>>13696523Mainstream science says they are heart healthy.
Eat seed oils -> lower ldl -> less heart disease
At least three lines of evidence point to this direction. Epidemiological data, random control trials and Mendelian randomization data all support it.
Popular criticism for epidemiological data: healthy user bias, It's inaccurate food questionnaire shit, people who eat low amounts of seed oils don't exist in the data. Studies trying to recruit people who eat low amounts of seed oils are cancelling their studies because they can't find the people.
rct criticism: there are actually rcts that support the idea that seed oils are bad, you get to whatever conclusion you want by carefully selecting the inclusion criteria for your meta analysis.
Mendelian randomization: I'm too much of a pleb and a brainlet to criticize this.
Other arguments and evidence.
mechanistic speculation: seed oils oxidize easily therefore bad. Usually these type of ideas fail to look at the whole picture, oxidation is bad only if it cascades out of control, there are mechanisms that prevent this from happening(though they might get impaired if you have certain nutritionally deficiencies).
animal studies: plenty of studies show this or that. Usually dismissed as humans are not rats, therefore doesn't matter and why care about animals when human data exists.
ancestral argument: It's a new thing added to diet, you need to eat like 3000 canola oil seeds to get table spoon worth of canola oil. Alien to human body.
That's my outside view on the debate, don't ask for sources.
