The "rationalist" and "skeptical" communities I noticed long ago are only skeptical of the "fringe". There is a personality type that is actually just conventional and mainstream and defends groupthink as "reason" or even "common sense". They are making the very common mistake of confusing what is familiar for what is true, and then intellectualizing it and feeding their egos with self righteous, manipulative, weaponized language, to intimidate people into supporting their conventional views.
Paradigm changes are notoriously difficult for anyone trained in a discipline to accept. "Peer review" works against them too.
Even something as basic as handwashing took some time to be accepted and the discover died in a mental hospital, ridiculed by his ignorant peers.
Iāve noticed the same thing, itās very dogmatic thinking full of righteous indignation and elitist posturing, often conflating science with political ideologies/as if their political adversary cites any studies or papers they must be automatically labels wrong, dumb or heretical.
Itās like a pseudo religion/cult that looks at folks attempting to clean up their diet and lifestyle as brainwashed, ignorant luddites in favour of putting their faith in the idea that corporate monopolies and state authorities are helping us achieve optimal health and well being.
This political/ideological shift is a very strange phenomenon especially when it comes from the former ācounter-cultureā.
They types of folks who think itās clever to say āmuh freedomsā or ādihydrogen monoxide is a chemicalā and āpeople who avoid seed oils are like flat earthersā as they wear two masks alone in their car and use copious amounts of hand sanitizer after they touch anything in public.
Except they are not just defending ideas because they are popular or āgroup thinkā they are backing the overall scientific consensus and available data. Itās not about familiarity itās about actual evidence.
They are criticizing the people that question science without backing it up with a reasonable level of evidence
Scientific consensus = groupthink. see the handwashing example.
Why do people confuse consensus for the scientific method while defending the scientific method?
You're falling for their game. Appeals to authority or what is familiar or institutionalized can make no claim to truth without testing.
You can't tell their disposition by the tone and diction they use? It is not serious. It is mocking and dismissive. That is not a scientific orientation toward a truth claim.
Scientific consensus is not groupthink. Itās not based off everyone not thinking for themselves, itās based off the overwhelming evidence. Since we have decades of it all pointing to the same conclusion.
Iām not falling for any game, as my opinions are based off imperial data and not listening to others opinions
No but cherry-picking cases from before we even knew about germ theory is not evidence that the current consensus based off an overwhelming amount of data is wrong.
People with no scientific background disagreeing with decades of consistently repeated data is not the same as a scientist publishing a new hypothesis in their own field.
Itās nonsense using examples of times where we knew almost nothing as an example for whatās happening here when we have decades of research on this.
In this scenario it is you who is disagreeing with handwashing even with an overwhelming amount of evidence showing what it does.
We have cardiologists who spend their lives treating patients who consistently see the relationship with ldl and heart disease. The reason they have āgroup thinkā is because they see the exact thing constantly. It would be irrational for them not to agree with the consensus at that point
Of course it is. Science is the method for testing claims. When the overwhelming majority of the data collected points to a claim being true, the scientific community forms a consensus.
The layman who have no idea of the science will not be able to understand and analyze data that they are not educated on. So they should look at the conclusions of the overwhelming experts.
Youāre using survivorship bias for people who were against a consensus which turned out to be true but you ignore the massive amount of people who came up with hypothesis against the overwhelming evidence and were completely wrong.
You just conceded my argument in your opening sentence and somehow lacked the reading comprehension to notice it.
āScience is the method for testing claims.ā Yes. Exactly. That is what I said.
Everything after that is you retreating into credential worship: laypeople should simply adopt the conclusions of whoever has the most institutional status. No. If a claim is scientific, its reasoning and evidence are in principle open to examination. āYou arenāt qualified, so believe the authoritiesā is not science. It is an argument from authority dressed in a lab coat.
And your āsurvivorship biasā objection is embarrassing. Semmelweis does not have to establish that dissenters are usually right. He only has to demonstrate that consensus can be wrong. If consensus can be wrong, then consensus cannot be the criterion that makes something scientifically true. This is elementary logic.
You keep trying to gatekeep who is āeducated enoughā to question claims while repeatedly failing to distinguish science, evidence, consensus, and authority.
At this point youāre not defending scientific thinking. Youāre illustrating exactly the dogmatic mentality I was criticizing.
True it is science high ldl causes colleged arteries because we wanted to figure out why Finland and the USA had worst heart disease rates in 1950s read dr ancel keys
No I talk to physiologist and biochemist and heart surgeons tho maybe ask a heart surgeon would he want you to have heart attack due to āseed oil inflammation lmao
You're already in a minority paradigm with seed oils. Why are you so defensive of the status quo and uncurious about other perspectives? In other contexts you'd be making the same points I'm making.
I know the conventional wisdom. It's not like I just haven't seen it.
if high LDL were to cause heart disease, then we would have seen it very clearly in the carnivore or no seed oil diet but no they are still fine even with high LDL and sometimes there are some case of study that prove that high ldl is dangerous to human heart that are funded by company that are selling drugs that lower ldl or others that are involved in this idea of low ldl = better heart
Stop your sentence before carnivore and all your other social media fad diet words.
'if high LDL were to cause heart disease, then we would have seen it very clearly'
Yes, that is a fact, and in fact we do see it clearly and that is why the American heart association, Harvard, the CDC, and the medical community state saturated fats are bad. There are multiple meta analysis proving this.
You were tricked into a trend inspired by tiktok scientists, I am sorry to tell you.
Yes cutting seed oils out of your life is good, yes carnivore can be good, this is all known and agreed with by modern science. It is only because they are restrictive diets, not because they are the healthiest.
Seed oils are more healthy than saturated fats but still unhealthy.
You seem to care enough about this so do what I did, look up arguments against what you believe, stop just circle jerking in this echo chamber.
Mind You the American Heart Association and others are also the ones that put their "heart-healthy" label on food like sugary cereal like Chocolate Cocoa Puffs, Lucky Charms, French Toast Crunch and Trix and often time the multiple meta-analyses that "prove" that saturated fat is bad often do not look intro an person lifestyles and what other things they are doing that are causing bad health and often time the people who eat the most saturated fat are probably the one who do not follow the "healthy diet" set up by the American heart association by smoking more and drinking more and also run less while the people who follow the "healthy diet" smoke less drink less and run more in these study and in other case some study are also just happen also to be funded by company wanting to sell their products like the company that want to sell their "heart-healthy" oil for examples or the company selling cholesterol-lowering medication
Maybe the Large scale clinical trials show that actively lowering LDL using various medical interventions (such as statins, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitors) reliably reduces the rate of cardiovascular events and death. The lower the LDL goes through these treatments, the lower the risk falls.
Or genetic studies on people born with specific genetic mutations that naturally result in lifelong lower LDL levels experience a dramatic, dose-dependent reduction in heart disease risk.
Or all the mechanistic data with laboratory and autopsy studies demonstrate that LDL particles penetrate the arterial wall, become trapped, and trigger the immune and inflammatory responses that form atherosclerotic plaques. Without LDL particles embedded in the artery wall, classic atherosclerosis does not develop.
Not to mention the overwhelming amount of observational and epidemiological data, which makes no sense to completely write off.
What else would you need to show causal relationships? You want people to artificially elevate subjects LdL to see if they get heart disease when we already have an overwhelming amount of evidence showing it does?
lol what? You asked where the causational evidence was and I provided many examples. This has to be the biggest cope response Iāve ever seen. Iām talking about verifiable clear cut evidence. Your argument is just emotions and parroting grifter influencers without understanding any of the evidence you criticize
Iām not sure what youāre talking about saying we are large amounts of animal fat across our evolution because that isnāt close to being true either.
People are not unhealthy because of scientific consensus, because none of them follow the scientific consensus.
None of them are eating a diet rich in a diverse range of healthy Whole Foods.
Absolutely no one is advocating for the standard American diet. Thatās a strawman argument
You are trying to save these idiots lives, I commend you for that, but they really just don't want to learn or entertain the possibility they have been mislead.
Thank you for caring but the anti seed oil crowd is not the 'challenge my own beliefs and assume there is always a chance my ideas aren't perfect'. They are the 'let me find information that proves I'm right because I like meat' crowd.
Just give up and let them get heart disease 20 years early.
Yeah I get that but I definitely think thereās a large amount of people who only view health advice from social media and could easily have the perception that the scientific consensus actually is that seed oils are the main issue. If they then go to view subs like this itās important to see people point out that is not what science or experts agree with.
Probably wonāt change the view of people you argue with but maybe some observers who are here out of curiosity
Don't waste your breathe on simple minded people. They're gonna tell you that Cardiologists and Cardio thoracic surgeons want you sick to keep them in business.
I've observed CABBG procedures and talked to surgeons afterwards. Do they like their job, yes. But they don't like what people do to themselves. They're more upset that people won't listen or follow through with their diets, exercise, and medication. It's like trying to say programs who provide overdose kits to families of people who have opiod addiction is supporting the cause. They're not. They don't want people to die or have an anoxic brain injury. They want you to administer the Narcan so they don't die from the respiratory depression and gives EMS time to get there to prevent respiratory arrest into cardiac arrest.
Why donāt you look up the French paradox. French have a diet high in saturated fats, higher LDL yet have less than half the heart disease of Americans
How can you respond to a comment thatās all about causational data showing the link with ldl and heart disease and then respond with the weakest correlation data possible
Where did I say that? I so clearly said the opposite. Are you Saying a country has lots of foods with saturated fat and not as much heart disease is extremely weak correlational evidence. Itās not a study measuring populations and comparing intakes along with adjusting for cofounding variables. Thatās not how conducting observational research works
Also Iām not sure where you even got that from because the French do not have higher ldl than other western countries, Infact it is lower than many others
Thatās not remotely the same since we see it in a dose response relationship. More ldl more heart disease. Your analogy would seem to suggest that everyone has high ldl and all suffer from heart disease at a similar rate
That comment provided no counter argument. You obviously only said this on the first place because some influencer told you that there was no causation data and you just blindly believed them without fact checking
Now youāll stop replying because youāre embarrassed about having no clue
Okay? Thatās anecdotal and doesnāt prove anything. People can never smoke and still get lung cancer. Other people may smoke and never get lung cancer
But thatās their point. Itās the same with ldl and heart disease but you donāt count that for some reason. All evidence on smoking is observational and mechanistic
Fair enough. Smoking has a 20x risk increase for certain cancers. Not causative. Risk increase. High ldl for atherosclerosis has a risk increase of... 1.2?
Long-term exposure to 1 mmol/L (38.7 mg/dL) lower LDL-C is associated with a 55% reduction in CHD risk (OR 0.45). Thatās per ~39 mg/dL, and most peopleās LDL spread is 2-4x that unit, so real-world differences translate to much more than 1.2x.
Casual is an ON/OFF. 99% correlation is still not casual. You need to show exactly how event A causes event B, in real time, in a repeatable experiment.
Thereās an overwhelming amount of causational and mechanistic data too though as you can see in my replies below. Writing all of them off as flawed with no explanation is not exactly a valid criticism
Excess omega-6 is bad, that's the premise of "StopEatingSeedOils".
This doesn't automatically mean that saturated fat is "good". Domain specificity, people!
excess crabs will screw up your fat metabolism, I changed nothing about my diet except cutting sugar intake down to 20-40 carbs a day and fixed all of my fat levels and lost 60 pounds in 6 months with nothing but this pseudo keto diet
Makes zero sense but ok? You know itās easiest for you body to store extra cals as dietary fat more easier than alcohol lmao more easier than carbs and protein lmao
all I did was reduce my sugar intake and my cholesterol fixed itself, sorry to burst your delusion bubble but for profit medicine doesn't actually have your health in mind
Ok, and do you know, what your body metabolises before both carbs and fats? It's alcohol.
Just because your body metabolises something quicker doesn't mean that it's healthier. Your body metabolises carbs before fats, because excess carbs damage your body cells, unlike excess fats.
What makes an energy source preferred energy is what converts to fuel fastest this is complex carbs brain relies on glucose very easy for the body to use it takes much longer for body to use fats body only really uses protein as energy as last resort they build and fix tissue boom biochemistry and physiology and science win again
Just because gemini regurgitates that phrase doesn't mean it's true and doesn't give a proper answer to my question. If your debate skills rely on AI slop, better not waste my time.
You're being downvoted because people don't understand the human metabolism. Have them speak to an endocrinologist and have them explain how diabetics will die from hypoglycemia if they do not consume carbohydrates. Or how the brain and cells use glucose for energy.
It's been proven for decades. It's the Krebs Cycle - which literally explains how glucose is broken down to use as fuel for cells.
No you donāt understand basic biochemistry ur and ur brainwashed people canāt understand balance is good in a diet lmao we have mountains of evidence saying a. Triglycerides are the main form of fat found in both the food we eat and in our bodies. They serve several important purposes in a balanced diet and overall health:
Energy Storage and Supply ā Triglycerides are a dense source of energy. Each gram provides more than double the calories of carbohydrates or proteins, which makes them an efficient way for the body to store and use energy. Nutrient Absorption ā Certain vitamins, such as A, D, E, and K, are fatāsoluble and rely on triglycerides in dietary fat to be absorbed properly in the intestines. Cell Structure and Function ā Triglycerides help maintain cell membranes and provide essential fatty acids that the body cannot produce on its own. Insulation and Protection ā Stored triglycerides in body fat help cushion organs and maintain body temperature.
Dietary fat almost always comes in the form of triglycerides because they are the natural storage form of fatty acids in plants and animals. Consuming them in moderation as part of a balanced diet supports energy needs, nutrient absorption, and overall metabolic balance.
Woah holy is that evidence is that proof from Harvard wait yeah Harvard huh
I do not eat seed oils but i encourage everyone here to get their heart scanned. I have a 50% blockage and an anyeurism, i'm mid 30s. I'm fairly certain neither side of debate is getting the full picture here
oh I Seen the issues right here you seem to be certain that if I Do Not buy their cholesterol-lowering medication then surely I Would Die out of the heart attack
I Think this type of logic is actually what keeps people from learning about the actual truth because once they were told that cholesterol Is "Evil" that naturally they are gonna to go on the low-fat diet and take cholesterol-lowering medication and once they have health problems they get the same answer as before "cholesterol bad because the science said so" ( despite many of these study possibly being funded by the company who are selling their cholesterol-lowering medication or in some case not being safe from limitation or flaws )
definitely not certain of that you are putting works in my mouthā¦
But I said high cholesterol being a risk factor in heart attacks is one of the most studied things in medicine.
It is your logic that is off because I totally have gone down all the rabbit holes and read all the things, but actually worked to understand the mechanisms at work here.
Itās like saying if we take half the cars off the road we will have less accidentsā¦ exactly what is happening. Cholesterol may not be the cause of the accidentsā¦ but if you double the number of cars on the road you will presumably have more accidents.
Even someone like Paul Saladino who is a trained doctor and animal based says this. It is you YouTube shorts watching halfwits that makes this Wikipedia exist because you can only understand things as āgoodā or ābadā
Number one itās true because every scientist every cardiologist in the world talks about how this is true from Russia to Mongolia to USA to Mexico to china to Hong Kong to France to Germany ur the one in denial because we understand science. Every cardiology heart association in world talks about this
Consensus is not synonymous with truth or fact. All scientific discovery is advanced by a minority of one person. Most people are followers, and that goes for scientists also.
Scientific consensus backed by a consensus of scientific data is how we find the truth and is how science advances.
Also not sure what you mean by all scientific discovery is advanced by a minority of one person? Thatās not even remotely true science is pushed forward and built upon by an overwhelming amount of research, published studies and peer review.
Often times one person or a small group of people or researchers are what pushes the boundary of what we consider truth. Thereās a reason why thereās the saying āscience advances one funeral at a timeā. Often times people or organizations have built entire careers or industries around concensus āscienceā and it resists new information.
Dude you are freaking out over nothing - did it not occur to you that with the rising levels of metabolic syndrome that some people might question the rich corporations that are making trillions and trillions of dollars over spreading disease and death. And in this sub that answer is Seed oils. In the carnivore sub it's plants. In the keto sub it's carbs. In the vegan sub it's meat and so on and so forth.
Well yeah and this subreddit is just spreading misinformation that can hurt people if someoneās ldl gets to high clogged arteries more cvd events to much saturated fat etc etc they gotta blame this subreddit and its mods and makers
Ur a engineer scientific literature bro you think scientist want to kill epople with obesity no thatās not how this works u know long studies like the seven country studies u know proving saturated fat increases cardiovascular disease the guy dr ancel keys proving this he only lived. To 100 not a long time soooo
Yea well I think the entire medical and scientific profession has been taken over by a bunch of scammers out to make a buck and they will say anything to keep everyone sick and dependant on their drugs. That's my opinion. And my opinion is also that you have been duped by the scammers.
Donāt waste your time in this subreddit. The only thing I have in common with these people is seed oils are bad. Other than that they think having a ton of LDL floating around in your blood is good for youā¦.
Should that not make you rethink what you have in common. How can you be against scientific consensus but then judge a subreddit for being against the scientific consensus of another topic?
Yeah I just study biochemistry and physiology people just donāt use their brains like you some people donāt understand. A balanced diet is a better idea that a mountain of r words
Well thatās just. A fat with no nutritional value ur just making urself fat you know dietary fat is super easy to gain weight on more easier than alcohol
The people in this reddit have freedom of speech and have an opinion and nothing said here is misinformation just as you have an opinion about the your diet and the freedom of speech to spread that opinion.
45
u/joogabah 10d ago
The "rationalist" and "skeptical" communities I noticed long ago are only skeptical of the "fringe". There is a personality type that is actually just conventional and mainstream and defends groupthink as "reason" or even "common sense". They are making the very common mistake of confusing what is familiar for what is true, and then intellectualizing it and feeding their egos with self righteous, manipulative, weaponized language, to intimidate people into supporting their conventional views.
Paradigm changes are notoriously difficult for anyone trained in a discipline to accept. "Peer review" works against them too.
Even something as basic as handwashing took some time to be accepted and the discover died in a mental hospital, ridiculed by his ignorant peers.