> See how they lie to your face? Both the scientists themselves, and the people throwing this garbage at you.
Nobody is lying to anyone here. My interlocutor is very angry at me, because he thinks I am doing harm, but he is doing me a great kindness by trying to show me the things I don't know. I am being smug and superior and sarcastic because I am a bit of a twat and he has put me in a bad mood. The people doing the studies are trying their honest best to get a clear answer to the question that interests them for the good of all mankind.
You don't need to assume bad faith anywhere to explain what is going on here.
Come now. Beef fat is close to majority unsaturated.
If we can't see the effects of linoleic acid by comparing palm oil with sunflower oil then they probably aren't there.
Evidence is evidence. The shadows of the truth are clear on the walls of our cave, and the truth itself would be clear if only we had the eyes to see and the mind to think.
I don’t think it’s lying so much as expense- they don’t have the money to compare multiple types of fat- so they pick one of each kind, the cheapest or most easily available generally.
I agree, and i think they are not working with our hypothesis at all: we would like the “is PUFA over 2% the switch to cause all modern diseases?” study, but they are running the “what stores more liver fat when overfed” study. Like, they consider the direction (pufa good), to already be solved, and now they are just trying to see how and in what ways. We would want something a fair bit different than this to make progress on the PUFA bad front. It still gives good info, and i personally do operate on the assumption just no one is outright faking all their data.
(Although I do think that some people are outright faking their data, because we keep catching them at it. But they are doing it because the incentive structures of academia are all wrong and because nobody ever bloody checks, not usually because they are trying to sell the population into bondage.)
Palm oil is, of course majority unsaturated. You could easily do this right and pick butter or coconut oil.
See how they lie to your face? Both the scientists themselves, and the people throwing this garbage at you.
Whenever they have "dozens of studies" and you look at any one of them, it's always like this.
Hence I no longer believe these shills in mainstream nutrition are good faith.
> See how they lie to your face? Both the scientists themselves, and the people throwing this garbage at you.
Nobody is lying to anyone here. My interlocutor is very angry at me, because he thinks I am doing harm, but he is doing me a great kindness by trying to show me the things I don't know. I am being smug and superior and sarcastic because I am a bit of a twat and he has put me in a bad mood. The people doing the studies are trying their honest best to get a clear answer to the question that interests them for the good of all mankind.
You don't need to assume bad faith anywhere to explain what is going on here.
Oh, I think he is absolutely lying.
Give it 15 years of talking to these people and the "don't assume bad faith" gets really, really hard.
What's his motivation here?
No clue
Come now. Beef fat is close to majority unsaturated.
If we can't see the effects of linoleic acid by comparing palm oil with sunflower oil then they probably aren't there.
Evidence is evidence. The shadows of the truth are clear on the walls of our cave, and the truth itself would be clear if only we had the eyes to see and the mind to think.
Sure, and it has maybe 2.5% LA. That's why we wouldn't use it in a study showing that "saturated fat did stuff."
> If we can't see the effects of linoleic acid by comparing palm oil with sunflower oil then they probably aren't there.
Yes, if you don't do the experiment, it doesn't actually do the thing.
Just run another experiment! And then lie about what it means.
I gained 100lbs and I ate nuts, proving PUFA is obesogenic. See how easy it is if you just lie?
I don’t think it’s lying so much as expense- they don’t have the money to compare multiple types of fat- so they pick one of each kind, the cheapest or most easily available generally.
I agree, and i think they are not working with our hypothesis at all: we would like the “is PUFA over 2% the switch to cause all modern diseases?” study, but they are running the “what stores more liver fat when overfed” study. Like, they consider the direction (pufa good), to already be solved, and now they are just trying to see how and in what ways. We would want something a fair bit different than this to make progress on the PUFA bad front. It still gives good info, and i personally do operate on the assumption just no one is outright faking all their data.
Comment endorsed!
(Although I do think that some people are outright faking their data, because we keep catching them at it. But they are doing it because the incentive structures of academia are all wrong and because nobody ever bloody checks, not usually because they are trying to sell the population into bondage.)
Sure, but then you're not proving what you're saying you're proving. This is called "cutting corners."