4 ms·

>which oils would you use for frying and baking? Grapeseed oil is my go to. It's fairly neutral in flavor (slight nuttiness), has high smoke point, and is one

>which oils would you use for frying and baking? Grapeseed oil is my go to. It's fairly neutral in flavor (slight nuttiness), has high smoke point, and is one that is a source of Vitamin E. For frying and then roasting, I use avocado oil, but keep in mind that many avocado oil bought on the shelves are already oxidized or rancid. There's a handful of brands that tested to be pure, one being Chosen Foods (that I use). Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30105062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30105062

Klonoar 5y ago
Seconding this choice as a go-to. I've really found I can't go wrong with it.
valarauko 5y ago
> one that is a source of Vitamin E. AFAIK the high temperature of frying oil destroys the vitamins it may have
- bduerst 5y ago
  Vitamin E is surprisingly stable in oil compared to other vitamins (like A). Unless you're commercially deep frying with the same oil over several days, there's minimal vitamin E loss from frying.
telchior 5y ago
FWIW grapeseed oil is the absolute worst you could use if PUFAs are bad. It's >80% PUFA, higher than any other. Of course that's based on two suppositions: 1) that the reason soybean oil is bad in this study is its PUFA content, and 2) that it's also bad for humans, not just mice.
- bduerst 5y ago
  The PUFA in grapeseed oil is linolenic acid (~75%), which this specific study ruled out as the cause of the genetic expression changes observed in high-fat diets with soybean oil. FTA: >One additional note on this study — the research team has not yet isolated which chemicals in the oil are responsible for the changes they found in the hypothalamus. But they have ruled out two candidates. It is not linoleic acid, since the modified oil also produced genetic disruptions; nor is it stigmasterol, a cholesterol-like chemical found naturally in soybean oil.
  - telchior 5y ago
    Huh, I did actually miss that. Thanks for pointing it out. Linoleic acid isn't fully accepted as being healthy, so it was an easy assumption for me to make. My understanding of linoleic acid is that it got a ton of good press as a result of the blowback from the discovery that we were basically poisoning ourselves with trans fats. So it wasn't really that we know PUFAs / linoleic acid are good, it's just that we know they're an existing alternative to something very bad. Example random study link that points out some of the unknowns around linoleic acid: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492028/
    - bduerst 5y ago
      There's a difference between a dietary supplement being overhyped, and it actively causing harm. Unknowns != Linolenic acid is harmful; and from this study it's at least obvious that it doesn't change genetic expression in the thalamus.

Klonoar 5y ago

Seconding this choice as a go-to. I've really found I can't go wrong with it.

valarauko 5y ago

> one that is a source of Vitamin E. AFAIK the high temperature of frying oil destroys the vitamins it may have

bduerst 5y ago
Vitamin E is surprisingly stable in oil compared to other vitamins (like A). Unless you're commercially deep frying with the same oil over several days, there's minimal vitamin E loss from frying.

telchior 5y ago

FWIW grapeseed oil is the absolute worst you could use if PUFAs are bad. It's >80% PUFA, higher than any other. Of course that's based on two suppositions: 1) that the reason soybean oil is bad in this study is its PUFA content, and 2) that it's also bad for humans, not just mice.

bduerst 5y ago
The PUFA in grapeseed oil is linolenic acid (~75%), which this specific study ruled out as the cause of the genetic expression changes observed in high-fat diets with soybean oil. FTA: >One additional note on this study — the research team has not yet isolated which chemicals in the oil are responsible for the changes they found in the hypothalamus. But they have ruled out two candidates. It is not linoleic acid, since the modified oil also produced genetic disruptions; nor is it stigmasterol, a cholesterol-like chemical found naturally in soybean oil.
- telchior 5y ago
  Huh, I did actually miss that. Thanks for pointing it out. Linoleic acid isn't fully accepted as being healthy, so it was an easy assumption for me to make. My understanding of linoleic acid is that it got a ton of good press as a result of the blowback from the discovery that we were basically poisoning ourselves with trans fats. So it wasn't really that we know PUFAs / linoleic acid are good, it's just that we know they're an existing alternative to something very bad. Example random study link that points out some of the unknowns around linoleic acid: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492028/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5492028/
  - bduerst 5y ago
    There's a difference between a dietary supplement being overhyped, and it actively causing harm. Unknowns != Linolenic acid is harmful; and from this study it's at least obvious that it doesn't change genetic expression in the thalamus.