meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
The Peter Attia Drive

#380 ‒ The seed oil debate: are they uniquely harmful relative to other dietary fats? | Layne Norton, Ph.D.

The Peter Attia Drive

Peter Attia, MD

Health & Fitness, Medicine, Fitness

4.77.3K Ratings

🗓️ 19 January 2026

⏱️ 128 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

View the Show Notes Page for This Episode

Become a Member to Receive Exclusive Content

Sign Up to Receive Peter's Weekly Newsletter

Layne Norton is a nutrition scientist and accomplished power athlete,who returns to The Drive for a conversation that departs from the show's usual format. In this episode, Layne presents the evidence-based case that seed oils are not uniquely harmful under isocaloric conditions, while Peter steelmans the strongest versions of the opposing argument that seed oils are inherently harmful. They examine how scientific bias and evidence are evaluated, revisit the historical randomized controlled trials that shaped the seed oil controversy, and explore the mechanistic biology underlying LDL oxidation and atherosclerosis. Along the way, Layne unpacks the chemistry and processing of modern seed oils, assesses evolutionary and ancestral nutrition arguments, clarifies the relationship between seed oils, ultra-processed foods, and contemporary dietary patterns, and situates these questions within the larger context of lifestyle factors that drive cardiometabolic health. Layne concludes by offering practical considerations around dietary fats, cooking oils, and real-world food choices.

We discuss:

  • The idea behind this episode, biases, and evidence-based thinking [5:15];
  • The four core arguments behind claims that seed oils are harmful [12:30];
  • The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) [14:30];
  • The differences among saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, and trans fats, and why those differences matter for cardiovascular disease [18:30];
  • Missing trans fat data as a confounder in the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, other limitations of that study, and the challenge detecting meaningful differences in hard outcomes through nutrition research [24:00];
  • The Sydney Diet Heart Study (SDHS): an attempt to address the "duration problem" by enrolling a much higher-risk population [28:30];
  • Debating whether evidence from randomized trials supports the idea that seed oils are uniquely harmful once major confounders are removed [34:00];
  • The Rose Corn Oil trial: an often-cited study used to argue against polyunsaturated fats [36:30];
  • Three studies where replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat produced different results than earlier trials [41:30];
  • Layne's explanation for why the evidence is pointing towards cardiovascular risk reduction when substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat [47:30];
  • What Mendelian randomization says about the causal role of LDL cholesterol in ASCVD [56:45];
  • The compounding effects of life-long exposure to high LDL cholesterol [1:06:45];
  • Does the linoleic acid (omega-6) content of seed oils cause inflammation? [1:13:45];
  • Does the linoleic acid (omega-6) content of seed oils increase oxidized LDL? [1:19:30];
  • Layne's analogy to explain why lower LDL particle number outweighs higher per-particle oxidation risk when comparing polyunsaturated fats to saturated fats [1:26:15];
  • The role of oxidized LDL in CVD: exploring differences in a diet high in polyunsaturated fat (seed oils) versus high in saturated fat [1:28:00];
  • Examining whether industrial processing and solvent extraction of seed oils—especially residual hexane—could plausibly cause long-term harm [1:34:00];
  • The evolutionary and "ancestral diet" argument against seed oils [1:40:45];
  • Weighing concerns about industrial processing of seed oils against the totality of metabolic and cardiovascular evidence [1:47:30];
  • Practical considerations around dietary fats, cooking oils, and real-world food choices [1:50:00];
  • Comparing the health impact of seed oils with that of caloric intake and activity levels, and how to prioritize interventions [2:00:15];
  • More.

Connect With Peter on TwitterInstagramFacebook and YouTube

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Hey everyone. Welcome to the Drive podcast. I'm your host, Peter Attia. This podcast, my website, and my weekly newsletter all focus on the goal of translating the science of longevity

0:21.5

into something accessible for everyone. Our goal is to provide the best content in health and

0:26.7

wellness, and we've established a great team of analysts to make this happen. It is extremely

0:31.6

important to me to provide all of this content without relying on paid ads. To do this,

0:36.6

our work is made entirely possible

0:38.2

by our members, and in return, we offer exclusive member-only content and benefits above and beyond

0:44.4

what is available for free. If you want to take your knowledge of this space to the next level,

0:49.6

it's our goal to ensure members get back much more than the price of the subscription.

1:00.6

If you want to learn more about the benefits of our premium membership, head over to peteratia m.com forward slash subscribe.

1:04.1

My guest this week is Lane Norton.

1:06.6

Lane is a nutrition scientist and accomplished power athlete and very evidence-based thinker in

1:13.5

the space of diet and metabolic health. And while Lane's been on the podcast many times,

1:18.1

today's episode is a little bit different from sort of the usual podcast dynamic.

1:22.5

Now, originally, this was supposed to be our first in a series that we've been toying with, which is kind of a

1:30.0

debate episode. I've talked about these a little bit on other podcasts, but the long and short of it is

1:34.9

I wanted to do a debate that was going to be incredibly rigorous. In fairness, I've never really

1:40.8

seen a podcast debate that was anything other than nonsense if I'm being blunt.

1:46.7

And the reason is the format is basically impossible because people can make up anything they want.

1:53.6

They can cite anything they want out of context.

1:56.1

And no human has the capacity to know the entire body of literature up front.

2:01.6

And therefore, it's very difficult to counter claims, regardless of whatever the topic of discussion is, I've just never found this appealing.

2:08.6

And so over the past year, we've been sort of noodling this idea of, well, what if we ran a debate like a court case?

...

Transcript will be available on the free plan in 25 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Peter Attia, MD, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Peter Attia, MD and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.