Swapping seed oils for animal fats isn't backed by the best current evidence: in studies that hold calories constant, replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat (seed oils) shows neutral-to-better results on LDL and cardiovascular risk — not the reverse.

noli's read

Stripped of the "welcome to the remembering" framing, the claim is: there's an overwhelming number of controlled human studies showing seed oils are harmful. The cited PMIDs are almost all from the 1970s-1990s and are mostly mechanistic or animal studies on lipid oxidation, not modern clinical trials on real-world dietary intake. Against that, recent systematic reviews say the opposite on the central point (inflammation): two meta-analyses of controlled trials (Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2012, 15 trials; Food & Function 2017, 30 trials, 1,377 subjects) find no significant effect of linoleic acid on blood inflammatory markers, and a 2025-2026 Frontiers in Nutrition review concludes that most human evidence supports a favorable role for linoleic acid in cardiometabolic health. The Sydney Diet Heart Study (1978), often cited by this camp after its controversial 2010s reanalysis, is considered methodologically unreliable by current literature. The "animal fats > seed oils" advice doesn't hold up against the strongest evidence available today.

the sources

No named source held this one up — that absence is part of the verdict.