Practiceby Lab 10 Get started ›
Crossfire

Should you swap butter for vegetable oil?

What the experts say

Dariush MozaffarianMD, DrPH · cardiologist and nutrition epidemiologist, Tufts

Yes. Use plant oils as your main added fat, replacing butter and other animal fats, with the best evidence for soybean, canola and extra-virgin olive oil.

What it rests onVegetable oils sit in the consume-more column of his priorities table at 2 to 6 servings a day, with the examples column naming soybean, canola and extra-virgin olive oil as the best-evidenced. His argument is about replacement rather than about fat: swapping saturated fat for polyunsaturated oils lowers risk, swapping it for refined starch and sugar does not. His own concordance table is finer-grained than his headline: soybean, canola and olive oil sit under general concordance with some remaining controversy, while corn, sunflower and safflower sit under substantial controversy.

Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗
Nina TeicholzPhD · investigative science journalist and author

The cap on saturated fat is not evidence-based and should be dropped, and the trials that tested replacing it with vegetable oils were largely null.

What it rests onShe reads the government replacement trials of the 1960s and 1970s, about 67,000 people with hard endpoints and a 29 mg/dl average fall in cholesterol showing compliance, as failing to show the expected mortality reduction, and holds that more than 20 reviews since 2010 have concluded saturated fats have no effect on major cardiovascular outcomes. Her stated conclusion is that caps on saturated fat 'are not warranted and should no longer be part of national dietary guidelines'. Her declared interest on that paper is book royalties; her declared financial support is none.

Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗

Overview

Both are addressing general adults and national dietary guidance, which is unusually clean for a disagreement like this. The asymmetry is in what each is arguing about: his claim is a positive recommendation about which fat to add, hers is a negative claim about a nutrient cap. They are not exact opposites, and presenting them as such overstates both.

Where they agree

More than the framing suggests, and the agreement is documented rather than inferred. His own concordance table places the harms of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol under 'substantial controversy and/or uncertainty', places butter under the same heading, and places 'little effect of total fat' in the broad-concordance column. He is not defending the nutrient cap she is attacking.

What is genuinely disputed is whether replacing saturated fat with specific plant oils confers benefit: he says yes for soybean, canola and olive oil, she reads the replacement trials as null.

What would settle it

A modern replacement trial with hard endpoints, oil type specified, run long enough to matter. Both sides are currently arguing about the interpretation of the same fifty-year-old trials, which is why neither position has moved much in a decade.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.