5

There are several Tiktok videos going around claiming that 'vegetable oils are worse for your health than cigarettes'.

For example: TikTok user @thebenazadi said in a 2020 TikTok that Professor Brian Peskin of MIT told him that 'research would show':

a person who smokes two packs of cigarettes every single day for up to 28 years; their chances of developing lung cancer within those 28 years is about 16%. Then we compared that to somebody who had cooked vegetable oils every single day for about 28 years, their chances of developing cancer or heart disease was 86%, yikes.

(This is a commercial, shortened to advertise the long format podcast with Peskin at "The Healthiest Oil For Cooking, This Study Reveals Why Smoke Point Is Irrelevant! - Ben Azadi KKP:162", relevant part starting at 18:45…. Unfortunately 'the study' mentioned in this episode's title is not the one that Peskin seems to refer to…)

This seems crazy to me, both of the numbers. Is there any truth to these claims?

LangLаngС
  • 44,005
  • 14
  • 173
  • 172
Aequitas
  • 331
  • 1
  • 8
  • 8
    The actual claim in the video is that someone who smokes 2 packs a day for 28 years has a 16% chance of getting cancer in those 28 years, while someone who consumes cooked vegetable oils every day for 28 years has a 86% chance of getting cancer or heart disease. There is no claim of causation, and note the "or heart disease". He attributes this to Brian Peskin, who he claims is an "MIT researcher", but [Peskin's own web site](https://brianpeskin.com/) only says he has a BS in electrical engineering from MIT. – benrg Oct 05 '22 at 06:39
  • *Brian founded the field of Life-Systems Engineering Science. This field is defined as The New Science of Maximizing Desired Results by Working Cooperatively with the Natural Processes of Living Systems.* Seems like an ideal question for this site. – Weather Vane Oct 05 '22 at 12:32
  • 3
    The claim seems to be very particular about the smokers not developing lung cancer DURING the 28 years. Does the same apply to the "all cancers plus heart disease" claim? I'd be extremely skeptical of claims that 86% of 46 year old vegetable oil fans had cancer or heart disease. Conversely I wouldn't be surprised if, given unlimited time, 86% of people eventually suffered from one (or both) of the top two (by far) causes of death regardless of whether a person uses vegetable oil or not. – Eric Nolan Oct 06 '22 at 09:18
  • Noticing that [in an earlier episode its title with Peskin](https://ketokamp.libsyn.com/brian-peskin-enhancing-your-bodys-ability-to-fight-the-covid-19-virus-with-efas) was "with EFAs" (ie: essential fatty acids; which are usually plenty in many veg oils…) it seems a first step to answer this would be to ascertain what was actually said in the podcast? – LangLаngС Oct 07 '22 at 11:59
  • 2
    @LangLаngС I don't understand why you haven't yet made an answer, after a large number of comments, observations, links, and criticisms. Put your money where your mouth is. – Weather Vane Oct 08 '22 at 19:20

1 Answers1

9

There does not seem to be any supporting evidence for the claim.

By 'vegetable oils' they must mean 'seed oils', which have been the object of discussion among the health-conscious.

The specific claim made in the short video has been examined by Insider in their article Some keto evangelists believe vegetable oil is worse than cigarettes, but the science behind the theory doesn't add up. It mentions Ben Azadi, founder of the health coaching site Keto Kamp, as seen in the video.

But:

There's little peer-reviewed research to back up claims that seed oil is worse than smoking

While there's evidence processed foods and food fried in oil aren't good for our health, claims about the risks of seed oil in particular go far beyond what current research can support. Azadi said his comments are based on the work of Dr. Cate Shanahan, a family physician who writes frequently about vegetables oils. Many of the studies she cites suggest correlation, not causation, between oils and illness, or focus on lab rodents, not humans.

Why fears of inflammation are also over-hyped

Among keto evangelists, though, there has been some concern that too much omega-6 from seed oils, and too little omega-3 (found in greater concentration in things like fatty fish), can cause inflammation in the body. That's because one type of omega-6, arachidonic acid, is linked to molecules that promote inflammation.

Research has suggested that's not the case — studies have shown it does not increase inflammation, and in somes cases reduces it. Although it's not entirely clear how it works, it appears that arachidonic acid can also be converted by the body into molecules that help fight inflammation.

That Research links to the National Library of Medicine, NCBI Literature Resources.

Omega-6 fatty acids and inflammation

... Hence, it is commonly believed that increasing dietary intake of the omega-6 fatty acids ARA or its precursor linoleic acid (LA) will increase inflammation. However, studies in healthy human adults have found that increased intake of ARA or LA does not increase the concentrations of many inflammatory markers. Epidemiological studies have even suggested that ARA and LA may be linked to reduced inflammation. Contrastingly, there is also evidence that a high omega-6 fatty acid diet inhibits the anti-inflammatory and inflammation-resolving effect of the omega-3 fatty acids. Thus, the interaction of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids and their lipid mediators in the context of inflammation is complex and still not properly understood.

The Insider also mentions trans fats:

A now-banned version of seed oil was linked to inflammation

The evidence on the health risks of trans fats is so substantial that trans fats and oils that contain them have been banned in the US since 2018.

Perhaps the keto diet activists haven't updated since then.


Edit:
The video makes an unfair comparison. Although the text caption says

Smoking cancer risk = 16%. Vegetable oils cancer risk = 86%

the narrator slips heart disease into it: comparing death from cancer among smokers with cancer and heart disease among those who consume vegetable oils. Wikipedia shows that amongst the whole population heart disease and cancer are the top two causes of death, with heart disease at the top – not cancer. On these grounds alone, the narrator Ben Azadi has twisted the case.

But anyway, there is a table for the US in 2020 given by Medical News Today, and it states

the 10 leading causes of death in the U.S. accounted for 74.1% of the total deaths

These top ten together are less than the 86% claimed, which given that almost everybody has some daily intake of seed oils, seems to be wholly spurious: you might as well claim it is due to drinking water.


I have so far avoided reference to Brian Peskin, who the narrator Ben Azadi cites as his source. According to QuackWatch in 2002 he was fined by the State of Texas for making unsubstantiated claims about Radiant Health Products and Peskin’s credentials.

Weather Vane
  • 7,653
  • 1
  • 32
  • 42
  • 3
    I'd like to see the answer address the hidden switcheroo in the claim (lung cancer only versus all cancers AND heart disease). – Oddthinking Oct 05 '22 at 22:28
  • @Oddthinking Doesn't this make _the claim_ "unclear" in the first place ("worse"/"lung cancer & 'all cancers' + CVD)? Seems to me, _no_ answer can address a focussed claim if there is none? (Eating or _H_eating veg-oil/seed-oils… ω3/6/9 etc is very complex issue…) – LangLаngС Oct 05 '22 at 22:39
  • 1
    @LangLаngС: The way I read it: The *context* is that vegetable oils are worse than smoking cigarettes - that is the claim that they open the video with and they want you to believe. When it comes time to actually support the claim, the goals suddenly shift mid-sentence, and no longer supports the original claim. – Oddthinking Oct 05 '22 at 23:39
  • 4
    A simple counterfactual might be even more convincing than the "no convincing evidence" conclusion. If vegetable oils were really worse than smoking, then, given the number of consumers, there would be a **huge** level of observed mortality. Smoking kills ~50% of smokers form obviously related causes. If oils were worse, that would be lot of excess deaths. – matt_black Oct 06 '22 at 16:51
  • @matt_black I've extended the answer to hopefully cover your and Oddthinking's suggestions. – Weather Vane Oct 06 '22 at 17:34
  • @Oddthinking Yo. Context is 'a meaningful claim', but hard to evaluate _here?_ Since it is way too wobbly. Now, the numbers used are non-sensical and the frame of the argument even unusable, if we're honest. Most commercial veg-oils are bad. Your chance of developing cancer is 100%. Over a timespan of 120+ years. The time angle for this 'risk' is missing, the increase or decrease not meaningfully explored. Most important: spoken word vid of hearsay? What does the _src_ for _that_ claim? Just such wishy stuff? Peskin gets only an ad hominem blanket treatment. Is Peskin fairly ref'd in 'claim'? – LangLаngС Oct 06 '22 at 18:07
  • @matt_black What kind of definition you use for 'excess deaths'? Everyone dies. 0 exceptions. Many of cancer. Excess is _above_ what's _expected_ in given time frame? Have smokers featured in any excess mortality stat? Cancer or CVD: from industrial oils, partially hardened ones etc, oxidised, contaminated etc do kill. Becoming fat from these bad fats does. ~<30% of people smoke, >80% eat terrible fats. much2much PUFAs (while badmouthing saturateds) 98% die _prematurely,_ as _judged_ from 'health' 'experts'. _How_ is this compared, where do these numbers come from? Is this a soccer match? – LangLаngС Oct 06 '22 at 18:15
  • @WeatherVane Please try to get to the src of 'the claim'. Try to compare to this terrible presentation. The comparison made is not "unfair", it is meaningless (& by def: misleading). It does not make any sense to juggle numbers like done there. If Peskin does this as well: that's bad. But currently it's unclear whether he is misleading himself or misleadingly (re-)presented _if_ needed or wanted: The ad hominem should only come with/after you have evaluated _his_ original claims. (1st hunch: 'TikTok'-> OMG, case not closed with any conviction in any direction, just dismissed, next post please) – LangLаngС Oct 06 '22 at 18:22
  • 1
    @LangLаngС the only purpose of the *ad hominem* (which was last) was to show that the claimed source is unreliable. It is not a *credible source*. Both Azadi and Peskin have vested interests. The video mentions "interviewing Brian Peskin *[unintelligible]* ... podcast... " without clear attribution. – Weather Vane Oct 06 '22 at 18:24
  • Yeah. But unreliable sources can tell the truth, at times. All Cretans lie. Does he here? Or is he twisting some facts (best way to make propaganda: tell half-truths, mostly _full truths_, and only lie blatantly sometimes). That he is seen as unreliable tells me little about _this claim_ (only to look closer instead) What said Barnum: you can't always fool all the people al the time? Always crying Wolf requires quite a very _'special'_ audience to still get off the ground flying. (Has Peskin published sth written on this?) – LangLаngС Oct 06 '22 at 18:30
  • @LangLаngС I was just compressing the long arguments behind smoking statistics into "excess" assuming knowledge of those are common. To expand: we don't count the cost of smoking because smokers *die*, we count deaths from specific diseases that occur when smokers are compared to non-smokers who live longer and die of a different mix of diseases. If the claim were true then the 20% or so who never take veg oil would have a *vastly* better life expectancy than the rest. Do veg oil consumers have excess deaths on that definition? – matt_black Oct 06 '22 at 20:18
  • @matt_black Smoking itself is an excess activity, if we allow such word usage: fun but unnecessary (+'bad'): easy to measure, 'easy' to modify; _eating_ is not. Epidemiology of eating in omnivore humans are often bull, as is the linked summary article above. Conclusions of "despite long held beliefs" & "did not _increase_" based on unsuitable RCTs that clearly present a ceiling effect for dose/response & _known_ physiological mechanisms/pathways of WD. They either didn't recognise this or failed to nerf that into their abstract. Either way, reach of that doi for this Q is quite limited. – LangLаngС Oct 07 '22 at 07:49
  • The Insider article has very little to add, since it also doesn't know what Peskin is basing his claims on. _Thus,_ they cannot do more than wiggle around it with oblique to the problem posed counter claims, with typical fuctchecker mannerisms like testimonials from eminence based medicine. To repeat my stance: Peskin is probably going completely bonkers with this strange comparison! But to get closer to this belief system's data, try to retrace the steps of conflation, like comparing the numbers found in https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/death-by-vegetable-oil-what-the-studies-say ? – LangLаngС Oct 07 '22 at 08:37
  • 2
    @LangLаngС I think you should post your own answer. – Weather Vane Oct 07 '22 at 08:55
  • Well, I might have to? But it's still my desire to help _you_ avoid writing garbage, like the Insider clearly does aplenty. They did neither analyse src claims nor their own backup cargo cult refs (which then also fail thanks to too much rope). Here they (& by extension you) fail to address what Azadi/Peskin actually say. Insider claims: "too much omega-6 […]" 'isn't that much of a concern'? Guess what Peskin says: that we would need _much_ more ω6! He claims _'ω3_ is bad'! (Again: this big talker says not that much reliable stuff, but attacking him in this way cannot convince any adherent?) – LangLаngС Oct 07 '22 at 11:29
  • @LangLаngС your link was very interesting. It mentions 86% but not in the context stated in the OP's video. It was the comparison between people who increased certain elements of their diet and those who did not. – Weather Vane Oct 07 '22 at 20:49
  • It's an example from those circles, & mentions some numbers. Working hypothesis for this is: there _is_ at least 1, more likely 2, _real_ studies, that mention(s) numbers like these in this context, and that 'they' (the 2 guys under scrutiny here) misinterpret, abuse, conflate or whatnot. They seem to be about _'heated/oxidised'_ PUFA containing oils ( _Otherwise_ both seem to like em/=their self-oversimplification?!). The real studies are needed analysed, and put into context/perspective. (While I still believe the comparison to be not possibly meaningful, even if turned out to be 'honest') – LangLаngС Oct 07 '22 at 21:12