There's no reason to avoid seed oils and plenty of reasons to eat them

Brought to you by the industrial food complex. The profit in the food business is in the processing. Check out how corn oil is made and if you’re still good with eating it, good on you.

Don't like seed oils? (Why not?) I have four words for you: Extra Virgin Olive Oil. There. It's not a seed oil.

since the american heart association trumpeted red meat, butter and other fats as killers in 1977, and the switch to seed oils and high fructose corn syrup, the rates of adult onset diabetes (called type 2) in children, obesity, cancer and cardio vascular disease has skyrocketed.

heck, canola oil was made to lubricate trains, but let’s feed it to people.

It is worth noting that the AHA had a significant conflict of interest, since in 1948, it had received $1.7 million, or about $20 million in today's dollars, from Procter & Gamble (P&G), the makers of Crisco oil. This donation was transformative for the AHA, propelling what was a small group into a national organization; the P&G funds were the ‘bang of big bucks’ that ‘launched’ the group, according to the organization's own official history. Vegetable oils such as Crisco have reaped the benefits of this recommendation ever since, as Americans increased their consumption of these oils by nearly 90% from 1970 to 2014.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/

So I would not trust anything the AHA says regarding seed oils, or about much else for that matter...

Previously we only used Olive oil but when the price got too high we started using rice oil for the general cooking.

Mustard oil is banned in the West but widely used in SouthEast Asian countries for cooking, hair and body.

Rapeseed, Avocado oil are getting popular in Europe.

So I would not trust anything the AHA says regarding seed oils, or about much else for that matter...

The AHA is not an outlier but instead it represents the scientific consensus about seed oils, without evidence on the same degree of quality and quantity as what is available to support the safe use of seed oils there is no point in pretending they are not.

COIs become important to explain when people or institutions try to refute a well stablished consensus using insufficient or even false data, but when their conclusions and recommendations run along what other institutions say and it is based on reports without any identifiable flaw then it becomes irrelevant.

A vote for olive oil! But what about flaxseed oil? Doesn't it reduce inflammation?

It got real expensive. Especially the genuine, high quality extra virgin olive oil. How's rice oil working for you?

We still buy the best olive oil which I have used for 50 years but now only for salad dressing until the price is reduced again. This summer Greece lost most of its olives from wildfires.

I am impressed with the rice oil. Mild and goes the job.

Rice oil approximate smoke point: 232.2 °C.

Hawk

We still buy the best olive oil which I have used for 50 years

Which is?

Mostly Italian brands.

Bad Haircut

We need to use oil. Japanese cooking requires a high smoke temperature. Rice oil works for us.

Which oil do you use?

Wallace

We use high-quality EV olive oil for salad dressings and the like, and butter, lard/tallow, avocado oil or coconut oil for frying. It's a little expensive I know, but we rarely cook things like tempura so hardly ever need to deep-fry.

A vote for olive oil! But what about flaxseed oil? Doesn't it reduce inflammation?

Yes, isn't that full of Omega 3?

High purity sesame oil has a delicate but quite deep flavour and goes great with sashimi or barbequed meat. Look for stuff sold in small cans with Korean writing. Regular el cheapo sesame oil makes yakisoba, okonomi yaki, tako yaki etc. way better whatever atrocity the stuff sold as "vegetable oil" is.

But what about flaxseed oil? Doesn't it reduce inflammation?

I would avoid it. A major problem with flax seed oil is that it goes rancid very quickly once you open the bottle (within a few weeks). If you want the health benefits, you could instead just grind the seeds when needed.

Regarding olive oil, there is much talk about many brands being fake. I heard that the Kirkland (Costco) brand is legit, and that is the one I had been using until recently when the price shot up.

Trust the science. When you find out why cooking oil was changed back in the day, you start waking up. I’d bet this was paid by_____?

Carnivore diet with butter, ghee and your body will thank you. Do the research

There is no problem with seed oils if you enjoy consuming products which don't occur in nature. There is no problem with seed oils if you like cooking with substances that become unstable when heated. There is no problem with seed oils if you like consuming products that were originally intended to lubricate engines. There is also no problem with seed oils if you enjoy consuming products that have been manufactured, "washed" with petroleum by-products, bleached, and deodorized. I'm sure none of these things has a negative effect on the human body. Drink up!

And for the olive oil lovers out there, remember that most of the olive oil you buy will be cut with canola oil.

virusrexAug. 23  10:51 am JST

The AHA is not an outlier but instead it represents the scientific consensus about seed oils, without evidence on the same degree of quality and quantity as what is available to support the safe use of seed oils there is no point in pretending they are not.

COIs become important to explain when people or institutions try to refute a well stablished consensus using insufficient or even false data, but when their conclusions and recommendations run along what other institutions say and it is based on reports without any identifiable flaw then it becomes irrelevant.

As I've explained before, "consensus" is not science. Doesn't matter how much you beat the drum, it still doesn't make it true. Additionally, science that can't be questioned is religion. You seem to be in a cult of consensus.

Carnivore diet with butter, ghee and your body will thank you. Do the research

Any links to respected medical organizations supporting the carnivore diet, or even stating that it's not dangerous long-term? If not, where is it that you suggest we do our research?

As I've explained before, "consensus" is not science.

It exactly is science - it's the final part of the scientific process:

1 Hypothesize

2 Test

3 Conclude

4 Publish

5 Peer review and reproducibility (aka consensus)

The last thing in question is whether the people and the organization coming to a consensus have credibility and expertise in the given subject.

For example, many people will claim a quorum of podcasters represents a consensus, but often, that consensus is not based on scientific principles, and in such a case is not science, which is maybe what you were referring to.

This is why it's important to determine if the consensus was come to by people actually qualified to come to a consensus worth listening to.

This is why it's important to determine if the consensus was come to by people actually qualified to come to a consensus worth listening to.

Always good to hear early morning humor.

As I've explained before, "consensus" is not science.

It exactly is science - it's the final part of the scientific process:

1 Hypothesize

2 Test

3 Conclude

4 Publish

5 Peer review and reproducibility (aka consensus)

Yeah, that is how it should be. The problem is when people take whatever "respected medical organizations" say as "consensus". The statements of these organizations are mainly influenced by money, not science, as the article I linked to above clearly documents.

In recent years it has gotten even worse as the main share holders of the big publishers are the same as for the major food and pharma companies. This makes it more difficult to get published if the corporations don't like the conclusions.

StrangerlandToday  06:47 am JST

It exactly is science - it's the final part of the scientific process:

1 Hypothesize

2 Test

3 Conclude

4 Publish

5 Peer review and reproducibility (aka consensus)

The last thing in question is whether the people and the organization coming to a consensus have credibility and expertise in the given subject.

For example, many people will claim a quorum of podcasters represents a consensus, but often, that consensus is not based on scientific principles, and in such a case is not science, which is maybe what you were referring to.

This is why it's important to determine if the consensus was come to by people actually qualified to come to a consensus worth listening to.

Incorrect. Consensus is agreement amongst a group. Reproducibility is science not consensus.

As I've explained before, "consensus" is not science.

And you are still missing completely the point, consensus is a consequence of doing science to a degree that everybody reaches the same valid conclusion, thus proving this conclusions is the best that can be reached.

Doesn't matter how much you beat the drum, it still doesn't make it true. Additionally, science that can't be questioned is religion. You seem to be in a cult of consensus.

Consensus in science is not based on popularity but evidence and how it is validly evaluated. And the only thing that can question it is more science, which is why there is no such cult, that is a mistaken concept from people that think this is the only way to reach one.

Always good to hear early morning humor.

There is nothing wrong or humorous with the quoted text, people without expertise, knowledge or experience can reach an invalid consensus and it would be still completely irrelevant.

Yeah, that is how it should be. The problem is when people take whatever "respected medical organizations" say as "consensus". 

That is not a problem when all of them in the whole world reach the same consensus and you try to oppose them with retracted papers and youtube videos.

The statements of these organizations are mainly influenced by money, not science, as the article I linked to above clearly documents.

Baseless claims that are the same excuse used by every antiscientific group ever. All scientific institution agree the Earth is not flat? influenced by money. All hospitals and medical universities say hand power healing is fake? influenced by money. No evidence of reptilian aliens manipulating everything in the world? influenced by money.

Incorrect. Consensus is agreement amongst a group. Reproducibility is science not consensus.

Still missing the argument, reproducibility is what allows reaching consensus. Microbes causing infection, the heart function is to pump blood, examples of consensus that was reached because experts studying the topic all reached the same conclusion based on information readily reproduced time after time.

The statements of these organizations are mainly influenced by money, not science, as the article I linked to above clearly documents.

Very true and well-founded. Anyone opposing this is not dealing in reality.

Very true and well-founded. Anyone opposing this is not dealing in reality.

To be "well-founded" it would be required actual foundations to support the claim, no such thing has been provided which makes it perfectly safe to disregard the claim as invalid. The same as the antiscientific groups that like to repeat the world is flat, but scientific institutions of the world hide this fact because of the influence of money and supposed global conspiracies. It is the same excuse, completely unrelated with reality.

To be "well-founded" it would be required actual foundations to support the claim, no such thing has been provided which makes it perfectly safe to disregard the claim as invalid. The same as the antiscientific groups that like to repeat the world is flat, but scientific institutions of the world hide this fact because of the influence of money and supposed global conspiracies. It is the same excuse, completely unrelated with reality.

This all your personal opinion, with no basis on facts, and made by someone not in the industry.

Incorrect. Consensus is agreement amongst a group. Reproducibility is science not consensus.

Reproducibility is required for a consensus of experts to agree that the scientific process has been valid, and the given hypothesis can be taken as current science.

It's so weird when you people talk as if you know what you're talking about, when those of us who actually do, can clearly identify from the things you say, that you don't.

This all your personal opinion, with no basis on facts, and made by someone not in the industry.

Still confused about opinions and arguments? there is no support for the claim you said was "well-founded" that means it has no foundation at all, zero. This is enough to prove your claim is false, especially since you could not argue anything about this fact.

virusrexAug. 24  12:01 pm JST

Still missing the argument, reproducibility is what allows reaching consensus. Microbes causing infection, the heart function is to pump blood, examples of consensus that was reached because experts studying the topic all reached the same conclusion based on information readily reproduced time after time.

No, you are missing the point again. Consensus is reached by a group of people "perhaps" based on their scientific knowledge, but most likely based on their particular biases. What industry ties do these consensus-building scientists have? Who has funded their research in the past? Again, it doesn't matter what way you try to spin it, consensus is agreement and opinion, not science. If five world-renowned scientists with ties to tobacco companies reach consensus on cigarettes not causing cancer because of their "scientific knowledge" would you trust them? Probably not, you would assume there is some kind of bias there. But apparently on the nutrition front the wool has been pulled over your eyes. You seem to be the type of person who believes others are conspiracy theorists if they don't automatically trust the same sources you do.

StrangerlandAug. 24  11:13 pm JST

Reproducibility is required for a consensus of experts to agree that the scientific process has been valid, and the given hypothesis can be taken as current science.

Where is your example where reproducibility is required for consensus? Save the epidemiological studies, because these are association, not scientific evidence.

No, you are missing the point again. Consensus is reached by a group of people "perhaps" based on their scientific knowledge

When the group of people is the whole scientific community of the world there is no perhaps, there is simply no higher standard for a scientific consensus to aim, saying otherwise is just an irrational excuse. Pretending every single institution in the world is biased towards the same conclusion without offering any evidence of this bias is not an argument, is again just a transparent excuse to behave antiscientifically. It is the same as flat earthers, homeopaths and pray healers use to "defend" their practices.

consensus is agreement and opinion, not science

Consensus is the consequence of science done to a degree that conclusions become unified, a nameless person on the internet saying scientists are wrong by reaching consensus is not an argument either, specially with zero evidence to support this claim.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

You seem to be the type of person who believes others are conspiracy theorists if they don't automatically trust the same sources you do.

Of course not, people become conspiracy theorits when their only argument for not having any evidence of their antiscientific claims is a global conspiracy that includes every single institution of a related field in the world. No flat earth pictures? a conspiracy to hide them, no evidence of the evils of seed oils? a conspiracy, etc.

Where is your example where reproducibility is required for consensus? Save the epidemiological studies, because these are association, not scientific evidence.

Association comes as a consequence of scientific evidence, you are terribly confused about the whole thing, epidemiology is a science, it deals with validated methods for a variety of purposes including reaching correct conclusions from epidemiological data, following the scientific method to determine something from that data, when it is correctly done anybody looking at the data reaches the same conclusions.

Where is your example where reproducibility is required for consensus?

Um, peer review?

Everyone who knows the scientific method knows that.

Everyone.

When the group of people is the whole scientific community of the world there is no perhaps, there is simply no higher standard for a scientific consensus to aim, saying otherwise is just an irrational excuse.

Naturally this is not the case, and is never the case in any field.

Naturally this is not the case, and is never the case in any field.

Of course it is, can you bring any institution that contradicts any of the examples given? of course not, because there is an actual consensus.

Your claim could be easily proved by providing examples of institutions that contradict the consensus, yet you have never been able to do it, precisely because the consensus is real, It is even mentioned in the reference already provided.

Naturally this is not the case, and is never the case in any field.

Of course it is, can you bring any institution that contradicts any of the examples given? of course not, because there is an actual consensus.

The institutions are controlled by bureaucrats whose primary concern is profitability, not science. So of course there is an apparent consensus because they all parrot the narrative of the corporations that fund them.

If you are interested in truth and science, then you should ignore the institutions and instead focus on the top experts in the field (not bureaucrats), and they will usually say something very different.

Of course. There are many institutions that contradict the examples. You really don't know that?

Not the respected ones.

The institutions are controlled by bureaucrats whose primary concern is profitability

Every institution, on every level of every country with every kind of funding?

That is still the same unbelievable excuse flat earthers and pray healers try to use, and it is still nothing more than than an excuse from people that have the scientific evidence against them.

"Ignore the institutions" providing exactly zero evidence to disprove them is a deeply antiscientific recommendation, exactly the same the other antiscientific groups try to use to "prove" aliens control the flat earth.