Toxic cooking oil

[John Paul]

Does cooking oil have a high heavy metal content?  Because it is a "concentrated" food I thought that I'd ask

[John Paul]

bump*

does cooking oil have a lot of heavy metal toxins in it

[Michael569]

3 hours ago, Ludwigvan said:

vegetable oils are like industrial sludge 

I used to think this too but actually, people who consume more linolenic acid (main constituent of the vegetable fats) have overall better health. WHen you look at the long term data none of the theories against vegetable oils stand their ground and all fall to pieces whether it is AMD, cancer, diabetes, fatty liver disease or heart disease. Vegetable oils have not yet been proven to cause disease. It seems that the main reason why this is is the extreme content of antioxidants which cannot be said about shit food like butter and lard which is like consuming cyanide

The only exception is when they contribute to obesity in excessive consumption  which in itself is a risk factor for all cause mortality but in moderate consumption, vegetable oils are actually useful. But then anything eaten in moderation which would contribute to becoming obese is a risk factor for disease because it is no longer about the food but about destroying one's metabolic efficiency by carrying all that adipose tissue 

[Harikrishnan]

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

I used to think this too but actually, people who consume more linolenic acid (main constituent of the vegetable fats) have overall better health. WHen you look at the long term data none of the theories against vegetable oils stand their ground and all fall to pieces whether it is AMD, cancer, diabetes, fatty liver disease or heart disease. Vegetable oils have not yet been proven to cause disease. It seems that the main reason why this is is the extreme content of antioxidants which cannot be said about shit food like butter and lard which is like consuming cyanide

The only exception is when they contribute to obesity in excessive consumption  which in itself is a risk factor for all cause mortality but in moderate consumption, vegetable oils are actually useful. But then anything eaten in moderation which would contribute to becoming obese is a risk factor for disease because it is no longer about the food but about destroying one's metabolic efficiency by carrying all that adipose tissue 

Arent vegetable oils refined using hexane and other anti forming agents that becomes bad for health

[Javfly33]

@Michael569 those are such great news because Im basically addicted to this ali-oli (spanish typical sauce done with sunflower oil and garlic) and i am currently limiting myself with 1 pack a week because i had this belief that sunflower oil (along with other vegetable fats) is bad.

So i can But 2 or 3 a week now...? ??

[UDT]

On 21/02/2022 at 11:52 AM, Michael569 said:

I used to think this too but actually, people who consume more linolenic acid (main constituent of the vegetable fats) have overall better health. WHen you look at the long term data none of the theories against vegetable oils stand their ground and all fall to pieces whether it is AMD, cancer, diabetes, fatty liver disease or heart disease. Vegetable oils have not yet been proven to cause disease. It seems that the main reason why this is is the extreme content of antioxidants which cannot be said about shit food like butter and lard which is like consuming cyanide

The only exception is when they contribute to obesity in excessive consumption  which in itself is a risk factor for all cause mortality but in moderate consumption, vegetable oils are actually useful. But then anything eaten in moderation which would contribute to becoming obese is a risk factor for disease because it is no longer about the food but about destroying one's metabolic efficiency by carrying all that adipose tissue 

Nonono

If you actually look at the data (dont know which data you are looking at) added poly unsaturated fats are growing in the food supply since 1960s while obesity and disease growing with it (while added sugar and saturated fat content in food is falling) 

Here: https://www.businessinsider.com/our-war-on-fat-was-a-huge-mistake-graphs-2013-11


(edited because I was not nice to you but I see you are doing your best and I was just being a d*ck) 

Edited February 22, 2022 by UDT

[UDT]

Ah and;

The whole reason these oils are so bad is that they are incredibly easy to become oxidative due to their poly unsaturated chain structure. 
Why do nuts and seeds have antioxidants such as VitE in the first place? Exactly because the veg. oils are so easy to peroxidize. The stability of a fatty acid in terms of their carbon chain (sat, mono-unsat, or poly unsat) --> biochemistry. 
 

 

[UDT]

And for the nerds like myself:


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27355649/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1953841/



(and btw you get this all for free just because Im procastinating on this forum - but I also do proper health transformations with real clients )

[Michael569]

17 hours ago, UDT said:

If you actually look at the data (dont know which data you are looking at) added poly unsaturated fats are growing in the food supply since 1960s while obesity and disease growing with it (while added sugar and saturated fat content in food is falling) 

didn't read your first response so no hard feelings I'm trying to work on creating a separation between my dietary beliefs and my identity so that I get triggered less by counter-opinions (but I got a lot of work on that :D) . Food for thought perhaps? 

Btw I have not done in-depth review of the literature on seed oils, CVD & saturated fats because I don't think I have enough statistical knowledge to interpret those results without a huge degree of bias. Maybe you do?  However let me refer you to the top of the expert channel I have found on this topic so far. 

I'm gonna have a look at the links you listed but for some proper brainfuckery consider watching this. al  This guy has convinced me that mechanisms are not everything and that we actually need to look at the human data instead. 

And for even more depth, consider reading this too. This is the proper nerd stuff https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry

 

If you read & watch both and still remain unconvinced then you must be in denial. I was too for a very very long time. 

 

btw on those two links you sent: 

1. I will review that meta analyses study in depth - looks interesting 

2. the second link is one-person case study with mechanical speculation - case studies are at the very bottom of pyramid of evidence-based hierarchy. We cannot extrapolate claims based on case studies, they form potential suggestions for future research but on their own case studies are more just "interesting" rather than being extremely valid or reliable for an evidence-based approach. Btw this is on eggs, I don't have a thing against eggs although eating as many as this guy isn't probably a good idea for majority of people despite one guy being able to get away with it. Also, I no longer think that cholesterol in the diet necessarily causes heart disease, the mechanism is probably more complex than that and more tied to the saturation index of the fatty acids

The sources Iisted above will be based on highest level human data evidence. 

 

[UDT]

On 23/02/2022 at 0:21 AM, Michael569 said:

 This guy has convinced me that mechanisms are not everything and that we actually need to look at the human data instead. 

I see!
I respect that
I´m way more interested in the mechanism, because studies are so weak especially in nutrition science - why? you are looking at one variable out of millions of processes happening in the same time frame where only 28% of them are even known in the literature. 

Or you can just look at how canola oil is factory made : https://youtu.be/Bdsy0pgZyzg 


Technically you could also argue that mechanisms are unkown so human outcome is more important. Makes sense but for mechanisms, we at least have limited factual understanding - human outcome is always biased through confounding variables

Edited March 3, 2022 by UDT

[Michael569]

31 minutes ago, UDT said:

I´m way more interested in the mechanism, because studies are so weak especially in nutrition science - why? you are looking at one variable out of millions of processes happening in the same time frame where only 28% of them are even known in the literature. 

Mechanisms are definitely interesting and they form a basis of hypotheses but most mechanisms eventually fail us. For example when it comes to FDA drug development, I believe less than 2% eventually make it through all trials starting from mechanisms. 

I love creating my own biochem pathway maps,  like I have this huge drawing of cellular pathways that I made 2 years ago and its been fun making that and learning a lot but when it comes to human data, it should always take priority 

And in topics where we have a lot of human data (such as cardiovascular disease, saturated fats, cholesterol, oils) we should be looking at human outcomes with priority at all times because this is what clinical guidelines are based on which is also important for us, clinicians and practitioners to appreciate when working with real people. i.e. we should not be recommending or discouraging a particular cause of treatment simply with basis on in-vitro data because we "want it to work like that" if there are human outcomes that show "actually it doesn't work like that".

The reason is one thing is observed mechanism in-vitro and one thing what is happening inside the human body. What if we have buffer systems negating the effects we see in the petri dish etc. 

 

31 minutes ago, UDT said:

Technically you could also argue that mechanisms are unkown so human outcome is more important. Makes sense but for mechanisms, we at least have limited factual understanding - human outcome is always biased through confounding variables

True, there are confounding variables but we have ways to control for confounders through stratification and other techniques. Like you can literally tweak the statistics to ignore all but one confounder. Now I have no idea how to do that  but it can be done by people who understand statistics. 

But then if something is appearing over and over and is a predominating occurrence in studies that involve hundreds of thousands of people, the odds of those effects happening by chance are gradually minimised. 

On the other hand where we have little human data, mechanisms are super important. 

31 minutes ago, UDT said:

Or you can just look at how canola oil is factory made : https://youtu.be/Bdsy0pgZyzg 

yeah, this is a factor too. Pesticides, industrial processing etc. I guess ideally you want to be getting mechanically pressed EVOO form the best quality you can. My line of thinking was that , it appears that once people move away from sources of saturated fats towards PUFAs and MUFAs their health outcomes (be it CVD mortality, be it cancer, be it diabetes) are actually improving and the guy shows it beautiful in that article I shared. And for most people the % of calories coming from PUFAs and MUFAs even at the segments of highest consumption are still negligible to have a huge impact it appears. But I continuing to explore this topic deeper as it is super important and I don't feel confident with my interpretation of the data just yet. For now I believe reduction of SFA and increase of MUFA & PUFA is a better idea than the other way around. 

Also, you could play this game by sharing a video of farmed animals, the way cows are treated and impregnated, the way chickens are walking and eating each other feces or the way animals ar being castrated and slaughtered.. And I don't want to go into ethics but if you can make it through Earthlings without shedding a tear or covering your eyes at least 10 times ....

[slicketygiggedy]

@John Paul oil squeezed out a vegetable ain't natural in any shape or form lol