4 ms·

Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Palm, Canola, Rapeseed, Soybean, et

Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Palm, Canola, Rapeseed, Soybean, etc, they're all terrible. I avoid this shit like the plague.

headmelted 5y ago
Honest question - how? Isn't it in almost everything?
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  If you cook, you can choose not to use those oils.
- guruz 5y ago
  Check the "What To Eat" section here: https://fireinabottle.net/the-croissant-diet-specification/ https://fireinabottle.net/the-croissant-diet-specification/ This is also sometimes the topic in those subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SaturatedFat/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SaturatedFat/
gruez 5y ago
>Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Mind elaborating? Without specific details it reeks of the naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days".
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  > naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" This is not a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect Ray Peat has been warning about seed oils for decades, I'm not sure if its bullet-proof but at least its interesting: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml
  - ldiracdelta 5y ago
    Also, those "good old days", might describe "natural selection". You can't be certain that some of the survival benefits of your ancestors are NOT an adherence to traditions that give them a survival or reproductive advantage.
    - whalesalad 5y ago
      You can't possibly be comparing the wisdom of our ancestors with the agricultural-industrial complex? They do everything in their power to produce the lowest-cost version of "food" (some could argue it is not food) that people will pay for.
      - ldiracdelta 5y ago
        I'm not sure you parsed my post correctly. My post argues in favor of your post.
- AamosSinervo 5y ago
  How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better? Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton. From wikipedia: "A genetically engineered rapeseed that is tolerant to the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate)". "Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...]. So from the beginning the product is tainted. Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color. It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses. Mouse experiments showed weight gain and memory loss/alzheimers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3] While mice are not humans, American obesity has grown since the use of seed oils has grown. Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better? What gave you the indication I was appealing to modernity? Being against naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" doesn't mean I'm arguing "well it's new so it must be better!". I'm simply saying that we shouldn't give either side preference just because it's new or old. >Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton. This seems like a massive strawman/misrepresentation. People weren't taking/recommending asprin because it was new, they were taking it because it's what the clinical evidence was suggesting. Some reasonable objections might be that the studies were poorly done, or wasn't replicable, but "it's not natural" isn't one of them. Just because "it wasn't natural" produced the right result, doesn't really mean we should endorse it, or continue using it. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology) >Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...]. >Mouse experiments showed weight gain and memory loss/alzheimers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3] Early studies showed that aspirin was beneficial for preventing heart attacks. You seemed to suggest that was bad. However, trusting one study saying that glyphosate causes cancer is okay? The wikipedia article for glyposate describes the overall evidence for glyposate causing cancer as "inconclusive". The IARC also said there was "limited evidence" for the type of cancer you described. If you want to make the case that appeal to nature is good, you really should have used something less contentious. >Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color. Well is that bad? If they're literally dumping household bleach into the oil, I might be a little worried. Then again, they also put bleach (chlorine) into tap water, so should we be worried about that too? > It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses. We also put nuclear plant coolant (dihydrogen monoxide) into our foods. Should we be worried about that as well? >Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history. Right, and that's bad regardless of which side it's on.
base698 5y ago
Do you not eat out? Most restaurants of all caliber use that garbage. I know I'm still consuming it when I eat in a restaurant. Best you can currently do is just not buy it for home use.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Fortunately there's olive oil. Approximately 0.5 liters/month per person at $10/liter for organic extra virgin from Tunisia. Heard it too causes cancer if you fry it though...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Heard it too causes cancer if you fry it though... Frying at low temperatures with olive oil is one of the "healthier" ways to fry, though. Less volatile aromatic hydrocarbons are produced when frying with olive oil compared to other fats, and some of the compounds in non-extra virgin olive oil reduce the production of free radicals.
tpush 5y ago
What effect are you talking about? And what does the production process for vegetable oils have to do with anything? This article is about palmitic acid which apart from obviously palm oil, is most abundant in animal fats like butter (~30%), tallow (26%) etc. since its a saturated fatty acid. Most vegetable oils like canola and soybean have much less palmitic acid.
- whalesalad 5y ago
  Palm oil is a vegetable oil. The production of vegetable oil (read: palm oil) creates an end product that looks and feels like oil, but has all kinds of other bad shit in it. It gets refined, heated, bleached, heated, deoderized, etc... The same thing happens to flour. We process the living shit out of it, then bleach it, then we have to add-in all the stuff we removed so that it still has some semblance of nutrition. It's like the deep fried pickle. A pickle in and of itself is a pickle, but when you deep fry it, is it still a pickle? Some will argue yes. Does it still have the same general health characteristics, or more importantly, the lack of negative characteristics as the deep-fried one? No.
  - tpush 5y ago
    The palmitic acid content of palm oil (or anything else) has nothing to do with what you're describing here. Like, absolutely nothing.
  - phonypc 5y ago
    Palm oil isn't really in the same category as the vegetable oils that have had concern raised about them recently. It's not from a seed, so doesn't need a highly involved process to get meaningful amounts of it. Cold pressed palm oil has been in use for thousands of years. It's more like olive oil in this regard. (Of course, you can still refine it, and it often is refined. But it's not as easily oxidized as oils with a higher proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids, so less concerning in that regard.)
richajak 5y ago
thanks to bring attention about canola oil, worse than palm oil. It is a genetically modified oil, invented in modern time to remove toxicity of the original property.

headmelted 5y ago

Honest question - how? Isn't it in almost everything?

heavyset_go 5y ago
If you cook, you can choose not to use those oils.
guruz 5y ago
Check the "What To Eat" section here: https://fireinabottle.net/the-croissant-diet-specification/ https://fireinabottle.net/the-croissant-diet-specification/ This is also sometimes the topic in those subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SaturatedFat/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SaturatedFat/

gruez 5y ago

>Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Mind elaborating? Without specific details it reeks of the naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days".

JohnWhigham 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
> naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" This is not a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect Ray Peat has been warning about seed oils for decades, I'm not sure if its bullet-proof but at least its interesting: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml
- ldiracdelta 5y ago
  Also, those "good old days", might describe "natural selection". You can't be certain that some of the survival benefits of your ancestors are NOT an adherence to traditions that give them a survival or reproductive advantage.
  - whalesalad 5y ago
    You can't possibly be comparing the wisdom of our ancestors with the agricultural-industrial complex? They do everything in their power to produce the lowest-cost version of "food" (some could argue it is not food) that people will pay for.
    - ldiracdelta 5y ago
      I'm not sure you parsed my post correctly. My post argues in favor of your post.
AamosSinervo 5y ago
How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better? Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton. From wikipedia: "A genetically engineered rapeseed that is tolerant to the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate)". "Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...]. So from the beginning the product is tainted. Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color. It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses. Mouse experiments showed weight gain and memory loss/alzheimers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3] While mice are not humans, American obesity has grown since the use of seed oils has grown. Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history.
- gruez 5y ago
  >How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better? What gave you the indication I was appealing to modernity? Being against naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" doesn't mean I'm arguing "well it's new so it must be better!". I'm simply saying that we shouldn't give either side preference just because it's new or old. >Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton. This seems like a massive strawman/misrepresentation. People weren't taking/recommending asprin because it was new, they were taking it because it's what the clinical evidence was suggesting. Some reasonable objections might be that the studies were poorly done, or wasn't replicable, but "it's not natural" isn't one of them. Just because "it wasn't natural" produced the right result, doesn't really mean we should endorse it, or continue using it. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology) >Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...]. >Mouse experiments showed weight gain and memory loss/alzheimers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3] Early studies showed that aspirin was beneficial for preventing heart attacks. You seemed to suggest that was bad. However, trusting one study saying that glyphosate causes cancer is okay? The wikipedia article for glyposate describes the overall evidence for glyposate causing cancer as "inconclusive". The IARC also said there was "limited evidence" for the type of cancer you described. If you want to make the case that appeal to nature is good, you really should have used something less contentious. >Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color. Well is that bad? If they're literally dumping household bleach into the oil, I might be a little worried. Then again, they also put bleach (chlorine) into tap water, so should we be worried about that too? > It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses. We also put nuclear plant coolant (dihydrogen monoxide) into our foods. Should we be worried about that as well? >Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history. Right, and that's bad regardless of which side it's on.

base698 5y ago

Do you not eat out? Most restaurants of all caliber use that garbage. I know I'm still consuming it when I eat in a restaurant. Best you can currently do is just not buy it for home use.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

Fortunately there's olive oil. Approximately 0.5 liters/month per person at $10/liter for organic extra virgin from Tunisia. Heard it too causes cancer if you fry it though...

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Heard it too causes cancer if you fry it though... Frying at low temperatures with olive oil is one of the "healthier" ways to fry, though. Less volatile aromatic hydrocarbons are produced when frying with olive oil compared to other fats, and some of the compounds in non-extra virgin olive oil reduce the production of free radicals.

tpush 5y ago

What effect are you talking about? And what does the production process for vegetable oils have to do with anything? This article is about palmitic acid which apart from obviously palm oil, is most abundant in animal fats like butter (~30%), tallow (26%) etc. since its a saturated fatty acid. Most vegetable oils like canola and soybean have much less palmitic acid.

whalesalad 5y ago
Palm oil is a vegetable oil. The production of vegetable oil (read: palm oil) creates an end product that looks and feels like oil, but has all kinds of other bad shit in it. It gets refined, heated, bleached, heated, deoderized, etc... The same thing happens to flour. We process the living shit out of it, then bleach it, then we have to add-in all the stuff we removed so that it still has some semblance of nutrition. It's like the deep fried pickle. A pickle in and of itself is a pickle, but when you deep fry it, is it still a pickle? Some will argue yes. Does it still have the same general health characteristics, or more importantly, the lack of negative characteristics as the deep-fried one? No.
- tpush 5y ago
  The palmitic acid content of palm oil (or anything else) has nothing to do with what you're describing here. Like, absolutely nothing.
- phonypc 5y ago
  Palm oil isn't really in the same category as the vegetable oils that have had concern raised about them recently. It's not from a seed, so doesn't need a highly involved process to get meaningful amounts of it. Cold pressed palm oil has been in use for thousands of years. It's more like olive oil in this regard. (Of course, you can still refine it, and it often is refined. But it's not as easily oxidized as oils with a higher proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids, so less concerning in that regard.)

richajak 5y ago

thanks to bring attention about canola oil, worse than palm oil. It is a genetically modified oil, invented in modern time to remove toxicity of the original property.