Science about canola oil

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Pastorio

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

Biker

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

Biker

Biker wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:
=20
=20
Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an=20
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.=20
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so=20
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/
=20
=20
Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:
=20
"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers=97and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "
=20
Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :
=20
"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "
=20
I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement=20
there.

What exactly do you see that's confusing?

Pastorio

Biker wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:
=20
=20
Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an=20
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.=20
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so=20
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/
=20
=20
Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:
=20
"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers=97and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "
=20
Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :
=20
"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "
=20
I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement=20
there.

What exactly do you see that's confusing?

Pastorio

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:10:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Biker wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:


Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/


Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement
there. What exactly do you see that's confusing?

In one of your famous beligerent rants (in a previous thread), you
labeled as junk science the March/April 1996 Perceptions magazine
excerpt of John Thomas' book. To be precise, you wrote:

"Pure, cold/expeller-pressed, unsaturated bull****. Crap science.
Utter ignorance about biological functions, confused and conflated
connections, outright fraud, flawed reasoning and even more flawed
conclusions."

Yet, the excerpt made simliar claims about Canola and trans-fatty
acids as Enig, as follows:

"Although the destruction of the essential elements of the fat was
originally well intended - to prevent it from spoiling the methods of
processing fats are destroying our health. Avoid any vegetable oil
that is labeled hydrogenated", or "partially hydrogenated", as this
oil contains 100% Trans-fatty acid!

Biker

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:10:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Biker wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:


Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.

Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so
often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/


Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of
trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers—and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high
levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used
exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement
there. What exactly do you see that's confusing?

In one of your famous beligerent rants (in a previous thread), you
labeled as junk science the March/April 1996 Perceptions magazine
excerpt of John Thomas' book. To be precise, you wrote:

"Pure, cold/expeller-pressed, unsaturated bull****. Crap science.
Utter ignorance about biological functions, confused and conflated
connections, outright fraud, flawed reasoning and even more flawed
conclusions."

Yet, the excerpt made simliar claims about Canola and trans-fatty
acids as Enig, as follows:

"Although the destruction of the essential elements of the fat was
originally well intended - to prevent it from spoiling the methods of
processing fats are destroying our health. Avoid any vegetable oil
that is labeled hydrogenated", or "partially hydrogenated", as this
oil contains 100% Trans-fatty acid!

Biker

Biker wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:10:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:
=20
Biker wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.=


Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an=20
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.=20
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so =

often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of=

trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers=97and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high=

levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used=

exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement=20
there. What exactly do you see that's confusing?
=20
=20
In one of your famous beligerent rants (in a previous thread), you
labeled as junk science the March/April 1996 Perceptions magazine
excerpt of John Thomas' book. To be precise, you wrote:
=20
"Pure, cold/expeller-pressed, unsaturated bull****. Crap science.
Utter ignorance about biological functions, confused and conflated=20
connections, outright fraud, flawed reasoning and even more flawed=20
conclusions."

Oh, I know what I wrote. Rarely have I seen a pile of crap so=20
detailedly ignorant, wrongheaded, dishonest, and misguided. That fool=20
hasn't gone to any effort to look into the actual research. And when=20
he says that mustard gas has anything to do with plants, it marks him=20
as a total and superficial conspiracy nut who just hasn't done his=20
homework bad should simply be dismissed.

But your opaque message above doesn't seem to be about that. At least,=20
if it is, you seem to go to some trouble not to make it clear.

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful=20
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive=20
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko=20
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if=20
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

Yet, the excerpt made simliar claims about Canola and trans-fatty
acids as Enig, as follows:
=20
"Although the destruction of the essential elements of the fat was
originally well intended - to prevent it from spoiling the methods of
processing fats are destroying our health. Avoid any vegetable oil
that is labeled hydrogenated", or "partially hydrogenated", as this
oil contains 100% Trans-fatty acid!=20

Nice tactic. Ignore the outright lies, mistakes, ignorance and obvious=20
quackery in Thomas' piece and conflate it with the work of a scientist=20
who has examined research results. Cute stunt.

Hey look the world is flat. And doesn't that agree with those guys who=20
run fast bikes on the Bonneville Salt FLATS. See the word FLATS! See,=20
they agree and you say the biker guys aren't real, real smart when=20
they say the world is flat...

Obviously, it's entirely possible to find a moment of agreement=20
between an outright idiot like Thomas and the work of actual=20
scientists. It can't be compared on the basis of a couple somewhat=20
congruent sentences, but on a larger sampling of the works. Read any 5=20
paragraphs of Thomas' rant and compare it then. It helps to know a bit=20
of science and some history to be able to do that. Without that,=20
you're just as helpless as Thomas to understand where the truths and=20
potential truths reside.

Pastorio

Biker wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:10:15 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:
=20
Biker wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:02:04 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Here's some fact about canola oil although leavened with a viewpoint.=


Enig and Fallon have their agendas. But their work is at least an=20
interpretation of actual information rather than silly conjectures.=20
Decide based on something substantial rather than the foolishness so =

often posted.

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/arti...rdioself/1042/

Bob, from the URL you posted above, I found the following:

"A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been
hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of=

trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent.25 In
fact, canola oil hydrogenates beautifully, better than corn oil or
soybean oil, because modern hydrogenation methods hydrogenate omega-3
fatty acids preferentially and canola oil is very high in omega-3s.
Higher levels of trans mean longer shelf life for processed foods, a
crisper texture in cookies and crackers=97and more dangers of chronic
disease for the consumer. "

Dr. Enig also wrote the following at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jan/16/d...canola_oil.htm :

"One problem with canola oil is that it has to be partially
hydrogenated or refined before it is used commercially and
consequently is a source of trans fatty acids; sometimes are very high=

levels . . . Another problem is that it is too unsaturated to be used=

exclusively in the diet; some of the undesirable effects caused by
feeding canola can be rectified if the diet is made higher in
saturated fatty acids. "

I can see how one might get confused.

I think you're confused about what you read. There's no disagreement=20
there. What exactly do you see that's confusing?
=20
=20
In one of your famous beligerent rants (in a previous thread), you
labeled as junk science the March/April 1996 Perceptions magazine
excerpt of John Thomas' book. To be precise, you wrote:
=20
"Pure, cold/expeller-pressed, unsaturated bull****. Crap science.
Utter ignorance about biological functions, confused and conflated=20
connections, outright fraud, flawed reasoning and even more flawed=20
conclusions."

Oh, I know what I wrote. Rarely have I seen a pile of crap so=20
detailedly ignorant, wrongheaded, dishonest, and misguided. That fool=20
hasn't gone to any effort to look into the actual research. And when=20
he says that mustard gas has anything to do with plants, it marks him=20
as a total and superficial conspiracy nut who just hasn't done his=20
homework bad should simply be dismissed.

But your opaque message above doesn't seem to be about that. At least,=20
if it is, you seem to go to some trouble not to make it clear.

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful=20
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive=20
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko=20
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if=20
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

Yet, the excerpt made simliar claims about Canola and trans-fatty
acids as Enig, as follows:
=20
"Although the destruction of the essential elements of the fat was
originally well intended - to prevent it from spoiling the methods of
processing fats are destroying our health. Avoid any vegetable oil
that is labeled hydrogenated", or "partially hydrogenated", as this
oil contains 100% Trans-fatty acid!=20

Nice tactic. Ignore the outright lies, mistakes, ignorance and obvious=20
quackery in Thomas' piece and conflate it with the work of a scientist=20
who has examined research results. Cute stunt.

Hey look the world is flat. And doesn't that agree with those guys who=20
run fast bikes on the Bonneville Salt FLATS. See the word FLATS! See,=20
they agree and you say the biker guys aren't real, real smart when=20
they say the world is flat...

Obviously, it's entirely possible to find a moment of agreement=20
between an outright idiot like Thomas and the work of actual=20
scientists. It can't be compared on the basis of a couple somewhat=20
congruent sentences, but on a larger sampling of the works. Read any 5=20
paragraphs of Thomas' rant and compare it then. It helps to know a bit=20
of science and some history to be able to do that. Without that,=20
you're just as helpless as Thomas to understand where the truths and=20
potential truths reside.

Pastorio

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:07:17 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

Are you trying to say that Enig and Thomas deserve the same respectful
reading? Are you saying that they're equals in offering substantive
information? Is it your contention that Thomas is anything but a wacko
with an ax to grind? Or that Enig is less than a reliable, if
opinionated, scientist? What's the point of your clumsy effort here?

My point was (is), Jackass, instead of rambling on like a childish
psycho who forgot to take his meds, why not merely explain why you
disagree or agree with the posted information, like a mature
professional.

Biker