Please find the quote where you proved this.I then proved to you that your own burden of proof could not be applied to your own position.
Actually, I did summarize them. I'm not sure why you're claiming the opposite. Here, I'll even quote myself:So far, since then you have done nothing but put up a few more studies without even taking a moment to summarize them.
This is from the article I mentioned earlier.Yet in two randomized trials, diets rich in linoleic acid increased mortality rates, despite lowering cholesterol levels (1, 2). In two other trials, diets rich in linoleic acid did not significantly affect mortality rates, though one trial was limited by its small size and the other contained significantly more smokers in the control group (3, 4). Apparently linoleic acid is almost as bad as smoking.
I am. I demanded controlled experiments, rather than observational studies. This is what I have provided. What is it you think I have demanded of others that I have not done myself?I thought you would be willing to make your own case at least to the degree that you demanded others do so
You must be so cool with lines like that.If you can't take the heat.......get out of the kitchen........
That's an unfortunate reality, but it does not validate observational studies. We have to work with what we have.Controlled nutritional experiments are far and few between cause they are too expensive.
You can either go all the way back up to the post where I set up for you the detailed summary of your logic, set out for you a possible path of discussion, and even offered you suggestions for places to look for information, or not. Your choice. But you have lost my support in any case. You have failed to convince me of your position.
So do you disagree that, in controlled trials comparing linoleic acid (of which nuts tend to contain a great amount), groups eating more linoleic acid tend to have equal or higher mortality rates than groups eating more saturated fat?
I might start a dedicated PUFA debate thread.
Elliot: How do you reconcile your belief that eating two ounces of almonds will make you insignificantly unhealthier with your belief that any amount of PUFA is toxic? Only one of those statements can be true, you know.
Did you misread my post? The statements are consistent. Any amount of dietary polyunsaturated fat is toxic. The small amount in almonds is toxic. But because it is so small, the effect is small. How is this a contradiction?How do you reconcile your belief that eating two ounces of almonds will make you insignificantly unhealthier with your belief that any amount of PUFA is toxic? Only one of those statements can be true, you know.
I think you misinterpreted me. When I say any amount of PUFA is toxic, I mean that it will decrease your health. I do not mean that it causes instant death.
Last edited by Elliot; 04-25-2014 at 08:28 PM.
Last edited by Neckhammer; 04-25-2014 at 08:45 PM.
I disagree. Here are a few:There is limited to none in the realm of RCT in this arena.
Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of... [BMJ. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Corn Oil in Treatment of Ischaemic Heart Disease
The 5-year experience of modified fat diets on y... [Circulation. 1970] - PubMed - NCBI
INCIDENCE OF CANCER IN MEN ON A DIET HIGH IN POLYUNSATURATED FAT : The Lancet
The dose makes the poison, and most Americans get most of their energy from carbohydrates, so in a person eating to weight maintenance according to national guidelines, you're talking about a range of 0 to 30 grams of PUFA per day. How toxic could that be? Actually, the studies you're referencing already answer that question: slightly more toxic than saturated fats. That's hardly the sort of evidence required to convince people to reduce their PUFA consumption to the level of deficiency.