21–30 of 116 posts
The subject of the article says as much about the politics of science as it is a comment on the science itself. To the extent the findings have been ignored, or perhaps even shunned, is not at all unique. Many important advances in medicine had a notoriously difficult time being accepted, as an example, the idea that bacterial infection was the cause of stomach ulcers had been around for decades before gaining tracti…
The subject of the article says as much about the politics of science as it is a comment on the science itself. To the extent the findings have been ignored, or perhaps even shunned, is not at all unique. Many important advances in medicine had a notoriously difficult time being accepted, as an example, the idea that bacterial infection was the cause of stomach ulcers had been around for decades before gaining tracti…
The subject of the article says as much about the politics of science as it is a comment on the science itself. To the extent the findings have been ignored, or perhaps even shunned, is not at all unique. Many important advances in medicine had a notoriously difficult time being accepted, as an example, the idea that bacterial infection was the cause of stomach ulcers had been around for decades before gaining tracti…
Thanks for the insightful comment. What would be a good substitute oil for cooking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what point (if any) gwern is making here but, e.g., Ancel Keys died in 2004 at the age of 100. So, indeed, no wonder he's deceased: he would have had to be staggeringly old to still be alive now. [EDITED to add:] On the face of it, the most obvious reading of gwern's comment is (it seems to me) something like "ha ha, of course they're dead, because they had stupid theories about diet and health so we sho…
I totally read it as "oh, no wonder it 'was never fully published' before now, since the lead investigators were the infamous Ancel Keys and a now-deceased collaborator."
The subject of the article says as much about the politics of science as it is a comment on the science itself. To the extent the findings have been ignored, or perhaps even shunned, is not at all unique. Many important advances in medicine had a notoriously difficult time being accepted, as an example, the idea that bacterial infection was the cause of stomach ulcers had been around for decades before gaining tracti…
Thanks for the insightful comment. What would be a good substitute oil for cooking?
The main reason is that these are supposed to produce less cancerogenic compounds after high temperature treatment* and they also do not leave any strong specific taste.
Both do not contain significant amount of omega-3 fatty acids, but the cooking oil probably also should not be your main source of fatty acids anyway (usually we wipe the products clean after cooking).
Perhaps somebody else could give better insight into it.
* I actually have not researched this deeply, but these oils do have relatively high smoke point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
The subject of the article says as much about the politics of science as it is a comment on the science itself. To the extent the findings have been ignored, or perhaps even shunned, is not at all unique. Many important advances in medicine had a notoriously difficult time being accepted, as an example, the idea that bacterial infection was the cause of stomach ulcers had been around for decades before gaining tracti…
Thanks for the insightful comment. What would be a good substitute oil for cooking?
If your goal is to minimize aldehydes produced in cooking coconut oil is maybe best but can affect the taste. Lard and goose far are good alternatives that for some foods can provide a better taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Olive oil for the pan. Don't know about baking. Apple sauce?
Olive oil burns too easily. I usually use peanut or safflower oil. Where do they fit in on this radar?
Edit: Lard and Butter also work quite well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Olive oil for the pan. Don't know about baking. Apple sauce?
Olive oil burns too easily. I usually use peanut or safflower oil. Where do they fit in on this radar?
My understanding is that peanut oil is very pro inflammatory and a bad idea to use at high heat. Butter, animal fats and coconut oil are my go to oils. But I don't deep fry.
To me, the problem is not scientific studies, but mainstream reporting of scientific studies that turn into popular fads and trends. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but society does. This is true for dietary fat, autism, gluten, paleo, salt, etc.