{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016728624535315983, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007434944237918215, 'mean_word_length': 5.050561797752809, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Linoleic acid reassessed

One of the less edifying debates among nutritional scientists in recent years has revolved around the pros and cons of different polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) on cardiovascular risk. This was based on a view that dietary linoleic acid in amounts other than required for essentiality posed a risk, though a detrimental effect had never been established. The main argument was that the biological availability of longer chain PUFA of the n-3 class was compromised by excess linoleic acid and that the cardioprotective advantage of n-3 fatty acids was diminished by linoleic acid. This was initially a reaction against nutritional advice in the 1960s that may have overemphasized the importance of linoleic acid-rich oils for lowering plasma cholesterol levels and which, together with the increasing availability of such oils, led to high ratios of n-6 : n-3 fatty acids in western diets. Criticism of linoleic acid, however, appeared to exceed the biological and epidemiological evidence and led to an unbalanced position on dietary fatty acids.