Health FAQs

Routebeschrijving Website Contact opnemen met de praktijk

Health FAQs I'm a true health fanatic and have written more than 2,800 medical articles 👨‍⚕️

19/10/2026

Your feed is full of warnings about seed oils. But are they really that bad?

When you see how they’re made, it’s easy to understand the concern. Seeds are pressed, and the oil may be extracted with hexane, treated with sodium hydroxide, bleached and heated to around 207°C to remove its smell. The processing aids are then removed, leaving a highly refined oil.
That doesn’t sound very natural. It has also fueled some strange claims. You may have heard that canola oil was once used as machine lubricant. That’s true of an older variety, which contained much more erucic acid. The canola oil we eat today comes from varieties bred to contain far less. And some seed oils may lower the risk of cardiovascular disease when they replace saturated fat. Research link
Sunflower oil is often criticized for its omega-6 content. The claim is that omega-6 disrupts the balance with omega-3 and causes inflammation. But research has largely challenged that idea. Many people simply don’t get enough omega-3, while eating plenty of highly processed food. Source Source
So why are people replacing seed oils with butter? Often, they want foods that feel more natural and less processed. That can be a useful rule of thumb, but it doesn’t tell us whether one particular fat is healthier.
A large 2025 observational study followed more than 221,000 people for up to 33 years. Higher plant-oil intake, including soybean and canola oil, was associated with a 16% lower risk of death. Higher butter intake was associated with a 15% higher risk. Replacing 10 grams of butter a day with plant oil was associated with a 17% lower risk. Study
That doesn’t prove cause and effect. Lifestyle differences can still affect the results, even when researchers account for factors such as smoking, exercise, weight and overall diet. The ideal experiment—making thousands of people eat a specific oil or butter for years would be extremely difficult to run.
Still, the evidence doesn’t support the idea that seed oils are inherently harmful. A meta-analysis of 40 studies found that omega-6 lowered LDL cholesterol when it replaced saturated fat. Another review found little evidence that it raises inflammation markers. Meta-analysis Review
I understand why people make the connection. Seed oils are everywhere, from chips and cookies to sauces and ready meals. If you cut those foods out, you may feel better. But that doesn’t mean the oil itself was the problem. Those foods contain many other ingredients, and seed oil is often lumped together with ultra-processed food.
The case against seed oils can sound convincing: the manufacturing process, old stories about machine lubricant and personal accounts from people who feel better after avoiding them. But those stories don’t tell us what the research shows.
There’s no perfect evidence, and debate will continue. But the current research suggests that fears about seed oils are overstated. Using some seed oil at home is reasonable, especially when it replaces butter or other saturated fats. It makes sense to limit ultra-processed foods, but you don’t need to avoid a product just because it contains seed oil.

Disclaimer: This video is for general information only and isn’t personal nutrition or medical advice. Talk to a doctor or dietitian about questions concerning your health or diet.

17/10/2026

Are seed oils bad for you?

Is your feed full of warnings about seed oils? The claims are intense: the chemical production process using hexane supposedly strips all nutrients and leaves you with an 'unnatural' product. Add the rumor that canola oil used to be machine lubricant, and the anti-seed-oil hype is complete.
But what's the actual truth?
Yes, the lubricant story is true, but that was a completely different industrial variety. The modern seed oils in your supermarket are perfectly safe. In fact, replacing saturated fats with oils like sunflower or canola can actually lower your risk of cardiovascular disease.
So why all the hate?
1. The Omega-6 myth: Sunflower oil gets blamed for causing inflammation due to a disrupted omega-3/6 ratio. Large-scale research has heavily debunked this. The real issue? We consume too little omega-3 and way too many highly processed foods.
2. The 'natural is better' trap: Many people swap seed oils for butter because they want fewer processed products. It sounds logical, but science shows a different picture. A major 2025 study found that higher plant oil intake was associated with a 16% lower risk of death, while higher butter intake increased it by 15%. Swapping just 10 grams of butter for vegetable oil daily drops that risk by 17%.
The influencer fallacy
Critics love to point out that it takes 5,000 corn kernels to make four tablespoons of corn oil. "Unnatural!", they shout, because nobody eats 15 ears of corn in one sitting. But there is absolutely zero scientific evidence that this makes the oil harmful.
Why do people feel so much better when they cut out seed oils? Simple: because these oils are in almost all ultra-processed foods—like chips, cookies, and ready-made meals. When you cut out the junk, you feel better. It’s not the oil; it's the added sugars, flavorings, and additives you just avoided.
In a seed oil factory, the opposite of 'processing' happens: everything is filtered out until you are left with an extremely pure product. 100% pure liquid fat. Nothing more, nothing less.
Negative videos grab attention and turn into an anti-seed-oil movement. And let’s face it, admitting you were wrong on social media is the hardest thing to do. Don't fall for the "I stopped using it and feel great" influencer trap. Stick to the facts!

Disclaimer: This video is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute personal dietary or medical advice. Please discuss any questions regarding your diet or health with a physician or registered dietitian.

06/10/2026

He ate year-old spoiled chicken

A tray of lasagna left on the counter all night is the kind of thing most people would tell you to bin immediately. And officially, that is the sensible advice: perishable food should not be kept at room temperature for more than about two hours.
But that does not mean one forgotten meal will inevitably make you ill. I have eaten meat that had sat out overnight plenty of times in the past and never noticed a thing. We also accept similar situations more easily in everyday life, such as sandwiches with ham sitting in a child’s school bag for several hours.
That is why I wanted to know what the real risk was when my sister forgot to refrigerate a lasagna after spending hours making it. Could thorough reheating still save it? The answer is complicated. Heat destroys many bacteria, but it may not destroy toxins that were produced before the food was reheated. Some bacterial spores can also survive high temperatures.
So is it safe to eat meat that was left out overnight?
There is no reliable percentage for a specific forgotten meal. It depends on the room temperature, how quickly the dish cooled, how it was prepared and, above all, which bacteria happened to be there in the first place.
One small study I found looked at people who deliberately collect discarded supermarket food to prevent waste. Of the 92 participants, 65 said they retrieved raw meat, yet only 2% of the whole group reported ever becoming ill after eating food from dumpsters. Even if both reported illnesses came from that group, the figure would be roughly 3%.
Sometimes, however, things can go very wrong. In the outbreak mentioned earlier, 62% of those who ate the food became ill because it contained Staphylococcus aureus and toxins produced by the bacterium. You cannot reliably detect that by looking, smelling or tasting.
So there is no need to panic over every mistake, but there is no reason to gamble either. If you are unsure, leave it alone.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a medical professional. I do not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Consult a qualified healthcare provider for health advice; my information is not a substitute for professional medical advice.

15/07/2026

The human body doesn't look like an accident of nature.

Studying medicine completely changed the way I think about biology. One of the first things that struck me was how closely the heart, lungs, and kidneys depend on one another. A small disruption in one system can affect the entire body. That was the moment I started asking deeper questions about evolution.
Small evolutionary changes within a species, such as differences in height, skin pigmentation, or body shape, make perfect sense to me. But I find it much harder to understand how entirely new, integrated organs could arise through gradual, unguided processes. A functional organ requires thousands of muscles, nerves, blood vessels, and regulatory mechanisms that all have to work together.
Take an elephant's trunk as a simple thought experiment. It isn't just an extension of existing tissue. It's a highly specialized structure with its own muscles, nerves, circulation, sensory systems, and precise control by the brain. To me, explaining the origin of such an integrated system is fundamentally different from explaining variation within structures that already exist.
That doesn't mean I have all the answers, and I'm certainly not claiming that every question has been solved. But the more I learned about the extraordinary complexity of the human body, the less convinced I became that macroevolution is as straightforward as it's often presented.

If you'd like to read the complete argument, along with scientific examples and the original sources, you can find the full article here:
https://gohumannature.com/god/

14/07/2026

Why Andrew Huberman Believes in God

Why do some of the world's most successful scientists, physicians, and neuroscientists believe in God? It's a question that is being asked more and more often. Andrew Huberman has also spoken openly about this topic and explained why he does not rule out the existence of a Creator.
Think about this: if you found a Rolex watch on the beach, would you assume that wind, sand, and millions of years produced that watch, or would it make more sense to conclude that it had a designer?
Intuitively, we tend to believe that the more complex and purposefully organized something is, the more likely it is that it was designed. Perhaps I'm guilty of thinking that way myself, as you've probably noticed by now.
The human body is not a simple watch with a few gears. It is a self-healing, self-regulating, and self-reproducing biological system in which billions of processes are precisely coordinated.
During medical school, I noticed that this sense of wonder led people in different directions. Some surgeons gradually began to see themselves almost as gods, believing they had complete control over life and death.
Others developed an even deeper respect for what they called "creation." They viewed their work not as something they completely controlled, but as something they had the privilege to contribute to, recognizing what they believed to be a greater order behind it.
Some even sincerely believed that God guided their hands during surgery.
If you'd like to read the full argument, see Andrew Huberman's comments in context, and explore the original source, visit gohumannature.com/god, where I've included the references and additional background.

13/07/2026

Evolution Cannot Explain Embryos

In the earliest stage of an embryo, the body's basic blueprint is established. This is when the locations of organs are determined, body structures begin to form, and everything is coordinated into a functional whole.
These are extremely sensitive processes because they involve the blueprint itself. Mutations at this stage often have major consequences, and even small disruptions can lead to severe abnormalities or embryos that are not viable.
In other words, major changes at the very beginning are usually fatal.
Later in development, once the basic body plan has already been established, changes are much more likely to be viable. This is where variations within an existing framework arise, such as increased skin pigmentation in sunny climates, reduced body hair in warmer regions, differences in height, and other relatively small adaptations. These kinds of variations are well understood and well documented.
Speaking of embryos, there is another example that I often think about.
When my sister was pregnant, I realized just how much has to happen during pregnancy before a healthy baby can be born. We now know of thousands of biological processes that must be precisely coordinated during embryonic development.
From a single fertilized cell, an entire human body develops. Organs appear at exactly the right time and in exactly the right place. Cells specialize, nerve pathways are formed, limbs develop, and the heart begins to beat. Everything must happen in a precise sequence. These are not isolated parts that can change independently, but tightly interconnected processes that together create a functioning organism.
At the same time, we know that major disruptions early in development often have serious consequences. Mutations that significantly alter the embryo's blueprint are frequently not compatible with life or result in severe abnormalities. Because so many processes are interconnected, a change in one place can affect the entire system.
And that is where I keep getting stuck.
Evolution does not think ahead. There is no process that deliberately starts building blood vessels, nerves, and regulatory mechanisms because they will be needed later. Evolution works through random mutations and natural selection acting only on whatever provides an advantage at that particular moment.
But if major changes are often problematic because the system has to remain functional at every stage, then how do entirely new, integrated structures arise when they depend on multiple interdependent components working together?
That is why three professors I once watched together on a podcast, both atheist and religious, agreed that small variations within existing species can be explained by random mutations, whereas large-scale changes cannot. According to some probability calculations, the likelihood of such changes occurring is also extremely small.

12/07/2026

Someone who explains this far better than I can is Dr. Ming Wang, an internationally renowned laser eye surgeon.
He grew up in China as an atheist and believed exclusively in science. During medical school, he became fascinated by the structure of the human eye. That was when he began asking himself how a system of such extraordinary complexity could have come into existence. Trillions upon trillions of cells must be perfectly coordinated during development to receive and process visual information. If even a single cell ends up in the wrong place, a person can be born blind.
That led him, as an atheist, to ask an important question: How could so many cells come together in such a short period of time through random processes?
He kept asking one of his professors this question until the professor responded with something simple.
"Ming, what do you see across the street?"
"A car."
"Which is more complex: a car or the human eye?"
"The human eye."
"Can you imagine random pieces of metal assembling themselves into a car?"
"Absolutely not."
"So what about the human eye?"
According to Dr. Wang, that conversation became a turning point in his life. It changed the way he looked at the complexity of the eye and led him to conclude that a system with such a specific purpose, namely vision, points to a designer, a Creator.
Don't get me wrong: I think the argument for macroevolution is substantial, but I personally find adaptation within an existing framework (microevolution) more plausible than the emergence of entirely new, integrated biological systems.

11/07/2026

On the other hand, it is easy to imagine modifications to something that already exists.
Consider certain indigenous populations living in the African rainforest, such as pygmy groups, where a smaller body size may provide advantages when moving through dense vegetation and hunting efficiently.
That makes intuitive sense because it is a modification of a trait that already exists. But the step from becoming slightly shorter to developing an entirely new organ, complete with everything it requires to function, is a completely different matter.
Another aspect worth considering is what evolutionary biologists call "path dependence".
Once an evolutionary path has been taken, you cannot simply go back and start over. Each step builds on what came before it. As a result, the final outcome is heavily influenced by earlier chance events and branching points.
Yet when I look at the human body, I see a system that appears remarkably coherent and functionally integrated. If everything truly emerged step by step, system by system, through countless accidental detours, you might expect to find far more suboptimal, messy, or conflicting structures. Instead, what stands out is the degree of coordination between different parts of the body.
Of course, I am familiar with examples of so-called "poor design," such as the blind spot in the human eye or the unusual path taken by certain nerves, including the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
That nerve travels from the brain to the larynx, but first takes a long detour around the heart before making its way back up to the throat.
From an evolutionary perspective, this can be explained by the gradual adaptation of anatomy as body structures changed over time. From a purely design-based perspective, however, it can appear inefficient at first glance.
Yet as a medical student, I learned that the body is not simply a collection of individual parts that must each be perfect in isolation. What matters is the integrated functioning of the whole.
A blind spot, for example, is a small compromise within a visual system that otherwise provides extraordinary resolution and depth perception. To me, that does not look like a poorly optimized system, but rather like a system so complex that we may not yet fully understand the logic behind its specific trade-offs.
That is one of the reasons I find it difficult to attribute everything to chance.

If you'd like to read the complete article with all the arguments, you can find it here: gohumannature.com/god

10/07/2026

Even Darwin Couldn't Explain This

Imagine humans needed a trunk on our forehead to survive.
How would something like that evolve? A trunk doesn't just require some extra skin. It needs an integrated system: muscles to move it, its own blood supply, specialized nerves, and a direct connection to the brain so it can be controlled.
It almost seems to require a multi-million-year blueprint in which generation after generation is selected for something that is barely functional in the beginning.
Imagine that, in one generation, a small bump appears on the forehead. At what point do additional nerves start growing into it?
When does the blood supply adapt?
How does a random mutation become the beginning of a useful organ?
As long as that bump provides no clear function or advantage, it would seem more likely to work against survival than in its favor. In nature, and in humans, extreme physical abnormalities are often less attractive when it comes to mate selection.
Features that visibly stand out from the norm generally do not increase reproductive success.
Once you stop and think about what it would actually take for an entirely new functional organ to arise, you begin to realize how enormous that leap really is.
And we're not talking about just a few muscles, but tens of thousands of muscle fibers. Not a few nerves, but tens of thousands of motor neurons. Not a handful of blood vessels, but an extensive network of arteries, veins, and capillaries supplying every millimeter of that trunk with oxygen and nutrients. And not just anywhere, but organized with extraordinary precision so that strength, sensation, breathing, smell, and fine motor control all work together.
Just look at one square millimeter of such a trunk. Even there, you would find an astonishing level of organization.
And it's not enough for new structures to appear. Existing structures would also have to change so everything connects and functions together as one integrated system.
Explain to me how that happens without any form of goal-directed process.
Because once you try to work through a concrete example like this, you begin to appreciate just how difficult this question really is.
In fact, even if we intentionally tried to design something this complex ourselves, we still couldn't do it. Take artificial knees, for example. They often function remarkably well, yet they still don't come close to matching the complexity, durability, and refinement of a real human knee.
So do you still find the emergence of an entirely new organ self-evident?
On the other hand, modifications of structures that already exist are much easier to imagine. Consider certain Indigenous populations living in the African rainforest, such as the Pygmies, where a shorter stature can be advantageous for moving through dense vegetation and hunting efficiently.
That makes sense because it's a modification of a trait that already existed. But going from "becoming a little shorter" to "evolving an entirely new organ with everything that comes with it" is a completely different question.

The full article with all the arguments: https://gohumannature.com/god/

09/07/2026

60% of Doctors Believe in God

The human body doesn’t seem like an accident of nature. Even after millions of years of random mutations and natural selection, we still appear astonishingly complex. Yes, that’s a bold claim. But in the next few minutes, I’ll show you several scientific examples that might make you question just how self-evident the theory of evolution really is.
To give you some context, when I studied medicine, we spent an entire module learning how the heart, lungs, and kidneys work together. Each of these organs is already an engineering marvel on its own.
What stayed with me most was how precisely everything is coordinated. The moment one small detail changes, whether it's a slight shift in blood pressure, oxygen levels, or blood pH, the entire system starts to lose balance. The human body only functions because multiple systems operate together at the same time.
An airplane doesn’t simply appear flying in the sky. It is first assembled on the ground, piece by piece. Only when every component is in place can it take off.
That’s why I find it difficult to believe that systems this complex arose entirely one organ at a time. I do believe in adaptation within a species, what we call microevolution, because that is something we can clearly observe.
Darwin, for example, observed birds adapting to their environment through variations in feathers and pigmentation. Those are changes within structures that already exist.
The difference between growing more feathers (microevolution) and the emergence of a kidney (macroevolution), in my view, is not simply a matter of time. It's also a matter of information. In microevolution, you see variation on a theme that already exists. But creating a completely new, integrated system requires entirely new genetic information that has to work correctly in multiple places at the same time. I'll repeat that: in multiple places at the same time.
As Christian philosopher Frank Turek puts it:
"Human cells are astonishingly complex. Everything is so tightly interconnected that you can't change one part without disrupting the function of the entire cell. All of the parts would have to change simultaneously for the system to function at all. The system is irreducibly complex. That's why gradual change doesn't seem to work. And as Richard Dawkins himself said, if we don't have gradual change, we're back to a miracle."
Take a moment to let that sink in, because it may help you understand exactly where I think the difficulty lies.
In the next video, I'll use an intentionally absurd example that illustrates my point much more clearly.

Read the full article with many more arguments here:
https://gohumannature.com/god/

Adres

Rotterdam

Website

Meldingen

Wees de eerste die het weet en laat ons u een e-mail sturen wanneer Health FAQs nieuws en promoties plaatst. Uw e-mailadres wordt niet voor andere doeleinden gebruikt en u kunt zich op elk gewenst moment afmelden.

Contact Opnemen Met De Praktijk

Stuur een bericht naar Health FAQs:

Snelkoppelingen

Delen

Categorie