zlacker

>>atestu+(OP)
Ironic that a steak is one of the three things showing up on the landing page. Is that the beef lobby money coming in?

I enjoy an occasional steak but if the goal is to improve diet of masses, it’s not the food I’d put at the center.

>>galois+g2
RFKjr, the guy who feeds roadkill to his brain worm, thinks more saturated fat = good, 'seed oil' = bad.

>>Finnuc+y3
RFKjr is generally an idiot, but saturated fat = good, seed oil = bad is actually correct. For instance: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/seed-oils-are-they-actual...

Saturated fats are good because they're more stable than poly-unsaturated fats for instance.

If you do consume a seed oil (which you really shouldn't -- there's no benefit), you should get a cold-pressed one. But that would be more expensive, so if you're paying more you might as well just get something good like avacado oil or coconut oil.

>>overga+o4
This isn't true, per your own link.

The point the Cleveland Clinic page makes is that seed oils tend to be what's used in ultra-processed foods, and those are bad for you. So if you avoid seed oils, you wind up avoiding the bad things as a second order effect.

Aside from that it's just hand-wavey "they use chemicals to make it! It doesn't have nutrients beyond the fat!". There's nothing to indicate that using sunflower or peanut oil is any worse for you than using walnut oil.

The connection between omega-6 fats and inflammation is a whole lot more tenuous than the link between ultra-processed foods and inflammation.