That's a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. Whether or not something has the ability to be used as a machine lubricant has no particular bearing on whether it would be healthy for a human to consume. You might as well talk about how people are 70% by weight composed of an industrial solvent and cleaning agent.
Except almost everything brought about by capitalism where cheapness and profit were the end goals never ended well. Seed oils are not food and the fact that more than 30% of the calories of the average American come from these processed oils does not bode well for the health of our nation.
They blatently are food, they are eaten and provide some nutrition. There's a decent amount of evidence they are not good food, however. If you actually stick to the facts and avoid inflammatory rhetorical flourishes you might get more traction.
Blaming a lack of food quality on capitalism is pretty rich. For a point of comparison, consider that even in socialist countries that didn't have famines, the availability and quality of food was orders of magnitude worse. The entire eastern block had basically no restrictions on pesticides, food poisoning was a regular occurence (due to broken refrigeration, lack of labs to test meat samples, fertilizing directly with fresh human and animal feces). That was if you were lucky enough to even get some of the items.
Hell, in the GDR there were persistent rumors that they kept using byproducts from coal refining to make margarine (a practice started by the Nazis) and I know for a fact that they used animal bile to replace hops in beer.
We don't even have to talk about pre-modern times where almost everyone had a diet severely lacking in variety and nutrients.
Makes sense. My body is a machine, after all. At least, that’s about the level of biology I got to in elementary school before I discovered how delicious crayons were.
Once you discover hand massaged wagyu crayons you will never go back to regular crayons. The craftsmanship is also exquisite, the barrel is crafted in such a way as to make sticking the crayon in your nose a magical experience.
I'm now curious if the oil becomes problematic to mice because of the extraction process, and if some cooked or processed soy products may have similar problems.
They definitely aren't using supercritical co2 extraction which would be the cleanest process. Lots of soybean oil solvent extractions result in a really ugly looking mess which is clarified using more chemicals before it can be sold.
Given the lack of any documented adverse health effects from soy-derived foods in the many cultures where it’s extremely widely used in cooking, my layman’s guess is that it’s to do with the extraction and processing of the soy bean oil. That can of course also apply to highly processed soy products, but I don’t reckon the average tofu or soy sauce enjoyer should be worried.
“Do not throw out your tofu, soymilk, edamame, or soy sauce,” said Frances Sladek, a UC Riverside toxicologist and professor of cell biology. “Many soy products only contain small amounts of the oil, and large amounts of healthful compounds such as essential fatty acids and proteins.”
No, canola refers to specific types of rapeseed oil that were bred to be lower in eurcic acid -- thought to be a health risk in the 1970s. I.e. canola is rapeseed oil but not all rapeseed oil is canola.
However all rapeseed oil sold in both the US and EU are these low (less than 2%) eurcic acid varieties.
Highlight: Coconut oil DID NOT cause the changes outlined in the study.
As an aside, BC Melnik has multiple studies published proving that pasteurized milk causes direct delivery of bovine DNA into human cells. And he has been proving this since 2009 in MANY published papers. STOP DRINKING MILK unless it is UHT or highly fermented (yogurt).
Irish history shows that milk does not cause modern western dietary diseases. For a long time dairy was a highly prominent component of diet, far more than today.
And in American milk consumption has plummeted since the 70’s, these disease have done the opposite.
No, that would be a highly contrived straw man reading of what I said. Can we not do that?
my argument is that while Irish people did suffer a lot of diseases over the millennia that dairy was a major component of their diet, those diseases were not the modern ones and definitely not in the same prevalence. Ergo I’m skeptical of a claim that dairy is causing many of the common modern western diseases such as that paper claims. If it were a cause, type 2 diabetes and all the others would have been rampant historically.
Additionally, as I also noted, since America’s milk consumption has plummeted while the diseases have skyrocketed it’s a bit perplexing to conclude milk could be a significant factor. The trends simply do not add up.
Finland has the highest milk consumptions and also one of the highest life expectancies. higher than the US. Seems a little odd if milk is supposedly causing disease.
Conversely, it's equally as perplexing to conclude that milk does not cause any of these diseases because there exists an inverse relationship between milk consumption and rate of incidence over time. Correlation does not equal causation, and is especially irrelevant when comparing different countries in different time periods for diseases that are known to have multiple causes.
I can't vouch for the study as I haven't read it, but it's quite reductive to dismiss what appears to be a comprehensive study mainly focused on biological pathways because there happens to be a negative correlation between Irish people drinking milk and rates of modern disease.
Okay fine, let’s go willy nilly spread nutrition advice based on stretched conclusions from limited studies because diet advice totally doesn’t have a history of misinterpretation and trends later found to be wrong.
Let’s upend diets on this latest fad of studies! No matter that both historical and modern trends raise questions about the conclusion, let’s upend people diets!
Happy now?
P.s. Also skeptical doesn’t mean that something isn’t possible. Just a word to the wise.
An article that further highlights the point I made - they site some groups getting more acne when adapting a “wester diet” (not just milk), and fail to address all the easily found counter examples rested to dairy.
But that paper is only 1/3 about milk, it also cites high glycemic index carbs and saturated fats as being causes. Health issues around low fiber high glycemic carbs is not a new or novel claim
Going back to the ethnic groups it cites as seeing increased acne with adoption of “western” diets. It’s not a surprise or novel finding that a diet of ultra processed high glycemic low fiber and all the other issues with the convenience food diet causes health issues. It is interesting they cite a group known for lactose intolerance and blame dairy.
They cite one disease as creating a natural experiment, and yet don’t mention lactose intolerance.
And this new paper is just about acne, not the wide range of modern afflictions mentioned before.
Dairy very well could have negative impacts, but it also could be the next aluminum or eggs.
I’m not going to argue with eating less refined carbs and sugars and eating more vegetables. That’s well supported advice.
Latching onto select dietary papers and then extrapolating to broad conclusions is a hallmark of what’s wrong with how the media and people understand nutrition science.
Is BC Melnik related to this study? I’m unsure of the relation to this article.
Followup: how good are those studies? From that link I can’t determine their research institute and without a background in this area I have no way to evaluate the claims.
>UHT milk is so processed it's not even milk anymore. Milk with 1 year shelf life? No thanx.
What specific characteristics of UHT milk makes it "not even milk anymore"? 1 year shelf life doesn't really count, unless you specifically care about milk spoiling within a certain amount of time.
It's just like steak made with the flamethrower. Unlimited shelf life because it's basically charcoal.
Spoiled milk = youghurt made with the wrong kind of bacteria. UHT milk does not spoil like pasteurized milk because not even lactobacteria bothers with it.
I'd rather drink homemade rice milk. At least that one is prone to alcoholic fermentation.
The claims here are just that microRNAs are delivered, not DNA, and that these change gene expression. Also, these Melnik papers are reviews, not studies - he's just summarizing other people's research (nothing wrong with that, in fact it's super useful, but Melnik isn't proving anything, and you should read the original papers and see if he's accurately reporting the results, and if those papers are designing their experiments correctly).
Also consider that basically everything you eat contains miRNA. If it works for milk, it will work for everything else. But it probably won't, since none of this makes sense (since your digestive system has enzymes that will eliminate all of your dietary nucleic acids, and bile to disrupt any vesicles that contain miRNA) and also it seems like a lot of these claims that dietary miRNA can even make it into your bloodstream are unreproducible: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628849/
Can you honestly say to yourself you don't need this to be true? It certainly would be convenient if making one small dietary change could lead to huge health benefits.
I know mice are not people but look at all the different tissues the miRNAs accumulate in mice. And there is some evidence that milk consumption turbocharges acne in humans which may be caused by more than the sugar content of it.
There is no way this stuff is healthy just looking at its proliferative effects. It has a shotgun effect on so many proliferative pathways.
The effect of sugars certainly is plausible. I'm not saying milk is good or bad (I personally don't consume any animal products fwiw). I'm just saying that your fears about miRNA are completely unfounded.
Look, I know you can't hear this, but these papers are really bad. They cite papers that have really poorly designed experiments that don't actually show what they claim to show. It's surprising, but you can publish papers that are obviously wrong.
Here's a non-scientific analogy: say you're on a desert island, and there are a bunch of rabbits and one wolf (you can also see the whole island from wherever you stand - it's extremely small - so you know there's nothing else hiding anywhere). You immediately throw the wolf into a solar-powered wood chipper, and subsequently observe that the rabbits and healthy and happy. But then a year later all the rabbits are gone. You then tell me: "I know, the wolf must have eaten them!" Uh...no. They drowned and floated away, or dug burrows underground, or you ate them in a fever dream and forgot about it. But the wolf has been gone for a long time.
Your digestive tract is basically the wood chipper. Exosomes are little droplets of oil that contain water and other water-soluble molecules on the inside. But bile (which your body produces) will dissolve them. Everything that's on the inside spills out and is digested further.
RNA and DNA that might be inside exosomes also gets digested. You produce enzymes that chop them up into individual bases, so any information they contained is destroyed. A double wood chipper!
So when I read these papers and they claim miRNAs in exosomes are flooding all over your body, I have to wonder how they measured that. And the answer is: never by sequencing, which would be definitive. They always use some method that is guaranteed to generate false positives, like just using a fat-soluble dye to label the exosomes. That dye is going to keep infiltrating the body long after the exosomes themselves have been digested. Or they just mix exosomes with cell cultures and pretend like that's meaningful.
Again, I urge people to abandon any non-plant based foods, but these claims about miRNA are unscientific and contradict an enormous body of evidence.
Can I just say that aside from the presented facts. I really liked the reporting. It clearly explained what the study showed and what the studies didn't show.
I think science reporting should be more like that. It's ok to have an article that says well we found a link but we are not clear yet on what's the exact cause, but we know what's not the cause
Study after study proves that Soy is terrible for humans. I’m lucky I’ve been avoiding it since the soy protein gives you 60% of the gainz of whey protein studies way back.
Believing that someone is better off drinking and eating a concoction of seed oils vs. animal derived fats or milk has become a form of religious doctrine. I’m happy to see others finally coming around to the scam.
Many cultures have been happily eating unrefined soy beans, tofu and tempeh for millennia. Those forms of soy are not the problem. it's the processed food soybean oil.
Saturated animal fats have their own specific problems. The science is clear on that. It's not just soy oil, it's not just animal fat, it's not just sugar, it's not just refined flours. It's all of them.
Michael Pollan's advice is still best: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
71 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadhttp://dhmo.org/facts.html
Hell, in the GDR there were persistent rumors that they kept using byproducts from coal refining to make margarine (a practice started by the Nazis) and I know for a fact that they used animal bile to replace hops in beer.
We don't even have to talk about pre-modern times where almost everyone had a diet severely lacking in variety and nutrients.
“Do not throw out your tofu, soymilk, edamame, or soy sauce,” said Frances Sladek, a UC Riverside toxicologist and professor of cell biology. “Many soy products only contain small amounts of the oil, and large amounts of healthful compounds such as essential fatty acids and proteins.”
As a European, I would have guessed it was rapeseed oil when I first saw the headline.
However all rapeseed oil sold in both the US and EU are these low (less than 2%) eurcic acid varieties.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed_oil
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erucic_acid
* https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR...
* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1870/corrigendum/2019...
So for any intents & purposes in the context of a conversation about consumers consuming food products, all rapeseed oil is canola oil.
As an aside, BC Melnik has multiple studies published proving that pasteurized milk causes direct delivery of bovine DNA into human cells. And he has been proving this since 2009 in MANY published papers. STOP DRINKING MILK unless it is UHT or highly fermented (yogurt).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19232475/
And in American milk consumption has plummeted since the 70’s, these disease have done the opposite.
skepticism is required.
my argument is that while Irish people did suffer a lot of diseases over the millennia that dairy was a major component of their diet, those diseases were not the modern ones and definitely not in the same prevalence. Ergo I’m skeptical of a claim that dairy is causing many of the common modern western diseases such as that paper claims. If it were a cause, type 2 diabetes and all the others would have been rampant historically.
Additionally, as I also noted, since America’s milk consumption has plummeted while the diseases have skyrocketed it’s a bit perplexing to conclude milk could be a significant factor. The trends simply do not add up.
Finland has the highest milk consumptions and also one of the highest life expectancies. higher than the US. Seems a little odd if milk is supposedly causing disease.
Hence I’m skeptical. The trends do not add up.
I can't vouch for the study as I haven't read it, but it's quite reductive to dismiss what appears to be a comprehensive study mainly focused on biological pathways because there happens to be a negative correlation between Irish people drinking milk and rates of modern disease.
Let’s upend diets on this latest fad of studies! No matter that both historical and modern trends raise questions about the conclusion, let’s upend people diets!
Happy now?
P.s. Also skeptical doesn’t mean that something isn’t possible. Just a word to the wise.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/CCID.S69135
But that paper is only 1/3 about milk, it also cites high glycemic index carbs and saturated fats as being causes. Health issues around low fiber high glycemic carbs is not a new or novel claim
Going back to the ethnic groups it cites as seeing increased acne with adoption of “western” diets. It’s not a surprise or novel finding that a diet of ultra processed high glycemic low fiber and all the other issues with the convenience food diet causes health issues. It is interesting they cite a group known for lactose intolerance and blame dairy.
They cite one disease as creating a natural experiment, and yet don’t mention lactose intolerance.
And this new paper is just about acne, not the wide range of modern afflictions mentioned before.
Dairy very well could have negative impacts, but it also could be the next aluminum or eggs.
I’m not going to argue with eating less refined carbs and sugars and eating more vegetables. That’s well supported advice.
Latching onto select dietary papers and then extrapolating to broad conclusions is a hallmark of what’s wrong with how the media and people understand nutrition science.
I was not attempting to setup a straw man and attack you with it. While inciteful it was not an underhanded attack.
Followup: how good are those studies? From that link I can’t determine their research institute and without a background in this area I have no way to evaluate the claims.
Oh god, the milk is turning us into cows!
What specific characteristics of UHT milk makes it "not even milk anymore"? 1 year shelf life doesn't really count, unless you specifically care about milk spoiling within a certain amount of time.
Spoiled milk = youghurt made with the wrong kind of bacteria. UHT milk does not spoil like pasteurized milk because not even lactobacteria bothers with it.
I'd rather drink homemade rice milk. At least that one is prone to alcoholic fermentation.
Why Pubmed even indexes this journal is beyond me.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/CCID.S69135
Also consider that basically everything you eat contains miRNA. If it works for milk, it will work for everything else. But it probably won't, since none of this makes sense (since your digestive system has enzymes that will eliminate all of your dietary nucleic acids, and bile to disrupt any vesicles that contain miRNA) and also it seems like a lot of these claims that dietary miRNA can even make it into your bloodstream are unreproducible: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628849/
Can you honestly say to yourself you don't need this to be true? It certainly would be convenient if making one small dietary change could lead to huge health benefits.
I know mice are not people but look at all the different tissues the miRNAs accumulate in mice. And there is some evidence that milk consumption turbocharges acne in humans which may be caused by more than the sugar content of it.
There is no way this stuff is healthy just looking at its proliferative effects. It has a shotgun effect on so many proliferative pathways.
Look, I know you can't hear this, but these papers are really bad. They cite papers that have really poorly designed experiments that don't actually show what they claim to show. It's surprising, but you can publish papers that are obviously wrong.
Here's a non-scientific analogy: say you're on a desert island, and there are a bunch of rabbits and one wolf (you can also see the whole island from wherever you stand - it's extremely small - so you know there's nothing else hiding anywhere). You immediately throw the wolf into a solar-powered wood chipper, and subsequently observe that the rabbits and healthy and happy. But then a year later all the rabbits are gone. You then tell me: "I know, the wolf must have eaten them!" Uh...no. They drowned and floated away, or dug burrows underground, or you ate them in a fever dream and forgot about it. But the wolf has been gone for a long time.
Your digestive tract is basically the wood chipper. Exosomes are little droplets of oil that contain water and other water-soluble molecules on the inside. But bile (which your body produces) will dissolve them. Everything that's on the inside spills out and is digested further.
RNA and DNA that might be inside exosomes also gets digested. You produce enzymes that chop them up into individual bases, so any information they contained is destroyed. A double wood chipper!
So when I read these papers and they claim miRNAs in exosomes are flooding all over your body, I have to wonder how they measured that. And the answer is: never by sequencing, which would be definitive. They always use some method that is guaranteed to generate false positives, like just using a fat-soluble dye to label the exosomes. That dye is going to keep infiltrating the body long after the exosomes themselves have been digested. Or they just mix exosomes with cell cultures and pretend like that's meaningful.
Again, I urge people to abandon any non-plant based foods, but these claims about miRNA are unscientific and contradict an enormous body of evidence.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/CCID.S69135
And it barely even mentions transfer of genetic material from milk.
I think science reporting should be more like that. It's ok to have an article that says well we found a link but we are not clear yet on what's the exact cause, but we know what's not the cause
Aside from the clickbait-y headline of course.
Believing that someone is better off drinking and eating a concoction of seed oils vs. animal derived fats or milk has become a form of religious doctrine. I’m happy to see others finally coming around to the scam.
Saturated animal fats have their own specific problems. The science is clear on that. It's not just soy oil, it's not just animal fat, it's not just sugar, it's not just refined flours. It's all of them.
Michael Pollan's advice is still best: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."