Hey, I'm looking forward to this.

[brimstoneSalad]

Here's a recent article criticizing plant oils and contradicting mainstream consensus on saturated fat, claiming that it's healthier than plant oils: https://nutritionstudies.org/plant-oils ... rated-fat/

I don't think he accepts oils. There is some mention of them being different from fats in whole plant foods, so perhaps he has relaxed on nuts and avocados.

That's the trouble with looking at an accumulated set of studies: they can be cherry picked.

I think "The China Study" handles that well. It describes how Dr. Campbell, while researching something completely different, coincidentally discovered the link between animal protein, particularly casein, with heart disease and cancer, and how every follow up experiment ended up supporting this hypothesis.

An accidental discovery does lend support to it not being cherry picked, but that's also a matter of trust.
Take Cowspiracy, for example: The host Kip (or whatever you call him) appears to discover that veganism is best for the environment through the course of the movie. I don't know how long he's been vegan, but the other producer has been for decades and they've both been animal activists for some time.
There is a bit of a trend to display things in a revelatory sense for the author, emphasizing how much the author tried to fight it which suggests cherry picking would be the last thing you'd expect. It isn't always the case. For doctors too, even if there's no ethical dimension for them pet hypotheses can define careers and it can be hard to break from them.

[Jebus]

Here's a recent article criticizing plant oils

Who the hell doesn't criticize plant oils?

and contradicting mainstream consensus on saturated fat

It's not a contradiction in the sense that saturated fats are consumed alongside animal proteins and he clearly recommends against consuming animal proteins.

It is a contradiction in the sense that he believes the culprit in foods such as meat and dairy is animal protein rather than saturated fat.

He would defend this viewpoint to death. No one really seems interested in debating him on this because, well, they all agree that foods high in saturated fat should be avoided.

Perhaps the only disagreement would be over non-vegan foods that are sold as low fat alternatives. Dr. Campbell does not believe these are any more healthful.

https://nutritionstudies.org/plant-oils ... rated-fat/

Good article. It illustrates precisely my point about his position on animal protein vs. fat.

An accidental discovery does lend support to it not being cherry picked, but that's also a matter of trust.

Sure.

Vegans' criticizing the China Study has become a bit of a bandwagon thing on vegan forums. I guess it makes them feel like they have greater insight than other vegans. However, whenever I challenge such a vegan to defend their viewpoints they either disappear or reply something like "The China Study is poor science. Everyone knows it. Just do some research and you'll see."

[brimstoneSalad]

Here's a recent article criticizing plant oils

Who the hell doesn't criticize plant oils?

Mainstream health and dietetic organizations, among them vegan dietitians, frequently recommend oils like canola as a good source of Omega3. Greger used to, but he's gone off the deep end with the anti-oil stuff too.

First, regarding I'm assuming endothelial function, the issue is more complex than the black and white anti-oil picture these doctors present. E.g. https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/143/6/788/4571701
Some oils, at least Walnut oil in that study, are better than the whole food at improving the target metric. You would probably find the same with other less refined omega 3 and polyphenol rich oils. It's also different for different people, with the effects only particularly pronounced on those with very high cholesterol to begin with.

Second, even if it were that straight forward, like salt increasing blood pressure, there's no reason to be concerned with the very mild (and temporary) "stiffening" or arterial walls after consumption of large amounts of fat. It's not the same as stiffening from arteriosclerosis.
There's no reason to believe this is damaging, arterial walls relax and stiffen in response to a lot of things (it's a cellular process that exists for a reason). The slight stiffening, or slight increase in blood pressure from salt, would only be a concern in the way of the straw that broke the camel's back: if you're on the verge of a heart attack, it *might* send you over. It's not going to give you a heart attack if you weren't already very close, and it's not going to get you closer to having a heart attack over time in the way that trans & saturated fats would (and probably dietary cholesterol too).

If you have an otherwise healthy cardiovascular system and you're getting all of your nutrients and aren't obese (so you're not restricting calories, which can be challenging for some with oils), eating non-trans and unsaturated plant fat (oil or whole food, not a big difference) isn't going to harm you. Your only risk of eating too much of something like Omega 6 instead of Omega 3 would be in possibly interfering with synthesis of EPA/DHA, that's just a ratio issue and it's still not clear how strong that effect is (it seems to depend a lot on genetics).

and contradicting mainstream consensus on saturated fat

It's not a contradiction in the sense that saturated fats are consumed alongside animal proteins and he clearly recommends against consuming animal proteins.

It is when it contradicts the mechanistic processes and substitutes something completely different.
It's like agreeing that the Earth is warming, but saying it's because there are fewer pirates today and not because of atmospheric CO2.

It is a contradiction in the sense that he believes the culprit in foods such as meat and dairy is animal protein rather than saturated fat.

He would defend this viewpoint to death. No one really seems interested in debating him on this because, well, they all agree that foods high in saturated fat should be avoided.

And it's insane...
Concern over animal protein is defensible in many ways, but the mechanistic link between saturated fat, cholesterol, arteriosclerosis, and heart disease is very strong.

I remember Teo advanced his own alternative hypothesis on heart disease not too long ago: that it wasn't the saturated fat or cholesterol, but calcium that causes it.
It's very easy to come up with any number of alternative beliefs. Carnivores can and do come up with their own that claim animal products aren't the cause at all (instead, the LACK OF grass fed beef liver causes it somehow). You'll always be able to find some other correlation if you look hard enough, doesn't mean it's right.

If we condone these wacky hypothesis that so radically oppose mainstream science, don't we have to pay the carnivore hypotheses the same amount of respect?
The mainstream is overwhelmingly on our side here, why damage our credibility by denying mainstream science and open us up to comparisons with equally unscientific carnivores?

[Jebus]

Mainstream health and dietetic organizations, among them vegan dietitians, frequently recommend oils like canola as a good source of Omega3.

They don't recommend it because they believe it is healthful. They recommend it because they know people will consume oil, and they might as well recommend what they think is the best (unhealthful) option.

And it's insane...
Concern over animal protein is defensible in many ways, but the mechanistic link between saturated fat, cholesterol, arteriosclerosis, and heart disease is very strong.

Have you looked at any of Dr. Campbell's research recently? His findings suggests that animal protein raises cholesterol while plant protein lowers it. He doesn't at all dismiss saturated fat as a culprit. He just sees a stronger link with animal protein.

Knowing what we know about the deceptive practices of nutritional guidelines over the past century, is it really that surprising that fat has received so much more attention than protein. Food companies can often reduce the fat of their products, but the only way of avoiding animal protein is to avoid animal products altogether.

I remember Teo advanced his own alternative hypothesis on heart disease not too long ago: that it wasn't the saturated fat or cholesterol, but calcium that causes it.
It's very easy to come up with any number of alternative beliefs. Carnivores can and do come up with their own that claim animal products aren't the cause at all (instead, the LACK OF grass fed beef liver causes it somehow).

If we condone these wacky hypothesis that so radically oppose mainstream science, don't we have to pay the carnivore hypotheses the same amount of respect?

Yes we should, if/whenever peer reviewed research supports their claims.

You'll always be able to find some other correlation if you look hard enough, doesn't mean it's right.

???

If the experimental design is sound and the study is replicated, why wouldn't it be right?

The mainstream is overwhelmingly on our side here, why damage our credibility by denying mainstream science and open us up to comparisons with equally unscientific carnivores?

We will never damage our credibility by pointing to sound research. I can think of a few very good reasons the mainstream focuses on saturated fat rather than animal protein.

[brimstoneSalad]

They don't recommend it because they believe it is healthful.

What is or isn't healthful is relative to what you're otherwise eating or would have otherwise eaten, and also what else your diet contains.
Replacing pretty much any meaningful calorie source in the standard American diet with canola oil is a win.

If you're eating whole walnuts instead that might be better, but just because there is something better doesn't mean the thing that IS otherwise more healthful than what typically makes up human diets can be plausibly described as unhealthful.

We also have to consider the relative benefits of, once nutritional needs have been fulfilled, obtaining calories from fats vs. carbs.

Have you looked at any of Dr. Campbell's research recently? His findings suggests that animal protein raises cholesterol while plant protein lowers it.

Has he done any controlled studies? Feeding people isolated plant protein + animal fat, vs. feeding people isolated animal proteins + plant fats?

You could also find a strong link between lung cancer and carrying lighters. Is the butane slowly leaking out in people's pockets, absorbing into the skin and causing cancer in the lungs?

He doesn't at all dismiss saturated fat as a culprit. He just sees a stronger link with animal protein.

If you're looking at old studies and the correlations with butter (isolated animal fats) vs. partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening, yeah the link with animal protein is likely going to be stronger and low fat is going to look better.
If he's drawing this data from actual good experimental design rather than short sighted data mining I'd be very impressed.

Knowing what we know about the deceptive practices of nutritional guidelines over the past century, is it really that surprising that fat has received so much more attention than protein. Food companies can often reduce the fat of their products, but the only way of avoiding animal protein is to avoid animal products altogether.

It doesn't really matter, because fat is where the evidence and consensus are. It's very plausible that there's more to it, like that animal fat sources are sources of oxidized dietary cholesterol and perhaps that's another variable, but that's where you're going to find a link, not in animal protein. People are given therapeutic diets containing animal protein (like egg whites and fat free dairy, but that are lower in saturated fat) that reverse heart disease.

Yes we should, if/whenever peer reviewed research supports their claims.

I'm sure there's an anti-vegan quack out there who has gotten something past peer review. It's a very low bar. If you're advocating listening to lone doctors *against* consensus, then it would go both ways.

You'll always be able to find some other correlation if you look hard enough, doesn't mean it's right.

???

If the experimental design is sound and the study is replicated, why wouldn't it be right?

Statistical interpretation can skew results and find significance where there is none. Many researchers understand statistics so poorly they think they can do a new study and *fix* something, and repeat with small changes until they get a significant result, or even just continue data collection until it reaches significance.

See my argument with ModVegan here: viewtopic.php?t=2782
You can get a study that appears to have significant results without it actually being significant in the broader context.

Also, replication is meaningless in the kinds of studies most of these doctors are doing: they're not usually controlled interventions, they're data mining and looking for correlations in extant data. That's much worse.

We will never damage our credibility by pointing to sound research.

That's begging the question, though. I'm not convinced it is sound, quite the contrary.

But maybe you can point me to some kind of controlled intervention I'm not aware of, I'd be interested in reading it.