Here are three posts of mine from another newsgroup (all from the same thread):
"People's intake of fatty acids -- which have been linked to
cardiovascular disease and other conditions -- can be substantially
affected by changing the type of vegetable oil they use, according to
researchers at the University of Illinois and Pennsylvania State
University.
Substituting canola oil and canola-based margarine for vegetable oils
and spreads, such as corn, cottonseed and soybean, "increases
compliance with dietary recommendations for saturated fatty acid,
monounsaturated fatty acid and alpha-linolenic acid," the researchers
write in their study of data from nearly 9,000 U.S. adults.
According to the researchers, switching to canola-based products 100
percent of the time would decrease adults' saturated fatty acid intake
by up to 9.4 percent; increase their intake of monounsaturated fatty
acid by 27.6 percent; and increase their alpha-linolenic acid intakes
by 73 percent. Total consumption of calories, total fat and
cholesterol would not change..."
So, because they saw "links" due to their own faulty assumptions and
illogical classification schemes (calling oxysterors "cholesterol" and
lard a "saturated fat"), they now want you to switch away from what
they used to call heart-healthy polyunsaturates to what they now call
heart-healthy monounsaturates, but they never explained what was wrong
with their initial claim. Canola appears to be at least as
biochemically unstable as the omega-6 rich oils, (assuming they are
all of the usual, highly-refined grade). The only interpretation that
makes sense, down to the molecular level, is the one involving free
radical activity and biochemical stability. You can do your own
experiment to see how dangerous canola oil is. Simply buy several
mice and feed half of them a diet rich in canola oil. Give the other
half fresh coconut oil instead of the canola oil. See what happens.
You can also put some canola oil in a dish and let it sit there for a
few days. Do the same thing with other oils of your choice. See
which ones start to smell and taste rancid the quickest, and which
ones start to get "tacky" and harden up quickest. These are the fat
sources to avoid, not the ones with the "links" the "experts" think
they see.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001102430.htm
Post #2:
And notice what is stated at the end of this "report:"
"The study was supported by the U.S. Canola Association."
Post #3:
One thing my several investigations have taught me is that it's so
common for "experts" to complicate matters when things are quite
simple. With nutrition, the one huge mistake is ignoring the basic
biochemistry that is undeniable. That is, there is no reason to
consume a biochemically unstable oil when you don't need to - oil
painters have known for hundreds of years that you must use the highly
unsaturated oils for this very reason. The free radical activity
allows the painting to "dry" within a reasonable amount of time - some
even put their paintings out in the sun when they wanted quicker
"drying." Having arachidonic acid or other VLCPUFAs in your LDL makes
it much more likely to get attached by macrophages, leading to
atherosclerotic changes in blood vessels, for example. It's a
straightforward lipid peroxidation hypothesis of the relationship
between diet and "disease," and very easy to test. All the existing
evidence is consistent with this hypothesis, unlike any other
hypothesis (often, "experts" don't seem to even care if there are
experiments that directly contradict their claims), and yet it gets
almost no "mainstream media" coverage. Instead, there are the usual
"debates" between Ornish and Atkins advocates, for example, both of
which give dietary advice that can be very dangerous in the context of
the lipid peroxidation hypothesis. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
