Apologies to Stan Efferding, who asked me last year to look at this blog post. I really don’t like doing this kind of post, especially when it’s a soft target, but as it keeps coming up, I guess I have no choice.
So here we go.
Introduction
 |
| Alan Flanagan (Flanagan, 2020a) |
He commences his post:
“To say that hysteria about the health effects of polyunsaturated fats [PUFA] has reached fever pitch may be an understatement.
“It can be interesting watch [sic] a trend of thought gain traction when that train of thought is inconsistent with a substantial total body of evidence, from multiple converging lines of inquiry.
“It speaks to something at play beyond scientific discourse, and frankly much of the “debate” regarding PUFA is steeped in a mix of narratives, from fantasies about our evolutionary past to conspiracy theories about governments, scientists, the food industry, and ‘BigPharma’.
“I have a few thoughts as to why the PUFA-hysteria appears to have exponentially increased in recent years. It’s likely not an exhaustive list, but these are some of the more common narratives I’ve observed….”
Well, I’ve been told I’m in a good part responsible for the “PUFA-hysteria”, so I guess I have an interest in defending it.
Great post! 😊
ReplyDeleteBrad Marshall’s last post described a pig experiment with soybean oil. The CRP levels fell with more linoleic acid. Can we assume that this was because oxidized linoleic acid is binding to the CRP and effectively removing it from the serum? Are CRP measurements made from “free” CRP?
I didn't see that post.
DeleteInteresting.
ReplyDeleteI'd have expected a pointing out that the LA -> AA mechanism being unresponsive is not conclusive proof that LA doesn't affect inflammation. It's compatible with a number of hypotheses, such as "humans can't convert LA to AA" (a claim I've seen made) or "saturation of the LA to AA pathway exists in every dietary concentration of LA studied" or "LA-rich adipose confounds dietary modification trials by requiring them to take half a decade to deplete the stored polyunsaturates".
Great article. As you suggest in the intro, it's a dirty job but someone had to do it. It's also a huge job. The AHA raises over a billion dollars annually to pump out studies that have an agenda other than science behind them. It's easy for some people to convince themselves that they're in the right just based on who is making the most noise about a topic, and Efferding falls into this category. As do 99% plus of the millions of dietitians, nutritionists and MDs who are unaware of the conflicts of interest driving the AHA's version of nutrition for the last 3/4 of a century or so. You and Ray Peat and a tiny handful of others, including myself, who are dedicated to the science could spend our entire lives reviewing all the AHAs publications and all the media around them and only just scratch the surface. I'm not sure what my point is in bringing that up, maybe that there are so many battles to fight, part of the problem becomes just choosing which ones are worth your time. I think you chose well.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dr. Cate!
Delete(I think you mean Flanagan, not Efferding, as Stan Efferding also likes this post and this message.)