Today a paper which proves my contention that governments ought to get out of the grant-making business. The “study” was funded by NIH, and conducted by “top” scientists at Harvard. Its conclusion, that replacing butter with seed oils causes you to live longer, is absurd. But I’ll have to take time to demonstrate that to you. And others, also working on the government dime, will have to deal with it, too, spending valuable resources sifting through it. It would have been better had this study never been funded.
A very timely piece, considering that I just yesterday read about how RFK Jr. is getting ready to take on the powerful "seed oil" ag lobby (read: canola and soybean growers, a huge industry).
Also, another confounder you do not mention relates to the dominance of seed oils in processed food. Even if one can recall with absolute precision what he ate yesterday, how would he quantify the amount he consumed in conjunction with packaged and ultra-processed food, which for most people constitutes the chief component of their diets?
Exactly. Not to mention take-away meals, restaurant meals, food consumed at family/corporate gatherings, and so on. In and of themselves each of these is minute but over time they may have some effect, I'd guess.
How can olive oil be included with seed oils. Olive oil is probably the most healthy, followed by butter. This, alone, rigs the results for a favorable outcome for seed oils.
From what I've read of metabolic chemistry, olive oil (a monounsaturated oil) is more or less neutral. Saturated fats are the most healthy. Olive oil isn't a seed oil—it's a fruit oil, like coconut or avocado.
The 2025 Zhang study calls it a *plant* oil. I think they lump plant oils together so the seed oils can benefit from the more beneficial fruit oils.
Until Science's GI tract is purged, I'm ignoring anything coming out of the MPH mills and the Public Health machine on the subject of diet, exercise, and their relation to overall health.
May RFK Jr be both emetic and colon cleanser for this field.
My wife and I took a group working cooking class with an Italian chef last Valentine's Day. He had this to say about American food:
"Americans have been concentrating for a long time on making food faster and cheaper, you need to now look to eating better food. And remember you can't make great food without good ingredients. " Never a more true word was spoken. He went on to recommend that if you can only buying chicken from a farm, and if not buy the thigh meat as the breast meat ends up concentrated with antibiotics and chemicals.
I’m curious as to why we need observational studies. These don’t exist for the internal combustion engine or hot water heaters. Two possible reasons ; 1. These are easy to rig yet can be passed off as science. 2. The investigators involved cannot explain the phenomenon investigated in terms of cause and effect : the observational study is a second best solution.
Here is what is frustrating about studies like this. There are people who eat both butter and olive oil. People don't only eat EITHER butter OR olive oil. So how is this handled in the paper?
Description: This study re-analyzed data from a 1960s trial and found that replacing saturated fats (like butter) with vegetable oils high in linoleic acid lowered cholesterol but didn’t reduce heart disease risk—and was associated with higher mortality.
"Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study" - The BMJ (2013)
Description: This study found that replacing saturated fats with safflower oil (a seed oil) increased the risk of death from coronary heart disease and all causes, suggesting butter might be less harmful.
"Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease" - The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010)
Description: This meta-analysis found no significant evidence that dietary saturated fat (e.g., from butter) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, challenging the push for seed oils as a healthier alternative.
"Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies" - The BMJ (2015)
Description: This review found that saturated fats weren’t strongly linked to mortality or heart disease, while trans fats (sometimes found in processed seed oils) were, indirectly supporting butter over heavily processed oils.
Nutrition "science" is almost universally abysmal. This is because it's mostly based on epidemiology which, as you point out, perches on shaky foundations.
Health effects from dietary changes take months or years to manifest. Because of this, it's considered impossible to do RCTs because of the expense and the impracticality of locking people up to ensure they stick to the study diet. Any RCTs that are done are uselessly brief.
It's unsurprising that most of the authors are affiliated with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which specializes in this particular nutritional narrative. I expected to see Walter Willett among the authors, and there he was. Willett is infamous in low-carb circles. And guess what, he's a vegetarian.
My wife worked in advertising and was involved in a lot of similar research...Surveys asking people to remember how much X they consumed over Y period are totally worthless...e.g. when bacon was getting bad press, people in a town would report little consumption of bacon, but actual sales of bacon in the town would be a great deal larger...
Thank you, Matt, for publicly popping this propaganda balloon. Undoubtedly it is intended for use by the media as an impediment to JFK Jr's impending moves, perhaps to require studies of the health costs/benefits of seed oils and other ingredients.
A very timely piece, considering that I just yesterday read about how RFK Jr. is getting ready to take on the powerful "seed oil" ag lobby (read: canola and soybean growers, a huge industry).
Also, another confounder you do not mention relates to the dominance of seed oils in processed food. Even if one can recall with absolute precision what he ate yesterday, how would he quantify the amount he consumed in conjunction with packaged and ultra-processed food, which for most people constitutes the chief component of their diets?
Exactly. Not to mention take-away meals, restaurant meals, food consumed at family/corporate gatherings, and so on. In and of themselves each of these is minute but over time they may have some effect, I'd guess.
Eat as your ancestors did. We did not just pop out of the ether.
- butter from cows? ok.
- olive oil, which is pressed and has been for millennia? ok.
- any refined seed oil that was put to a mechanical and chemical process that rivals Exon? NO
Why does "Science" make things so complicated? To get paid.
Modern "science" almost completely ignores evolution.
How can olive oil be included with seed oils. Olive oil is probably the most healthy, followed by butter. This, alone, rigs the results for a favorable outcome for seed oils.
Yes, indeed; this should be emphasized.
From what I've read of metabolic chemistry, olive oil (a monounsaturated oil) is more or less neutral. Saturated fats are the most healthy. Olive oil isn't a seed oil—it's a fruit oil, like coconut or avocado.
The 2025 Zhang study calls it a *plant* oil. I think they lump plant oils together so the seed oils can benefit from the more beneficial fruit oils.
Until Science's GI tract is purged, I'm ignoring anything coming out of the MPH mills and the Public Health machine on the subject of diet, exercise, and their relation to overall health.
May RFK Jr be both emetic and colon cleanser for this field.
My wife and I took a group working cooking class with an Italian chef last Valentine's Day. He had this to say about American food:
"Americans have been concentrating for a long time on making food faster and cheaper, you need to now look to eating better food. And remember you can't make great food without good ingredients. " Never a more true word was spoken. He went on to recommend that if you can only buying chicken from a farm, and if not buy the thigh meat as the breast meat ends up concentrated with antibiotics and chemicals.
Useful information about thigh meat that I never heard before!
Government grants cost money, you say?
https://t.me/r_todayilearned_channel/52504
Why is it always snakes?
I’m curious as to why we need observational studies. These don’t exist for the internal combustion engine or hot water heaters. Two possible reasons ; 1. These are easy to rig yet can be passed off as science. 2. The investigators involved cannot explain the phenomenon investigated in terms of cause and effect : the observational study is a second best solution.
Pithily presented profound points. Lacking explanatory theory, an observational study is just an anecdote supporting someone's confirmation bias.
An alluring alliteration😀
NIH = Big Ag Ho
Im trusting the science so hard right now
Here is what is frustrating about studies like this. There are people who eat both butter and olive oil. People don't only eat EITHER butter OR olive oil. So how is this handled in the paper?
B@llsh@t! Butter good, fat good, seed oils very bad! Here's a list of studies that show it is seed oils that are bad.
"Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)" - The BMJ (2016)
Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
Description: This study re-analyzed data from a 1960s trial and found that replacing saturated fats (like butter) with vegetable oils high in linoleic acid lowered cholesterol but didn’t reduce heart disease risk—and was associated with higher mortality.
"Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study" - The BMJ (2013)
Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707
Description: This study found that replacing saturated fats with safflower oil (a seed oil) increased the risk of death from coronary heart disease and all causes, suggesting butter might be less harmful.
"Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease" - The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2010)
Link: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/91/3/535/4597110
Description: This meta-analysis found no significant evidence that dietary saturated fat (e.g., from butter) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, challenging the push for seed oils as a healthier alternative.
"Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies" - The BMJ (2015)
Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978
Description: This review found that saturated fats weren’t strongly linked to mortality or heart disease, while trans fats (sometimes found in processed seed oils) were, indirectly supporting butter over heavily processed oils.
Nutrition "science" is almost universally abysmal. This is because it's mostly based on epidemiology which, as you point out, perches on shaky foundations.
Health effects from dietary changes take months or years to manifest. Because of this, it's considered impossible to do RCTs because of the expense and the impracticality of locking people up to ensure they stick to the study diet. Any RCTs that are done are uselessly brief.
It's unsurprising that most of the authors are affiliated with Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which specializes in this particular nutritional narrative. I expected to see Walter Willett among the authors, and there he was. Willett is infamous in low-carb circles. And guess what, he's a vegetarian.
Tucker Goodrich writes most about seed oils. https://tuckergoodrich.substack.com/p/quick-study-analysis-butter-and-plant
I want to see a long term study of people who chase food trends inspired by bullshit papers vs. people who ignore all this shit and eat whatever.
My wife worked in advertising and was involved in a lot of similar research...Surveys asking people to remember how much X they consumed over Y period are totally worthless...e.g. when bacon was getting bad press, people in a town would report little consumption of bacon, but actual sales of bacon in the town would be a great deal larger...
Thank you, Matt, for publicly popping this propaganda balloon. Undoubtedly it is intended for use by the media as an impediment to JFK Jr's impending moves, perhaps to require studies of the health costs/benefits of seed oils and other ingredients.
Thanks.