Why would we care about mechanistic speculation from in vitro models when we have evidence from higher up the evidence hierarchy showing direct benefits on human health outcomes when PUFA is substituted for SFA?
It’s like someone providing evidence that exercises decreases mortality risk in humans and countering with “but exercise induces oxidative stress at a cellular level so we shouldn’t do it.”
It’s just turning the evidence hierarchy on its head. I’m curious why you would interpret evidence in this way - why are mechanistic studies with incredibly low internal validity more convincing than RCTs and prospective cohort studies to you?
It’s like someone providing evidence that exercises decreases mortality risk in humans and countering with “but exercise induces oxidative stress at a cellular level so we shouldn’t do it.”
It’s just turning the evidence hierarchy on its head. I’m curious why you would interpret evidence in this way - why are mechanistic studies with incredibly low internal validity more convincing than RCTs and prospective cohort studies to you?