The poisonous oil, you must not eat

12357

Replies

  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    High amounts of PUFAs will F up cholesterol levels (lower HDL)

    I was going to say this and also wanted to add that it is very high in Omega 6 which leads to inflammation.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    I don't trust snopes anymore. THey are a couple with no expertise in anything. They only look up information on the web and while I used to do that for myself, I turned to snopes thinking they were some great expert. Now, I am back to looking for trusted articles. really difficult with the amount of conflicting stuff, but snopes is just one of the conflicters.
    I agree with you here. They didn't do their research on this. They have wrong info and like you said, all they do is look online for their research. How do they decide which information is correct and which isn't? It's invaluable.

    These people do their research.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/index.html
    "Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish. "

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281
    "In fact, canola oil is very low in saturated fat and has a very high proportion of monounsaturated fat, so it's a healthy and safe choice when it comes to oils"
    Then your advocating that people shouldn't worry about the transfats in canola and soy vegetable oils found off the shelf. Also grouping fish and seeds with refined soy and other high n:6 poly oils in same category as it pertains to heart health is ridiculous....and irresponsible.

    I see. And what quailifications do you hold that trump the good folks at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic?

    I mean, before I take the word of a poster on an internet site open to the www, I'd like to know what makes you think your opinion more valid that of people who actually perform and review scientific nutition research.
    ad hominims don't contribute to critical thinking. Do you actually have any thoughts on any of this subject or are you just going to have Harvard tells you what to think.
  • Firefox7275
    Firefox7275 Posts: 2,040 Member
    My chemical engineering degree is fairly noncommittal.

    But my knowledge of genetic engineering plants tells me that there are very few of the people on this website who are not regularly eating genetically engineered vegetables and fruits (so long as they are actually eating vegetables and fruits).

    Americans or people? GM is not the norm everywhere.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    The facts are when you heat most any oil, it changes the chemical make up making it toxic to the human body. Organic unprocessed coconut oil (not heated, bleached or refined which removes the benefits). Heating will not change the chemical make up. Palm oil is okay too. EVO Oil is okay if it is not heat (i.e., use on salads).

    It's the vegetable oils that are murder. read this: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/06/28/vegetable-oils.aspx

    Another wrote of the GMO. All corn oil and (I think) other vegetable oils are GMO. Keep away if you can.
    Make it a great day.

    Yes, this is true. And to add to this, most corn, vegetable and canola oils are already rancid by the time they hit the grocery store shelves. So they sit on the shelf in clear bottles exposing them to light which further increases the rancidity.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Yes, REALLY! "Canola oil comes from the crushed seeds of the canola plant. Canola is part of the Brassica family. Cabbages, broccoli and cauliflower are also part of this same botanical family. Each canola plant grows from 3 to 6 feet (1 m -2 m) tall and produces beautiful yellow flowers. As the plant matures, pods form that are similar in shape to pea pods, but about 1/5th the size. Each pod contains about twenty tiny round black or brownish-yellow seeds."

    And here is the article.
    http://www.canolainfo.org/canola/index.php


    YOUR INFORMATION IS OUTDATED! You are speaking in ancient times.

    Oh Dear. There is NO such thing as a Canola plant.


    What we call canola oil is, in fact, low-erucic acid rapeseed oil that was crossbred by a scientist in Saskatoon named Richard Keith Downey. The name canola is derived from Canadian Oil, Low Acidity.

    The USDA's Economic Research Service explains that "[t]he dramatic success of the canola brand in North America has caused the word "canola" to become synonymous with edible rapeseed in much the same way the word 'Xerox' is understood to be a photocopy
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I don't trust snopes anymore. THey are a couple with no expertise in anything. They only look up information on the web and while I used to do that for myself, I turned to snopes thinking they were some great expert. Now, I am back to looking for trusted articles. really difficult with the amount of conflicting stuff, but snopes is just one of the conflicters.
    I agree with you here. They didn't do their research on this. They have wrong info and like you said, all they do is look online for their research. How do they decide which information is correct and which isn't? It's invaluable.

    These people do their research.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/index.html
    "Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish. "

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281
    "In fact, canola oil is very low in saturated fat and has a very high proportion of monounsaturated fat, so it's a healthy and safe choice when it comes to oils"
    Then your advocating that people shouldn't worry about the transfats in canola and soy vegetable oils found off the shelf. Also grouping fish and seeds with refined soy and other high n:6 poly oils in same category as it pertains to heart health is ridiculous....and irresponsible.

    I see. And what quailifications do you hold that trump the good folks at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic?

    I mean, before I take the word of a poster on an internet site open to the www, I'd like to know what makes you think your opinion more valid that of people who actually perform and review scientific nutition research.
    ad hominims don't contribute to critical thinking. Do you actually have any thoughts on any of this subject or are you just going to have Harvard tells you what to think.

    I will let the researchers do what they have the time, money and knowledge to do, and I will read their research, theories and recommendations. And add in the fact that just about every healthy person I know (including me) has been consuming canola on a regular basis for decades.

    If you are not relying on the research done by Harvard and other such entities, on what are you basing your opinion that it's unhealthy?
  • SandiNature
    SandiNature Posts: 11
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    I don't trust snopes anymore. THey are a couple with no expertise in anything. They only look up information on the web and while I used to do that for myself, I turned to snopes thinking they were some great expert. Now, I am back to looking for trusted articles. really difficult with the amount of conflicting stuff, but snopes is just one of the conflicters.
    I agree with you here. They didn't do their research on this. They have wrong info and like you said, all they do is look online for their research. How do they decide which information is correct and which isn't? It's invaluable.

    These people do their research.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/index.html
    "Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish. "

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281
    "In fact, canola oil is very low in saturated fat and has a very high proportion of monounsaturated fat, so it's a healthy and safe choice when it comes to oils"
    Then your advocating that people shouldn't worry about the transfats in canola and soy vegetable oils found off the shelf. Also grouping fish and seeds with refined soy and other high n:6 poly oils in same category as it pertains to heart health is ridiculous....and irresponsible.

    I see. And what quailifications do you hold that trump the good folks at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic?

    I mean, before I take the word of a poster on an internet site open to the www, I'd like to know what makes you think your opinion more valid that of people who actually perform and review scientific nutition research.
    ad hominims don't contribute to critical thinking. Do you actually have any thoughts on any of this subject or are you just going to have Harvard tells you what to think.

    I will let the researchers do what they have the time, money and knowledge to do, and I will read their research, theories and recommendations. And add in the fact that just about every healthy person I know (including me) has been consuming canola on a regular basis for decades.

    If you are not relying on the research done by Harvard and other such entities, on what are you basing your opinion that it's unhealthy?
    If you've been consuming Canola for decades then you've been consuming transfats for decades, you can thank Harvard I guess, or at least give them credit now for your continuing consumption.......the research that shows this is a few post above and we've engaged in this discussion before and instead of a discussion, you did the Harvard cut and paste, similar to today. This quote comes to mind. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." I would suggest looking at omega balance as it pertains to the general population.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    I don't trust snopes anymore. THey are a couple with no expertise in anything. They only look up information on the web and while I used to do that for myself, I turned to snopes thinking they were some great expert. Now, I am back to looking for trusted articles. really difficult with the amount of conflicting stuff, but snopes is just one of the conflicters.
    I agree with you here. They didn't do their research on this. They have wrong info and like you said, all they do is look online for their research. How do they decide which information is correct and which isn't? It's invaluable.

    These people do their research.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/index.html
    "Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish. "

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281
    "In fact, canola oil is very low in saturated fat and has a very high proportion of monounsaturated fat, so it's a healthy and safe choice when it comes to oils"
    Then your advocating that people shouldn't worry about the transfats in canola and soy vegetable oils found off the shelf. Also grouping fish and seeds with refined soy and other high n:6 poly oils in same category as it pertains to heart health is ridiculous....and irresponsible.

    I see. And what quailifications do you hold that trump the good folks at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic?

    I mean, before I take the word of a poster on an internet site open to the www, I'd like to know what makes you think your opinion more valid that of people who actually perform and review scientific nutition research.
    ad hominims don't contribute to critical thinking. Do you actually have any thoughts on any of this subject or are you just going to have Harvard tells you what to think.

    I will let the researchers do what they have the time, money and knowledge to do, and I will read their research, theories and recommendations. And add in the fact that just about every healthy person I know (including me) has been consuming canola on a regular basis for decades.

    If you are not relying on the research done by Harvard and other such entities, on what are you basing your opinion that it's unhealthy?
    If you've been consuming Canola for decades then you've been consuming transfats for decades, you can thank Harvard I guess, or at least give them credit now for your continuing consumption.......the research that shows this is a few post above and we've engaged in this discussion before and instead of a discussion, you did the Harvard cut and paste, similar to today. This quote comes to mind. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." I would suggest looking at omega balance as it pertains to the general population.


    Exactly on the bolded part of the quote above me.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.

    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    I don't trust snopes anymore. THey are a couple with no expertise in anything. They only look up information on the web and while I used to do that for myself, I turned to snopes thinking they were some great expert. Now, I am back to looking for trusted articles. really difficult with the amount of conflicting stuff, but snopes is just one of the conflicters.
    I agree with you here. They didn't do their research on this. They have wrong info and like you said, all they do is look online for their research. How do they decide which information is correct and which isn't? It's invaluable.

    These people do their research.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/index.html
    "Foods high in good fats include vegetable oils (such as olive, canola, sunflower, soy, and corn), nuts, seeds, and fish. "

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281
    "In fact, canola oil is very low in saturated fat and has a very high proportion of monounsaturated fat, so it's a healthy and safe choice when it comes to oils"
    Then your advocating that people shouldn't worry about the transfats in canola and soy vegetable oils found off the shelf. Also grouping fish and seeds with refined soy and other high n:6 poly oils in same category as it pertains to heart health is ridiculous....and irresponsible.

    I see. And what quailifications do you hold that trump the good folks at Harvard and the Mayo Clinic?

    I mean, before I take the word of a poster on an internet site open to the www, I'd like to know what makes you think your opinion more valid that of people who actually perform and review scientific nutition research.
    ad hominims don't contribute to critical thinking. Do you actually have any thoughts on any of this subject or are you just going to have Harvard tells you what to think.

    I will let the researchers do what they have the time, money and knowledge to do, and I will read their research, theories and recommendations. And add in the fact that just about every healthy person I know (including me) has been consuming canola on a regular basis for decades.

    If you are not relying on the research done by Harvard and other such entities, on what are you basing your opinion that it's unhealthy?
    If you've been consuming Canola for decades then you've been consuming transfats for decades, you can thank Harvard I guess, or at least give them credit now for your continuing consumption.......the research that shows this is a few post above and we've engaged in this discussion before and instead of a discussion, you did the Harvard cut and paste, similar to today. This quote comes to mind. "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." I would suggest looking at omega balance as it pertains to the general population.

    Omega balance is a reason to balance oils, not a reason to avoid them IMO. But you'll have to be more specific about which article you are refering to. There are several posted in this thread. Also, do you think the experts in the nutrition science field are unaware of whatever study is linked?

    I have no aversion to changing my mind about something, when given a reason other than "random internet poster will think you are stupid if you don't"
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.

    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    Well respected by SandiNature, at least.

    She didn't say who respects him. :-)
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member


    Omega balance is a reason to balance oils, not a reason to avoid them IMO. But you'll have to be more specific about which article you are refering to. There are several posted in this thread. Also, do you think the experts in the nutrition science field are unaware of whatever study is linked?

    I have no aversion to changing my mind about something, when given a reason other than "random internet poster will think you are stupid if you don't"
    I never said avoid, reduce yes, and to consume omega's that still have their matrix intact, which would be in their natural state simply because their extremely fragile to light, oxygen and heat which if exposed, oxidizes these fragile oils. This isn't some random thought of mine, this is common knowledge. This is just a fraction of information out there if someone was to actually do research.
  • lloydmel
    lloydmel Posts: 259 Member
    High amounts of PUFAs will F up cholesterol levels (lower HDL)

    For a second there, I read that as FUPA... baha... sorry, just had to let you know... lol
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    Still interested in MILF oil.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member


    Omega balance is a reason to balance oils, not a reason to avoid them IMO. But you'll have to be more specific about which article you are refering to. There are several posted in this thread. Also, do you think the experts in the nutrition science field are unaware of whatever study is linked?

    I have no aversion to changing my mind about something, when given a reason other than "random internet poster will think you are stupid if you don't"
    I never said avoid, reduce yes, and to consume omega's that still have their matrix intact, which would be in their natural state simply because their extremely fragile to light, oxygen and heat which if exposed, oxidizes these fragile oils. This isn't some random thought of mine, this is common knowledge. This is just a fraction of information out there if someone was to actually do research.

    By "research" I'm assuming you mean internet searches as opposed to conducting our own clinical or epidemiological studies? Harvard does research and publishes findings, as does the Mayo Clinic and a number of other organizations who say canola oil is healthy. If you Google your way to their sites your "research" findings will be that canola oil is healthy. It always comes back to why one would believe one source over another, other than because they want to.

    For example, why should this fine gentleman’s opinions be considered less valid than that of Dr. Mercola?
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/questions/omega-3/index.html

    Even if you personally search PubMed and read every study done on the subject and all the peer reviews (which, let's face it, is unlikely) and come to differing conclusions than the experts who say it's healthy. Then again, I would ask why anyone would believe your interpretations over experts in that field that reached a different conclusion.
  • S_U_M_M_E_R
    S_U_M_M_E_R Posts: 220 Member
    Yes, REALLY! "Canola oil comes from the crushed seeds of the canola plant. Canola is part of the Brassica family. Cabbages, broccoli and cauliflower are also part of this same botanical family. Each canola plant grows from 3 to 6 feet (1 m -2 m) tall and produces beautiful yellow flowers. As the plant matures, pods form that are similar in shape to pea pods, but about 1/5th the size. Each pod contains about twenty tiny round black or brownish-yellow seeds."

    And here is the article.
    http://www.canolainfo.org/canola/index.php


    YOUR INFORMATION IS OUTDATED! You are speaking in ancient times.

    Oh Dear. There is NO such thing as a Canola plant.


    What we call canola oil is, in fact, low-erucic acid rapeseed oil that was crossbred by a scientist in Saskatoon named Richard Keith Downey. The name canola is derived from Canadian Oil, Low Acidity.

    The USDA's Economic Research Service explains that "[t]he dramatic success of the canola brand in North America has caused the word "canola" to become synonymous with edible rapeseed in much the same way the word 'Xerox' is understood to be a photocopy
    There IS such thing as a Canola plant. It's gorgeous. Do your research, before you make statemetns.
  • MaggieSporleder
    MaggieSporleder Posts: 428 Member

    On a completely unrelated note, while we're talking about the poisonous canola oil we should also bring up the equally dangerous dihydrogen monoxide. Both of them should be banned, clearly.
    <3 That is indeed a most dangerous concoction. :)
  • pullipgirl
    pullipgirl Posts: 767 Member
    is this like the old rape oil thread again?
  • HappyathomeMN
    HappyathomeMN Posts: 498 Member
    That article is offensive to my biology degree

    Second this!!!
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.


    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    You tell that troll where to stick it, hooray for standing up to bullies and trolls
  • Espressocycle
    Espressocycle Posts: 2,245 Member
    True or not, I can tell you one thing. Canola oil smells worse when frying than all the other oils. I'll stick with peanut oil.
  • S_U_M_M_E_R
    S_U_M_M_E_R Posts: 220 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.
    Agreed!
    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    Maybe you should pull your head out of your *kitten*. You might actually learn something.
  • S_U_M_M_E_R
    S_U_M_M_E_R Posts: 220 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.
    REPORTED!
    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    Maybe you should pull your head out of your *kitten*. You might actually learn something.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.


    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    You tell that troll where to stick it, hooray for standing up to bullies and trolls
    Agreed, probably not enough MILF oil in their diet.:smile:
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.

    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    Been here two days - knows all about my posts....yep.

    Also - ironic post is ironic!
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.


    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    You tell that troll where to stick it, hooray for standing up to bullies and trolls
    Agreed, probably not enough MILF oil in their diet.:smile:

    STILL waiting for that information.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.

    She's one of the most helpful members on this forum and it would be in your best interest to actually pay attention to the information she provides.
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,273 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.

    Mercola - well respected? lolz!
    SAra2kusf: Do you or have you EVER offered anything USEFUL to ANY conversation on MFP? For two days all I read from you is junk that plugs the forum and something everyone has to skip over to continue the topic at hand. This really isn't a good place to use as your playground.
    Larff.
    The irony is delicious.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    I really think you should back up such a claim when calling a Physician a quack. Especially one so respected as Dr. Mercola. So prove it with regard to the post I referenced.

    It's irresponsible of you to offer your opinion on this site without backing up such a claim.

    Sorry this was in response to Thomasm198 comments on my post.

    Dr. Mercola is a quack and I would suggest that nobody listen to him, ever.

    http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/01/joe-mercola-proof-positive-that-quackery/
    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/08/28/mercola-still-lying/
    http://greenroomthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/04/busting-dr-mercola.html

Categories