If you consume social media, you may have heard: Seed oils are terrible for your health–even toxic! Cooking oils derived from seeds cause everything from heart disease to inflammation to fatigue to bad skin–according to a certain subset of Internet influencers. Yet contrary to the posts demonizing the common ingredients, a bevy of scientific research disagrees. Here’s how to understand the health “scare.” 

What are seed oils?

There’re many different types of plant-based cooking oils, but when people talk about seed oils, they’re often referencing a list of eight: Canola, corn, cottonseed, soybean, sunflower, safflower, grapeseed, and rice bran oils. (Note that things like olive, avocado, and coconut oil are absent from this list.) All of these eight oils contain fat and therefore fatty acids (an essential major nutrient group). And many (though not all) of these seed oils contain a relatively high proportion of omega-6 fatty acids.

A quick chemistry aside: fatty acids are the building blocks of triglycerides, or complete fat molecules. They are organic compounds made up of predominantly carbon and hydrogen chains with an acid group on the end. In saturated fats, every carbon except for the terminal ones have two hydrogens bonded to it. In unsaturated fats, some of those hydrogens are replaced with double bonds between adjacent carbons instead. Omega-6 fatty acids are unsaturated, and the first of those double bonds occurs at the 6th carbon from the end–hence the name.

There are multiple kinds of omega-6 compounds, but one particular type, called linoleic acid, is at the center of most of the scorn against seed soils. Linoleic acid is, again, an essential nutrient that our bodies need. We cannot synthesize it, and we need it to support healthy cell signaling, function, and immune systems.

But seed oil detractors argue that we are ingesting far too much linoleic acid, leading to the accumulation of byproducts like arachidonic acid, which they claim causes inflammation and also counteracts the benefits of eating omega-3 fatty acids. The domino impact of all of this, anti-seed oil advocates assert, is higher risk of diseases like type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. 

A kernel of truth

Inside the backlash against seed oils are a few kernels of truth. Eating fried and processed foods in excess is generally detrimental to your health. So if avoiding seed oils translates into eating fewer french fries and snack cakes, you might feel better. 

Plus, if you eat a typical western diet, you are probably at no risk of linoleic acid deficiency, and you likely ingest more omega-6 fatty acids than omega-3s. In recent decades the amount of linoleic acid in our diets has increased because many processed foods and restaurant meals are made with soy, sunflower, or safflower oils and animal feed now contains a lot of soy, which translates to more linoleic acid inside meat and dairy products, says Philip Calder, a nutrition scientist and professor at the University of Southampton in England. “Linoleic acid has permeated the food chain in the last 50 to 60 years,” he tells Popular Science. 

Additionally, Calder explains that there is “theoretical evidence” that linoleic acid can be partially converted into arachidonic acid, which is subsequently partially converted into compounds associated with inflammation. Additionally, omega-6s and omega-3s can compete for the same metabolic pathways. All those biological mechanisms exist in the human body. 

Yet here is where things get sticky: that theoretical argument doesn’t stack up to scientific observation. “That just really doesn’t happen in real life,” says Guy H. Johnson, a nutrition scientist and adjunct professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. “If you’ve got enough omega-3, the inflammatory environment isn’t increased by omega-6s.”

What the research indicates

Calder agrees. “Most human studies either show there isn’t a relationship between linoleic acid intake and inflammation biomarkers, or that the relationship is the opposite to what you might think would happen. You see higher linoleic acid and higher arachidonic acid are associated with lower levels of inflammation biomarkers,” he says. He co-authored a 2018 review study assessing the published literature on inflammation and omega-6s and concluded as much. 

“We didn’t find anything that demonstrates there’s a harmful association between omega-6’s and inflammatory markers in humans,” he adds. A 2012 review co-authored by Johnson found the same thing.

Many other review studies and meta-analyses have come to similar conclusions, and additionally finding pluses where you might expect minuses. “Every time anybody looks at blood levels of omega-6s and health outcomes–and we’ve done this several times with thousands of people… you find that people with the highest levels of omega-6s have the best outcomes,” says William S. Harris, a professor at the University of South Dakota’s Sanford School of Medicine and president of the Fatty Acid Research Institute. 

Harris has co-authored multiple human cohort studies as well as large review papers assessing the impacts of omega-6 fatty acids on health. In a 2017 meta-analysis, he and his co-authors found that omega-6 consumption actually lowers risk of type 2 diabetes. In a 2020 review of 30 observational studies, Harris and his colleagues concluded that higher linoleic acid levels are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. 

In fact, higher linoleic acid intake is associated with lower risk of death from all causes including heart disease and cancer, according to another 2020 meta-analysis that assessed 38 different studies. I could keep linking studies–there are dozens of them, but you probably get the point. 

The way fatty acids and metabolic processes unfold in the body is complicated. “There’s a nuanced interplay between omega-6s, omega-3s, and a variety of other metabolites,” Harris says. The view that omega-3s are good and omega-6s are bad “is not true and is far too simplistic,” he adds. 

There are a couple of legitimate, contrary bits of research out there, say both Harris and Calder. Including two, often-cited papers published by lead author Christopher Ramsden, chief of the Lipid Peroxidation Unit in the National Institute on Aging. In these studies, Ramsden uncovered previously unpublished research from the late 1960’s and early ‘70’s wherein two groups of people fed a diet high in seed oils and margarine showed worse health outcomes. 

However, there are big caveats to these findings. For one, the study participants were fed much higher levels of omega-6-containing oils than is common in diets today, notes Harris. Plus many of the solid margarines the study used likely contained high amounts of trans fats, which are uniformly understood to be harmful to human health, says Calder.

Another concern that the seed oil skeptics cite is the use of hexane in production. “It’s true that hexane is used to extract vegetable oils from whatever their source is,” notes Johnson, who has written multiple health claim petitions on various oils. “But the product that consumers buy in the grocery store has no hexane in there at all. It’s gone,” he adds– removed during processing. 

All in all, the vast majority of scientific evidence indicates that cooking with omega-6 containing oils is harmless and probably good for you. 

So, what should you eat?

Given the above, it might sound like you start chugging safflower oil, but that’s not exactly the case. Since the western diet already includes so much omega-6, you’re probably covered. “We’re getting plenty of omega-6s. I’m not really advocating that people start supplementing their diet with omega-6,” says Harris. “But what I would say is efforts to reduce the intake of omega-6 are going to have an adverse effect on health,” he adds. This because less omega-6 means less of the observed protective benefits of linoleic acid, Harris explains. 

And it may also be that those seeking to swap out seed oils inadvertently end up swapping in less healthy alternatives. Often, influencers combine their disdain for seed oils with other health fads, like promoting the “carnivore diet,” anti-sunscreen sentiment, or even sometimes all three in one. This pile of misinformation would have viewers eschewing sun protection and vegetables, while chowing down on whole t-bone steaks and sticks of butter daily. Nothing in the vast amount of scientific research on human health and nutrition indicates any of the above is a good idea. 

Saturated fats may not be as harmful to heart health as once thought, but a diet very high in saturated fats and animal products can still raise your risk of high cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. And again, we already eat a lot of saturated fat. In order from most to least healthy in the context of the modern western diet, Calder says that omega-3s are the best option, omega-6s come second, and saturated fats are at the bottom of the pyramid of things you need to eat more of. 

Harris, too, recommends people try to eat more omega-3’s, particularly the kind found in seafood (seaweed and algae can provide a plant-based source for vegans and vegetarians). 

And broadly, the best path to a healthy diet is probably what you’d expect. A diet rich in fruits and vegetables, with whole grains and lots of fiber, is best, say Calder and Johnson. “It’s what your mother told you,” Johnson adds. Moving more and eating slightly less overall, are probably also good ideas for most Americans, notes Harris. “It’s not sexy, but that’s the way it is.” 

Finally, to stay your sharpest, be mindful of the health claims you see online. Always remember correlation doesn’t equal causation, one person’s experience is not equivalent to a robust scientific study, and there is no simple quick-fix for every health problem. “If it sounds too good or simple to be true, then it probably is,” says Johnson. 

The post What science actually says about seed oils appeared first on Popular Science.

The Los Angeles Press Club on Thursday announced the finalists for the 66th Annual Southern California Journalism Awards, recognizing the best work in print, online, and broadcast media published in 2023.

Reason, which is headquartered in L.A., is a finalist for 14 awards.

A sincere thanks to the judges who read and watched our submissions, as well as to the Reason readers, subscribers, and supporters, without whom we would not be able to produce impactful journalism.

Senior Editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a finalist for best technology reporting across all media platforms—print, radio, podcast, TV, and online—for her November 2023 print piece, "Do Social Media Algorithms Polarize Us? Maybe Not," in which she challenged what has become the traditional wisdom around the root of online toxicity:

For years, politicians have been proposing new regulations based on simple technological "solutions" to issues that stem from much more complex phenomena. But making Meta change its algorithms or shifting what people see in their Twitter feeds can't overcome deeper issues in American politics—including parties animated more by hate and fear of the other side than ideas of their own. This new set of studies should serve as a reminder that expecting tech companies to somehow fix our dysfunctional political culture won't work.

Science Reporter Ronald Bailey is a finalist for best medical/health reporting in print or online for "Take Nutrition Studies With a Grain of Salt," also from the November 2023 issue, where he meticulously dissected why the epidemiology of food and drink is, well, "a mess":

This doesn't mean you can eat an entire pizza, a quart of ice cream, and six beers tonight without some negative health effects. (Sorry.) It means nutritional epidemiology is a very uncertain guide for how to live your life and it certainly isn't fit for setting public policy.

In short, take nutrition research with a grain of salt. And don't worry: Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) says "too much salt can kill you," the Daily Mail noted in 2021 that "it's not as bad for health as you think."

Managing Editor Jason Russell is a finalist in print/online sports commentary for his August/September 2023 cover story, "Get Your Politics Out of My Pickleball," which explored the emerging fault lines as the government gets involved in America's weirdest, fastest-growing sport:

Pickleball will always have haters—and if its growth continues, local governments will still face public pressure to build more courts. Some critics think the sport is a fad, but strong growth continues for the time being, even as the COVID-19 pandemic ends and other activities compete for time and attention. There's no need to force nonplayers to support it with their tax dollars, especially when entrepreneurs seem eager to provide courts. If pickleball does end up as an odd footnote in sporting history, ideally it won't be taxpayers who are on the hook for converting courts to new uses.

Reporter C.J. Ciaramella is a finalist in magazine investigative reporting for his October 2023 cover story, "'I Knew They Were Scumbags,'" a nauseating piece on federal prison guards who confessed to rape—and got away with it:

Berman's daughter, Carleane, was one of at least a dozen women who were abused by corrupt correctional officers at FCC Coleman, a federal prison complex in Florida. In December, a Senate investigation revealed that those correctional officers had admitted in sworn interviews with internal affairs investigators that they had repeatedly raped women under their control.

Yet thanks to a little known Supreme Court precedent and a culture of corrupt self-protection inside the prison system, none of those guards were ever prosecuted—precisely because of the manner in which they confessed.

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum is a finalist in magazine commentary for "Biden's 'Marijuana Reform' Leaves Prohibition Untouched," from the January 2023 issue, in which he disputed the notion that President Joe Biden has fundamentally changed America's response to cannabis:

By himself, Biden does not have the authority to resolve the untenable conflict between state and federal marijuana laws. But despite his avowed transformation from an anti-drug zealot into a criminal justice reformer, he has stubbornly opposed efforts to repeal federal pot prohibition.

That position is contrary to the preferences expressed by more than two-thirds of Americans, including four-fifths of Democrats and half of Republicans. The most Biden is willing to offer them is his rhetorical support for decriminalizing cannabis consumption—a policy that was on the cutting edge of marijuana reform in the 1970s.

Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward is a finalist for best magazine columnist for "Is Chaos the Natural State of Congress?" from the December 2023 issue, "Don't Just Hire 'Better Cops.' Punish the Bad Ones," from the April 2023 issue, and (a personal favorite) "Bodies Against the State," from the February 2023 issue:

Governments do unconscionable things every day; it is in their nature. But not all transgressions are equal. In the wake of the Iran team's silent anthem protest, an Iranian journalist asked U.S. men's soccer captain Tyler Adams how he could play for a country that discriminates against black people like him. What makes the U.S. different, he replied, is that "we're continuing to make progress every day."

The most perfect and enduring image of a person weaponizing his body against the state was taken after the brutal suppression of protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The unknown Chinese man standing in front of a tank didn't have to hold a sign for the entire world to know exactly what the problem was.

Reporter Christian Britschgi is a finalist for best long-form magazine feature on business/government for "The Town Without Zoning," from the August/September 2023 issue, in which he reported on the fight over whether Caroline, New York, should impose its first-ever zoning code:

Whatever the outcome, the zoning debate raging in Caroline is revealing. It shows how even in a small community without major enterprises or serious growth pressures, planners can't adequately capture and account for everything people might want to do with their land.

There's a gap between what zoners can do and what they imagine they can design. That knowledge problem hasn't stopped cities far larger and more complex than Caroline from trying to scientifically sort themselves with zoning. They've developed quite large and complex problems as a result.

Associate Editor Billy Binion (hi, it's me) is a finalist for best activism journalism online for the web feature "They Fell Behind on Their Property Taxes. So the Government Sold Their Homes—and Kept the Profits," which explored an underreported form of legalized larceny: governments across the U.S. seizing people's homes over modest tax debts, selling the properties, and keeping the surplus equity.

Geraldine Tyler is a 94-year-old woman spending the twilight of her life in retirement, as 94-year-olds typically do. But there isn't much that's typical about it.

Tyler has spent the last several years fighting the government from an assisted living facility after falling $2,300 behind on her property taxes. No one disputes that she owed a debt. What is in dispute is if the government acted constitutionally when, to collect that debt, it seized her home, sold it, and kept the profit.

If that sounds like robbery, it's because, in some sense, it is. But it's currently legal in at least 12 states across the country, so long as the government is doing the robbing.

Senior Producer Austin Bragg, Director of Special Projects Meredith Bragg, Producer John Carter, and freelancer extraordinaire Andrew Heaton are finalists for best humor/satire writing across all broadcast mediums—TV, film, radio, or podcast—for the hilarious "Everything is political: board games," which "exposes" how Republicans and Democrats interpret everyone's favorite games from their partisan perspectives. (Spoiler: Everyone's going to lose.)

The Bragg brothers are nominated again in that same category—best humor/satire writing—along with Remy for "Look What You Made Me Do (Taylor Swift Parody)," in which lawmakers find culprits for the recent uptick in thefts—the victims.

Deputy Managing Editor of Video and Podcasts Natalie Dowzicky and Video Editor Regan Taylor are finalists in best commentary/analysis of TV across all media platforms for "What really happened at Waco," which explored a Netflix documentary on how the seeds of political polarization that roil our culture today were planted at Waco.

Editor at Large Matt Welch, Producer Justin Zuckerman, Motion Graphic Designer Adani Samat, and freelancer Paul Detrick are finalists in best activism journalism across any broadcast media for "The monumental free speech case the media ignored," which made the case that the legal odyssey and criminal prosecutions associated with Backpage were a direct assault on the First Amendment—despite receiving scant national attention from journalists and free speech advocates.

Associate Editor Liz Wolfe, Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller, Video Editor Danielle Thompson, Video Art Director Isaac Reese, and Producer Justin Zuckerman are finalists in best solutions journalism in any broadcast media for "Why homelessness is worse in California than Texas," which investigated why homelessness is almost five times as bad in the Golden State—and what can be done about it.

Finally, Senior Producer Zach Weissmueller, Video Editor Danielle Thompson, Video Art Director Isaac Reese, and Audio Engineer Ian Keyser are finalists in best documentary short for "The Supreme Court case that could upend the Clean Water Act," which did a deep dive into a Supreme Court case concerning a small-town Idaho couple that challenged how the Environmental Protection Agency defines a "wetland"—and what that means for property rights.

Winners will be announced on Sunday, June 23 at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. Subscribe to Reason here, watch our video journalism here, and find our podcasts here.

The post <em>Reason</em> Is a Finalist for 14 Southern California Journalism Awards appeared first on Reason.com.

Enlarge (credit: Getty | David Jennings)

Intermittent fasting, aka time-restricted eating, can help people lose weight—but the reason why may not be complicated hypotheses about changes from fasting metabolism or diurnal circadian rhythms. It may just be because restricting eating time means people eat fewer calories overall.

In a randomized-controlled trial, people who followed a time-restricted diet lost about the same amount of weight as people who ate the same diet without the time restriction, according to a study published Friday in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The finding offers a possible answer to a long-standing question for time-restricted eating (TRE) research, which has been consumed by small feeding studies of 15 people or fewer, with mixed results and imperfect designs.

Read 8 remaining paragraphs | Comments