So the massive omega 6 / omega 3 imbalance in seed oils doesn't bother you?
In the small amounts i eat it, and in the context of a very varied diet, no.
Proven to lead to inflammation, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis.
When oil (indeed any fat) has been heated to extreme temperatures, things start to go awry. If that same fat is re-used, as is likely the case in various eateries around the world the issues can get worse. But if you could show me some robust human outcome data that demonstrates any of the above from adding a home-made sunflower-seed vinaigrette to a salad, I'd much appreciate it.
Interesting you mention endothelial dysfunction as it's one of the cries of one of the (in)famous plant-based doctors. claims that this is the result of consuming even olive-oil. But tat's been debunked. Doubt he cares very much
I don't know if cutting them out helps to reduce obesity, any more than you know that consuming them doesn't cause obesity.
But I do know it doesn't cause obesity. If I didn't, I wouldn't make the claim
You also have no idea of what I eat or what I do.
But that's the beauty of it - i don't need to know. THe science is already there. I no more need to know what you ate to lose weight than I need to know which direction a coin woud go if it fell from your hand.
You could've lost the eight on a carnivore or keto diet, (I'm sure I don't need to give examples). You could've lost weight eating nothing but potatoes for a couple of months:
A potato commission director's stunt to eat only potatoes for two months reveals good and bad in its nutritional profile.
or a year:
The diet helped Andrew Flinders Taylor lose 117 pounds.
You could have done it on a diet that included cake (contains seed-oils, I believe) on a daily basis:
Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
or on McDonalds (definitely contains seed-oils):
So far, Kevin Maginnis says he's "loving it!"
What does appear obvious is that you are wedded to the calories in/calories out mantra.
I prefer to keep an open mind.
Actually, in the part you literally quoted, I used a strike-through for the word caloric, deferring instead to use energy. Why? Because calories is a bit more of a nuanced discussion. It's not that it isn't generally a pretty good proxy for energy, but ultimately it is energy we're talking about. So, to the extent that calories pretty much aligns with energy, you'd be correct. But to make it easier, I'm wedded to the energy model, like I'm wedded ot the gravity model and the flat-earth model
We would never have made it through our evolution had we not been able to leverage fat gain in times of feast, and to eventually plunder those stores during famine.