Then they say something like, correlation is not causation but this one is so well fitted with the rise of metabolic disease that it's at least suspicious.
I've eliminated vegetable oils from my diet for the last four years, and while that is correlated with metabolic improvements, it's only one major food type I've removed.
IMHO the first or second most important effect of removing seed oils from the diet is that it removes other long term deleterious ingredients by association, like flours and sugars. If you haven't tried shopping for seed oil free foods you may be shocked at how much of the grocery store it rules out. Along with the majority of restaurant meals.
There's a lot of problems with this. Starting with the fact that seed oils were not a part of the US diet in the 1800s, but that didn't mean they weren't popular elsewhere.
> this one is so well fitted with the rise of metabolic disease
Is it though? The problem is that metabolic disease also increases with life expectancy. People are living longer and not dying at child birth - that inherently means we collect diseases with more frequency.
And the idea that there were no metabolic diseases at the turn of the century is laughable. Part of the reason sanatoriums were so prevalent and and diet foods were invented were because of the extreme amount of ailments people suffered from their food.
"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health secretary, has said Americans are being “unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils and has called for fast-food restaurants to return to using beef tallow, or rendered animal fat, in their fryers instead."
The anti-science bent of the man knows no bounds. He also recommended cod liver oil and a well balanced diet to prevent measles.
You cant really do that with measles. It is super contagious before symptoms shows up. It is just that if you get it once, you are basically vaccinated for life.
There were regular epidemics of measles and that was that.
Measeles incidence in the years prior to the introduction of the vaccine was not abnormally low. No idea where you got that "95%" number from but it's obviously a lie. Stop providing false information, when you can google the actual facts within seconds. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine#/media/File:Me...
Once the vaccine was introduced, cases fell off a cliff.
That were your words. Not "Measles mortality was reduced". And you didn't provide a source. So clutch your pearls elsewhere and be clearer about what you mean next time.
Yes, mortality was drastically reduced due to a number of factors. But this has very little to do with the question, if children should get vaccinated against measles today.
Vaccination is not (always) about the individual that is vaccinated. It is about herd immunity that saves the lives and health of even the people who can't be or aren't vaccinated. The newborn. The immuni-compromized. The freak incident where an immunization doesn't prove effective. etc. It's important for outbreaks to not accelerate rapidly, straining local health systems.
If JFK jr thinks that "good nutrition" is in some way a replacement for a comprehensive vaccination campaign and herd immunity, he is nuts and should by kept away from any role in government with a ten foot pole. People are literally dying of a completely preventable disease right now that was judged to be eradicated in the US even a few years ago and you are babbling about "nutrition". Listen to yourself! It's a solved problem and people like JFK jr are literally killing people by undermining the solution.
Tell the "it's a solved problem" to people who are vaccine damaged.
You only talk about others but ignore the all the people who got vaccine damage. You are selective in your "protect the innocent".
Take your N-th booster.
There are no "outbreaks" since sanitiation and nutrition improved, so people who aren't completely immunocompromised won't get any serious side effects from it.
Why would any parent be stupid enough to risk his own healthy child so that a few immunicomproised people get to live? Makes no sense, no parent is that stupid.
Unless you brainwash them that other's children are more important that his own.
Not sure if you got measles as a child and remember it. I got it and remember it and it's an awful illness. I didn't need any "brainwashing" to vaccinate my children. Making sure that they don't suffer is enough of a reason.
Apart from that: I will of course expose my children to a tiny risk if it can safe the live of another person. And you do it every day as well with your own life and with that of your own children, if you have any. It's called a society. It would be much safer for me not to break for a person crossing the road (another car could tailgate me). A pedestrian would maybe leave a dent in my car, but the risk to my life or that of my passengers is negligible. I still break every single time, because it is simply the right thing to do. You make tons of these tradeoffs every single day.
>You only talk about others but ignore the all the people who got vaccine damage.
Let's start with the worst form of "damage": death. The CDC's website has a total of one documented case, where the vaccine was linked to a death because of a very rare combination of circumstances. One. Total. After Billions of vaccinations. I'll take those chances. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/vaccines/mmr.html
Other possible side effects are either a non issue, or completely acceptable (higher risk of seizures in the weeks after vaccination – one of my children has epilepsy since being a baby. Seizures, they are exhausting but not actually dangerous).
The worst possible side effect seems to be Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), which can result from contracting the wild measles virus as well. So giving the vaccine actually doesn't increase the risk of contracting this illness, but it protects against at least a severe illness and at best a painful death.
>Take your N-th booster.
What has that to do with anything? You get one booster for measles at the most. Don't tell me that you are one of those people who can't keep their vaccine-scepticisms separate!
> has called for fast-food restaurants to return to using beef tallow, or rendered animal fat, in their fryers instead.
I am all for returning beef tallow to friers, but for reasons purely about taste. It's hilarious though that he thinks beef fat fried french fries would be less bad for our health.
Also, even when places like McDonalds used beef tallow, it was usually part of an oil blend that included canola or peanut oil.
It is crazy how the "seed oil" term popped out of nowhere overnight, and not based on any sort of scientific or research revelation.
On one hand, I don't use many seed oils at home. On the other hand, it seems like all this effort goes into singling out ingredients solely because they are cheap and available. And guess what, it probably doesn't matter what the ingredients are if they are going to go into cheap processed foods.
Possibly, but I'm pretty sure RFK Jr has been opposed to seed oils for a while. Where it came from, no clue but it's not out of nowhere. He's been pushing it at least since his presidential campaign and probably earlier.
Although I remember seeing a tweet or article before where someone actually predicted it coming. The tweet was just like "A public controversy about seed oils is coming and it's going to be weird." For the life of me I cannot remember where or who the prediction came from, but I really want to know what that guy knew.
It's not out of nowhere, exactly. It received some notoriety around 2006, when they were mentioned in "The Omnivore's Dilemma". He was particularly noting the differences between omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and how corn products (including corn oil) were a huge fraction of the American diet.
But the idea that they're poison... that's been a crank issue for a while. Nobody else heard of it until we put a crank in charge.
I don't believe Pollan actually mentioned "seed oil" as a concept though. He criticized factory farming and also corn, but I don't think he went beyond specific ingredients or the macro level of industrial vegetable oils.
And if anything, he helped solidify the desire for vegan-friendly oils in cooking.
Different oils vary a lot in how inflammatory they are. In addition, heating during extraction and/or aging or storage conditions can lead to cross linking which makes oils very bad for health. With the exception of olive oil's virgin labeling, I'm not aware of any easy way to navigate this health minefield.
26 comments
[ 217 ms ] story [ 3310 ms ] thread[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209624282...
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fi...
Then they say something like, correlation is not causation but this one is so well fitted with the rise of metabolic disease that it's at least suspicious.
I've eliminated vegetable oils from my diet for the last four years, and while that is correlated with metabolic improvements, it's only one major food type I've removed.
IMHO the first or second most important effect of removing seed oils from the diet is that it removes other long term deleterious ingredients by association, like flours and sugars. If you haven't tried shopping for seed oil free foods you may be shocked at how much of the grocery store it rules out. Along with the majority of restaurant meals.
> this one is so well fitted with the rise of metabolic disease
Is it though? The problem is that metabolic disease also increases with life expectancy. People are living longer and not dying at child birth - that inherently means we collect diseases with more frequency.
And the idea that there were no metabolic diseases at the turn of the century is laughable. Part of the reason sanatoriums were so prevalent and and diet foods were invented were because of the extreme amount of ailments people suffered from their food.
The anti-science bent of the man knows no bounds. He also recommended cod liver oil and a well balanced diet to prevent measles.
I'm 100% on-board with beef tallow french fries, but not for health reasons.
The folks not vaccinating their kids aren’t eating fish oil or a good diet.
The common hyptothesis is that it was sanitation and/or diet improvements.
So is RFK really crazy or is everyone else crazy?
Before international travel was a common thing, it was pretty easy to isolate diseases through the use of lazarettos.
If we wanted to treat disease like back in the "good old days", we could forcibly quarantine anyone who got off of a plane for a few days.
There were regular epidemics of measles and that was that.
Once the vaccine was introduced, cases fell off a cliff.
And yes, RFK is crazy.
The measles mortality reduced by 95% BEFORE vaccination.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Measles_...
That were your words. Not "Measles mortality was reduced". And you didn't provide a source. So clutch your pearls elsewhere and be clearer about what you mean next time.
Yes, mortality was drastically reduced due to a number of factors. But this has very little to do with the question, if children should get vaccinated against measles today.
Vaccination is not (always) about the individual that is vaccinated. It is about herd immunity that saves the lives and health of even the people who can't be or aren't vaccinated. The newborn. The immuni-compromized. The freak incident where an immunization doesn't prove effective. etc. It's important for outbreaks to not accelerate rapidly, straining local health systems.
If JFK jr thinks that "good nutrition" is in some way a replacement for a comprehensive vaccination campaign and herd immunity, he is nuts and should by kept away from any role in government with a ten foot pole. People are literally dying of a completely preventable disease right now that was judged to be eradicated in the US even a few years ago and you are babbling about "nutrition". Listen to yourself! It's a solved problem and people like JFK jr are literally killing people by undermining the solution.
You only talk about others but ignore the all the people who got vaccine damage. You are selective in your "protect the innocent".
Take your N-th booster.
There are no "outbreaks" since sanitiation and nutrition improved, so people who aren't completely immunocompromised won't get any serious side effects from it.
Why would any parent be stupid enough to risk his own healthy child so that a few immunicomproised people get to live? Makes no sense, no parent is that stupid.
Unless you brainwash them that other's children are more important that his own.
Apart from that: I will of course expose my children to a tiny risk if it can safe the live of another person. And you do it every day as well with your own life and with that of your own children, if you have any. It's called a society. It would be much safer for me not to break for a person crossing the road (another car could tailgate me). A pedestrian would maybe leave a dent in my car, but the risk to my life or that of my passengers is negligible. I still break every single time, because it is simply the right thing to do. You make tons of these tradeoffs every single day.
>You only talk about others but ignore the all the people who got vaccine damage.
Let's start with the worst form of "damage": death. The CDC's website has a total of one documented case, where the vaccine was linked to a death because of a very rare combination of circumstances. One. Total. After Billions of vaccinations. I'll take those chances. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/vaccines/mmr.html
Other possible side effects are either a non issue, or completely acceptable (higher risk of seizures in the weeks after vaccination – one of my children has epilepsy since being a baby. Seizures, they are exhausting but not actually dangerous).
The worst possible side effect seems to be Immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), which can result from contracting the wild measles virus as well. So giving the vaccine actually doesn't increase the risk of contracting this illness, but it protects against at least a severe illness and at best a painful death.
>Take your N-th booster.
What has that to do with anything? You get one booster for measles at the most. Don't tell me that you are one of those people who can't keep their vaccine-scepticisms separate!
I am all for returning beef tallow to friers, but for reasons purely about taste. It's hilarious though that he thinks beef fat fried french fries would be less bad for our health.
Also, even when places like McDonalds used beef tallow, it was usually part of an oil blend that included canola or peanut oil.
On one hand, I don't use many seed oils at home. On the other hand, it seems like all this effort goes into singling out ingredients solely because they are cheap and available. And guess what, it probably doesn't matter what the ingredients are if they are going to go into cheap processed foods.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=seed%20oils%20bad...
Although I remember seeing a tweet or article before where someone actually predicted it coming. The tweet was just like "A public controversy about seed oils is coming and it's going to be weird." For the life of me I cannot remember where or who the prediction came from, but I really want to know what that guy knew.
But the idea that they're poison... that's been a crank issue for a while. Nobody else heard of it until we put a crank in charge.
And if anything, he helped solidify the desire for vegan-friendly oils in cooking.
While other seed oils are just crushed and filtered seeds we've used for millennia like sesame
It's the former that RFK is looking into.