[hombre_fatal]

If all of that is true, then you have to answer for why "seed oils" improve human health outcomes in RCTs.

Here's Layne Norton making this point yesterday in response to Huberman in a Twitter thread you should read: https://twitter.com/BioLayne/status/1704477570417254530. He lists some of these interesting RCTs as well, but here's the summary:

> If you only look at epidemiology & in vitro/mechanistic data you can hack together a horror story for almost any nutrient

> In RCTs where n-6 PUFAs (aka seed oils) are used in place of SFA there are neutral/positive effects on health

You can speculate all day about how bad certain mechanisms like oxidation or compounds like phytates might be for us. But why would that be convincing to you when these foods, whether it be seed oils or legumes (which have phytates for example), improve human health outcomes in the highest tier of evidence?

There's a reason why "seed oil disrespecters" on social media hang around the lowest tier of evidence like Ray Peat'ian narratives and mechanistic speculation rather than stick to RCTs and metaanalyses.