When they refer the mainstream information, they are referring to non peer reviewed literature. Based on your last paragraph, it seems that you would also prefer to use peer reviewed studies to make conclusions.
I’m not going to entertain the idea that a person’s country of origin precludes them from doing meaningful research on a topic. Instead, we should critique the methods and the sources that they used.
You also brought up soybean oil as a concern. I looked that one up too: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0899900721002057
This article shows that replacing saturated fats in a person’s diet with soybean oil leads to the same results as if they had used another unsaturated fat. This is the expected result from such a dietary change. Do you have more information about the health concerns of soybean oil that you could share?
jak@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
That’s a valid point, but it could be that they’re looking at the global reaction to something they’ve consumed locally for generations with consternation and wanted to investigate it.
That feels like it might have sounded different in your head or I’m not understanding what you mean. There have been many examples of an incredibly unhealthy thing being very mainstream (lead, more than once, but also arsenic, uranium, and mercury, for some of the most egregious examples, but pharmaceutical history is also full of this), so I don’t know why you would want to default to the mainstream on this if that’s what you did mean.
This is also a fair criticism, and I wish there were more research.