Four papers landed this year. All four concluded that the case against seed oils does not hold. They are being forwarded around with the air of a verdict being read out.
I have read all four. Here is what each one actually did.
The scoping review
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, April. The title gives you the conclusion before you open it: the concerns are without scientific foundation.
It is a narrative scoping review. Not a systematic review. Not a meta-analysis. The distinction matters more than it sounds. A systematic review sets its inclusion criteria in advance and then goes where the literature takes it. A narrative scoping review lets the authors choose which studies go in.
The final author is Mark Messina. His affiliation, printed on the paper, is Soy Nutrition Institute Global, where he is Director of Nutrition Science and Research. The manuscript was partially funded by Soy Nutrition Institute Global, with support from the United Soybean Board.
A paper that selects its own evidence base, co-authored by the soy industry’s science lead, funded by the soy industry. It cannot close an argument. It can only report one.
Petersen
Nutrition Today, January. Circulated as the neutral middle-ground summary.
Three authors. Mark Messina again. And Brent Flickinger, who spent over twenty-two years at Archer Daniels Midland, one of the largest oilseed processors on earth, finishing as global lead for the company’s quality, regulatory and scientific affairs. That is not an accusation. That is his biography.
Soy Nutrition Institute Global lists it among its own publications.
None of this makes the paper wrong. It does make “neutral” the wrong word.
Yang
Current Developments in Nutrition, January. This is the one landing in my inbox at the moment, usually with the words “no effect on inflammation” attached.
Four things.
It is a secondary analysis. The parent study was a feasibility trial, built to test whether people would actually eat the food.
The food was brownies, chocolate cookies, spice cookies, muffins, bread rolls and a garlic spread, each carrying ten grams of oil. Three a day.
The comparator is palm oil. Roughly half saturated fat. So the finding is not that soybean oil is fine. The finding is that soybean oil is no worse than palm oil across four weeks.
And the headline inflammation result is one marker, interleukin-6, at P = 0.09. Not significant. Measured, in the soybean arm, in six people. The entire trial had ten.
The authors are honest about all of it. They call it a pilot. They flag the sample size. They write that it is inappropriate to generalise the findings to a broader adult population. Everyone forwarding it has skipped that paragraph.
Funding: the United Soybean Board, Soy Nutrition Institute Global, and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. The soybean oil was donated by Cargill.
Lai
British Journal of Nutrition. UK Biobank, two hundred and seventy-two thousand people. Higher circulating linoleic acid tracked with lower body weight, a smaller waist, and less fat mass.
Observational. And note the word circulating. This measures linoleic acid in blood. Nobody’s diet was recorded. What you are looking at is an association between a blood marker and a body composition, in a cohort where the people with the tidiest blood markers also tend to be the people who do not smoke, do train, and are not poor.
The senior author is William Harris, founder of OmegaQuant Analytics, a laboratory that sells fatty acid blood testing to the public. The paper was partially funded by Soy Nutrition Institute Global, with support from the United Soybean Board.
Now count the names
Martha Belury is a co-author on the scoping review. She is the senior and corresponding author on Yang. She is a co-author on Lai.
New To Carnivore?
Get my Carnivore Guide, free.
Mark Messina is on the scoping review and on Petersen.
The United Soybean Board and Soy Nutrition Institute Global funded, in whole or in part, three of the four.
So it is not four papers. It is one research network, one funder, and four outputs, one of which is a review whose job is to weigh the field the other three sit in.
That is not a conspiracy. Nobody is meeting in a car park. It is what happens when an industry funds a field. The field exists because the money exists, the work gets done, the work is real, and the same dozen names appear on all of it because they are the only people being paid to be there. Then the outputs get counted as though they arrived independently, because on a reference list they look like four.
The problem underneath all of it
Every intervention in this literature runs four weeks, twelve weeks, sixteen weeks.
Linoleic acid has a half-life in your fat tissue of roughly six hundred and eighty days. Nearly two years to clear half of what is already in there. Over the last half century, the linoleic acid content of American adipose tissue has risen by a hundred and thirty-six per cent.
So a four-week trial cannot measure the thing anybody is actually worried about. It can measure whether you feel rough after a month of brownies. That is the ceiling.
Which brings us to the best line in the whole pile. Having found no carryover in ten people, Yang concludes that a two-week washout may be sufficient for dietary oil crossover trials.
Two weeks. For a fat with a two-year half-life.
What to actually do with this
Nothing dramatic. When the next one lands, read four things before you read the abstract. Who paid for it. Who wrote it. What it was compared against. How long it ran.
Most of it comes apart on its own.
Roy sent me one last week. He had read the headline, forwarded it to the group chat, and added the word “vindicated”. Roy has never opened a methods section in his life. Roy also fries his eggs in rapeseed oil and then wonders aloud why his knee has been like that since March.
The oil is not the only thing that has been sitting there for two years.
From The Ruminati
Getting the bottle out of the kitchen is step one. The Carnivore Diet Plan is the rest of it.
Seed Oils: The Full Story
The complete case: the history, the science, and how an industrial waste product ended up in twenty per cent of your calories.
About Sama Hoole
Sama has been coaching strength and physique transformation for nearly a decade. He writes about ancestral nutrition, powerbuilding, and cutting through the white noise of training and diet: no dogma, no fluff, just the needle movers. If it does not make you stronger, smarter, or more resilient, it does not belong in your routine.
Liked This? Get More Like It.
Grab my free Carnivore guide and get new articles, recipes, and training breakdowns straight to your inbox. No fluff, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.
