monty1945
Fri, Mar-16-07, 06:15
Take some unbleached flour, sugar, and a small amount of salt.
You will make two shortbreads, one with high quality coconut
oil and another with your choice of canola oil, corn oil, or
safflower oil. Just use a standard shortbread recipe. When it
is cool, place it in a paper bag and close it. Just store it
on a counter. Every couple of days, you can take each piece of
bread out and taste it. If it tastes rancid, you have
determined the "shelf life." When you can taste the rancidity,
free radical reactions are undeniably occurring, and it is
dangerous to eat, though even if you cannot taste it, it can
do this inside your body anyway (especially if it is rich in
polyunsaturated fatty acids). This is called "in vivo lipid
peroxidation."
I have shortbreads made with coconut oil that are over a year
old and are still not rancid. Because the molecular-level
evidence is now clear about how dangerous free radicals are,
the obvious question is, why do so many "experts" talk about
"saturated fat" being dangerous, since saturated fatty acids
do not participate in free radical reactions? One explanation
is that the studies that appear to suggest this are indirect,
and also do not control for all relevant factors (such as how
the fat sources are cooked and how and what kinds of
antioxidants are consumed at the same time the fat is
consumed). Another problem involves terminology that no longer
makes sense on any level. For example, lard is often used in
experiments as the "saturated fat" source, and yet lard is
only 40% saturated. It also contains cholesterol, which can
become oxidized (unlike coconut oil, which has no cholesterol
and is 92% saturated fatty acids). It is then compared to a
fat source like safflower oil, which contains no cholesterol
and contains some antioxidants (unlike the lard). I agree that
lard is dangerous and never eat it. In fact, you can also do
this experiment with lard, as well as coconut oil and the
other oil, such as corn. The point is that it is the
unsaturated fatty acids that are the problem, not the
saturated ones. There is no molecular- level mechanism by
which saturated fatty acids can cause problems under normal
conditions.
I have seen many web sites on which someone claims that
"saturated fat" is "pro-inflammatory." This is true of lard,
but not coconut oil. Saturated fatty acids cannot be made into
these "pro- inflammatory" molecules, actually, but lard
contains plenty of polyunsaturated fatty acids that can be
(while coconut oil has a tiny trace amount - nothing of
clinical significance). So again, if the 40% saturated
"saturated fat," lard, is used, some "experts" can claim that
"saturated fat is pro-inflammatory," even though saturated
fatty acids (the actual molecules in question) are not (and in
fact there is no way they can be). Because of a "big push" in
the late 1980s and 1990s against "saturated fat," companies
that sell baked goods switched from the healthy coconut and
palm kernel oils (which are very biochemically stable,
producing very long "shelf life"), to highly unsaturated oils
that were then hydrogenated to make them more saturated. The
problem is that in this process, trans fatty acids are
produced, and because "chronic disease" did not decline,
despite getting rid of the supposedly terrible "saturated
fats" like coconut oil, the "trans fat" was viewed as the
cause. The solution for at least companies appears to be using
a small amount of a highly unstable oil (like safflower,
rapeseed, or canola) and a larger amount of a fully
hydrogenated oil that is also made from that kind of oil. In
this way, the companies can claim that there are "no trans
fats" in their products. There is no way to avoid the
biochemical reality, which is that if there are too many
unsaturated bonds, the product will go rancid quickly, and the
only reason they care is that you won't want to buy their
products. It is fortunate that we are able to detect fat
rancidity, because it is so dangerous. However, if you eat a
proudct fried in such unstable oils, you will not detect the
rancidity, but there will be dangerous lipid peroxidation
occurring in your body. This is not something stomach acid can
neutratlize - only eating antioxidant-rich foods at the same
time might help prevent damage to vital biomolecules.
Thus, despite the millions of people consuming large amounts
of saturated fatty acids and having very little "chronic
disease," our "experts" are more interested in tilting at
imaginery windmills, because they have yet to question
underlying assumptions that have now been demonstrated to be
wrong. An AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, for example,
stated well over a year ago that only oxzidized LDL is
dangerous, and it has been demonstrated that only LDL that
contains too much polyunsaturated fatty acids is easily
oxidized. This is basic and undeniable, unlike the kinds of
studies you often hear about in the media, which are based
upon "markers," "surrogate endpoints," "correlations,"
"links," "associations," etc.
If you want to learn more about this and other health
topics, and also see the evidence for yourself, you can
visit my free site:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-
If you have any questions, there are two forums you can use to
ask me questions.
You will make two shortbreads, one with high quality coconut
oil and another with your choice of canola oil, corn oil, or
safflower oil. Just use a standard shortbread recipe. When it
is cool, place it in a paper bag and close it. Just store it
on a counter. Every couple of days, you can take each piece of
bread out and taste it. If it tastes rancid, you have
determined the "shelf life." When you can taste the rancidity,
free radical reactions are undeniably occurring, and it is
dangerous to eat, though even if you cannot taste it, it can
do this inside your body anyway (especially if it is rich in
polyunsaturated fatty acids). This is called "in vivo lipid
peroxidation."
I have shortbreads made with coconut oil that are over a year
old and are still not rancid. Because the molecular-level
evidence is now clear about how dangerous free radicals are,
the obvious question is, why do so many "experts" talk about
"saturated fat" being dangerous, since saturated fatty acids
do not participate in free radical reactions? One explanation
is that the studies that appear to suggest this are indirect,
and also do not control for all relevant factors (such as how
the fat sources are cooked and how and what kinds of
antioxidants are consumed at the same time the fat is
consumed). Another problem involves terminology that no longer
makes sense on any level. For example, lard is often used in
experiments as the "saturated fat" source, and yet lard is
only 40% saturated. It also contains cholesterol, which can
become oxidized (unlike coconut oil, which has no cholesterol
and is 92% saturated fatty acids). It is then compared to a
fat source like safflower oil, which contains no cholesterol
and contains some antioxidants (unlike the lard). I agree that
lard is dangerous and never eat it. In fact, you can also do
this experiment with lard, as well as coconut oil and the
other oil, such as corn. The point is that it is the
unsaturated fatty acids that are the problem, not the
saturated ones. There is no molecular- level mechanism by
which saturated fatty acids can cause problems under normal
conditions.
I have seen many web sites on which someone claims that
"saturated fat" is "pro-inflammatory." This is true of lard,
but not coconut oil. Saturated fatty acids cannot be made into
these "pro- inflammatory" molecules, actually, but lard
contains plenty of polyunsaturated fatty acids that can be
(while coconut oil has a tiny trace amount - nothing of
clinical significance). So again, if the 40% saturated
"saturated fat," lard, is used, some "experts" can claim that
"saturated fat is pro-inflammatory," even though saturated
fatty acids (the actual molecules in question) are not (and in
fact there is no way they can be). Because of a "big push" in
the late 1980s and 1990s against "saturated fat," companies
that sell baked goods switched from the healthy coconut and
palm kernel oils (which are very biochemically stable,
producing very long "shelf life"), to highly unsaturated oils
that were then hydrogenated to make them more saturated. The
problem is that in this process, trans fatty acids are
produced, and because "chronic disease" did not decline,
despite getting rid of the supposedly terrible "saturated
fats" like coconut oil, the "trans fat" was viewed as the
cause. The solution for at least companies appears to be using
a small amount of a highly unstable oil (like safflower,
rapeseed, or canola) and a larger amount of a fully
hydrogenated oil that is also made from that kind of oil. In
this way, the companies can claim that there are "no trans
fats" in their products. There is no way to avoid the
biochemical reality, which is that if there are too many
unsaturated bonds, the product will go rancid quickly, and the
only reason they care is that you won't want to buy their
products. It is fortunate that we are able to detect fat
rancidity, because it is so dangerous. However, if you eat a
proudct fried in such unstable oils, you will not detect the
rancidity, but there will be dangerous lipid peroxidation
occurring in your body. This is not something stomach acid can
neutratlize - only eating antioxidant-rich foods at the same
time might help prevent damage to vital biomolecules.
Thus, despite the millions of people consuming large amounts
of saturated fatty acids and having very little "chronic
disease," our "experts" are more interested in tilting at
imaginery windmills, because they have yet to question
underlying assumptions that have now been demonstrated to be
wrong. An AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, for example,
stated well over a year ago that only oxzidized LDL is
dangerous, and it has been demonstrated that only LDL that
contains too much polyunsaturated fatty acids is easily
oxidized. This is basic and undeniable, unlike the kinds of
studies you often hear about in the media, which are based
upon "markers," "surrogate endpoints," "correlations,"
"links," "associations," etc.
If you want to learn more about this and other health
topics, and also see the evidence for yourself, you can
visit my free site:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-
If you have any questions, there are two forums you can use to
ask me questions.