CICO is mostly true if you already have a balanced diet, if you eat 2000kcal of ultra processed food you'll have side effects you wouldn't have with a cleaner diet. The body is a fine tuned machine, it doesn't process 100kcal of sugar the same way it processed 100kcal of broccoli
Also the way calories are "counted" in exercise is absolutely bogus for individuals because it rarely takes into account their physiology and basically uses made up numbers of various exercise types.
https://open.oregonstate.education/aandp/chapter/26-1-body-f...
> Figure 26.1.8 – Edema: An allergic reaction can cause capillaries in the hand to leak excess fluid that accumulates in the tissues.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-w...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396444/
Recently switched to keto, which has the primary function of lowering insulin levels and reduction of feelings of hunger. And within 2 months I'm 18 lbs down.
It's not simply a matter of Calories in/calories out, the kinds of calories you eat matter. 2000 calories of donuts vs 2000 of beef are vastly different nutrient profiles and you will have corresponding health effects accordingly.