Why seed oils are not good.

[Mbaker]

Processing is another red herring, what is important is the end product.
Here is the typical process for drinking water....
View attachment 42079

This is a straw man. If you would like to defend seed oils please provide the response.

 

[Mr_Pot]

This is a straw man. If you would like to defend seed oils please provide the response.

My point is that seed oils cannot be considered bad just because they may have non-culinary uses or because they may have been processed. The problem with them is probably the Omega 6 fatty acid they contain and the sheer quantity of seed oil that is consumed, much of it being hidden in pre-prepared food. Dismissing all seed and vegetable oils as some sort of poison, is a gross simplification, we need to consider which oils, their constituents and what is a safe quantity to consume. All fats and oils vegetable or animal derived contain a mixture of fatty acids, only the ratios vary.

 

[bulkbiker]

Dismissing all seed and vegetable oils as some sort of poison, is a gross simplification, we need to consider which oils, their constituents and what is a safe quantity to consume.

Well we know that zero are required so which would you profess are not poison and in what quantities?

 

[Mr_Pot]

Well we know that zero are required so which would you profess are not poison and in what quantities?

I would say that small quantities of any of them are probably ok. Omega 6 and Omega 3 are essential fatty acids, we need them and can't make them, does it make any difference if we get them from oils or animal fat as long as the quantities and ratio are reasonable. Butter is often held up as ideal but its Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio is not as good as that of rapeseed oil for example.

 

[Member496333]

I also don’t consume tap water.

 

[Mbaker]

My point is that seed oils cannot be considered bad just because they may have non-culinary uses or because they may have been processed. The problem with them is probably the Omega 6 fatty acid they contain and the sheer quantity of seed oil that is consumed, much of it being hidden in pre-prepared food. Dismissing all seed and vegetable oils as some sort of poison, is a gross simplification, we need to consider which oils, their constituents and what is a safe quantity to consume. All fats and oils vegetable or animal derived contain a mixture of fatty acids, only the ratios vary.

There are mechanistic evidences about how the seed oils cause oxidation in the body, but the effort for me to find the references is disproportionate to the point.

The good thing is observers can choose what they think is the best oil for them.

I listened to another YouTube a few days ago from an MD (purposeful appeal to authority) which I think adds to my point. The truth is I have seen these points cross referenced by professionals countless times:

I think the evidence is overwhelming
We know they kept trans fat in seed oils for at least 30 years, then quietly removed this element, we have been experimented on for circa 110 years. We know that cooking with these oils changes the consistency to rancid, theres a Channel 4 programme which cooked chips in various oils - the veg oils turned rancid, coconut oil did not (https://dai.ly/x6q5qa8). There's a Micheal Mosley Trust Me I'm a Dr programme similar result https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33675975 I remember the results shocked a significant person at Cambridge University. These seed oils are repeatedly used in fast food outlets. We know the burger chains have to employ special third party cleaning companies to get rid of the residue. Against this we know animal fats have been in the diet forever and the health status of entire populations who use them.

Something(s) changed dramatically to cause the consistent metabolic I'll graphs. Food frequency questionaires are not worthy science; so I suggest a good basis is too compare what has changed in the West and Indigenous populations that remain in situ. Then if those elements are removed (study done on the Aborigines) what happens. Also 100,000's of anecdotes for LCHF and similar, of course I have my own personal story - no crisps, potatoes, wheat, etc for over 5 years.

Another cotton seed and rape seed product line:

I will cease comment on this topic area.

 

[LaoDan]

Been binge watching all these videos, Dr Knobbe seems to say 4% omega 6 max, which seems a very difficult number to reach for those trying to add omega 3s to their diet.

Knobbe also postulated that omega 6 is the root cause of IR, confusing everything I’ve learned about low vs high carb lifestyles .. off to learn more.

 

[MarkMunday]

Interesting video. My biggest takeaway was just how cheap high energy processed food ingredients are. From a public health perspective, as long as the food industry is financially driven there won't be much change.

 

[Goonergal]

Dr David Unwin posed a question about references in relation to use of seed oils in Twitter today. Plenty of useful information in the replies.

https://twitter.com/lowcarbgp/status/1272416343124475904?s=21

 

[Oldvatr]

Dr David Unwin posed a question about references in relation to use of seed oils in Twitter today. Plenty of useful information in the replies.

https://twitter.com/lowcarbgp/status/1272416343124475904?s=21

I saw a twitter feed with the usual suspects, the expected hashtags, the usual celebrities being referenced. It was a feast of the converted preaching to the converted. I see no new links to active or properly documented studies, or trials/ Much of what was on offer was blog material or conjecture, and nothing that would be useful to Dr Unwin who is seeking a scientific response to use as evidence in his efforts to progress this message forward. I am one of the converted myself, but it is easy to fall into the trap of unconscious bias simply from reading just one side of the debate.

Sadly I have not come across any suitable material to support this thread but if the hypothesis being claimed in the feed is to be taken seriously, then there needs to be ongoing scientific follow up. The interesting way that the rise of diabetes, obesity and other chronic illness seems to track the sales of seed oils is well documented, but the evidence so far shows a possible relationship, but does not prove cause.

 

[pdmjoker]

The interesting way that the rise of diabetes, obesity and other chronic illness seems to track the sales of seed oils is well documented, but the evidence so far shows a possible relationship, but does not prove cause.

Correct, association does not prove causality....

 

[pdmjoker]

The interesting way that the rise of diabetes, obesity and other chronic illness seems to track the sales of seed oils is well documented, but the evidence so far shows a possible relationship, but does not prove cause.

I gather the rise also tracks the consumption of wheat intake and sugar intake, too...

 

[Oldvatr]

I gather the rise also tracks the consumption of wheat intake and sugar intake, too...

I agree on wheat and grains, but not sugar. The rise of sugar started earlier (1700's) so it rises, but not tracks with any sense of closeness. I remember as a kid that most of the UK sugar was extracted from Sugar Beet which was cultivated for that purpose, and the cane sugar (molasses) was mainly used for the liquor trade and expensive coffee and demarerra sugar and came mainly as cubes not spoons. I was also bought up in the time of sugar rationing which also curbed intake for a while. The rise in T2 diabetes seems to have jumped rapidly since the 1960's but T1D sees a more steady rise throughout. As I pointed out in the post earlier those interactive FAO graphics do show wheat rising rapidly over this time period since the 60's.

This dissertation may also be of interest
https://timelines.issarice.com/wiki/Timeline_of_diabetes
This clearly shows that diabetes progression did not need refined sugar, or wheat to trigger, It also shows pre-Banting use of low carb as a treament.

The WHO/ FAO used to have a massive database of world statistics where you could find info on enviroment, climate, consumption, population trade and commerce etc. I can no longer gain access to that info on the web, and web searches come up blank.

I did find this historic review that is also of interest
http://www.diabetesandenvironment.org/home/incidence

And this
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-1700-to-1978-30-31-E-and-in-the_fig1_5924426

This site has some interesting graphs too regarding soda drinks. Again it is not proof of association.
http://www.cureddiabetes.com/how-to-prevent-diabetes.html

 

[Dr Snoddy]

I also don’t consume tap water.

What, no water!?

 

[pdmjoker]

I agree on wheat and grains, but not sugar.

Thank you for all that info and correcting my mis-remembering.
Yes, wheat and grains: I heard T2D was 1% in China (even eating white rice) before the introduction of the western diet, and is now 11% of population. Don't know if those figures are corroborated.

It also shows pre-Banting use of low carb as a treament.

I presume William and not Frederick

The WHO/ FAO used to have a massive database of world statistics where you could find info on enviroment, climate, consumption, population trade and commerce etc. I can no longer gain access to that info on the web, and web searches come up blank.

Can't have people learning the truth!

Edit: I gather the mechanism which causes IR is complex and not entirely understood, so the causes are not entirely clear (although pancreatic and liver fat play a role)

 

[Oldvatr]

I am not sure of this source, but it talks about something I have seen in other studies.
https://www.treehugger.com/cooking-oil-causes-more-obesity-and-diabetes-sugar-4857173

There is a reference to this study here.
https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/30416

 

[NicoleC1971]

My point is that seed oils cannot be considered bad just because they may have non-culinary uses or because they may have been processed. The problem with them is probably the Omega 6 fatty acid they contain and the sheer quantity of seed oil that is consumed, much of it being hidden in pre-prepared food. Dismissing all seed and vegetable oils as some sort of poison, is a gross simplification, we need to consider which oils, their constituents and what is a safe quantity to consume. All fats and oils vegetable or animal derived contain a mixture of fatty acids, only the ratios vary.

I sometimes consume them incidentally if I eat out because they are universally used in catering but I'd rather not and would love it if those places reverted to lard/tallow for frying.
I think of my brain (mainly built on fat which I consume) being constructed from good bricks and not substances that are easily oxidised and rather unstable. Like all things nutrition related the science is difficult being confounded by so many variables but at the very least I think there should be more questioning of the health halo given to these products just because they are NOT sat fat.

 

[pdmjoker]

There is a reference to this study here.
https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/30416

The study says:

...All four diets contained the same number of calories and there was no significant difference in the amount of food eaten by the mice on the diets. Thus, the researchers were able to study the effects of the different oils and fructose in the context of a constant caloric intake.

Compared to mice on the high coconut oil diet, mice on the high soybean oil diet showed increased weight gain, larger fat deposits, a fatty liver with signs of injury, diabetes and insulin resistance, all of which are part of the Metabolic Syndrome. Fructose in the diet had less severe metabolic effects than soybean oil although it did cause more negative effects in the kidney and a marked increase in prolapsed rectums, a symptom of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which like obesity is on the rise.​

 

[bulkbiker]

I am not sure of this source, but it talks about something I have seen in other studies.
https://www.treehugger.com/cooking-oil-causes-more-obesity-and-diabetes-sugar-4857173

There is a reference to this study here.
https://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/30416

Surprised to see you quoting a mouse study..

 

[Oldvatr]

The study says:

...All four diets contained the same number of calories and there was no significant difference in the amount of food eaten by the mice on the diets. Thus, the researchers were able to study the effects of the different oils and fructose in the context of a constant caloric intake.

Compared to mice on the high coconut oil diet, mice on the high soybean oil diet showed increased weight gain, larger fat deposits, a fatty liver with signs of injury, diabetes and insulin resistance, all of which are part of the Metabolic Syndrome. Fructose in the diet had less severe metabolic effects than soybean oil although it did cause more negative effects in the kidney and a marked increase in prolapsed rectums, a symptom of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which like obesity is on the rise.​

Sorry, my post is technically off topic. Neither coconut nor soybean oils are Seed Oils, They are both plant derived oils classed as Major Oils. Coconut oil is a medium chain saturated fat *and the basis of MCT) , and soybean is a poly unsaturated oil or polyol as found in margarine. fake butter spreads and shortenings.