Re: New heart disease study

[Guest guest]

Researchers often parrot misinformation and mistaken assumptions in the

abstracts and discussions of their research. I hope to recognise their

unqualified comments as what they are, apart from the actual research, but alas,

a lot of people do not, I agree.

For what it's worth I think this study turned out well in type II diabetic women

because safflower oil is over 70% oleic acid, which is the main cellular fuel

oil and which has less potential to be broken down than the polyunsaturates, a

lot like olive oil. It also probably would have been given as a fresh product.

For both resons it would be less oxidative than the oils the women were eating,

and the improved ratio of non-rancid fuel oil of the correct type made them more

metabolically active.

Generally, oils with less linoleic acid and more oleic will be better for you

because oil intake from all sources is high in linoleic omega-6. I think the

1960's studies occurred at a time when margarine and corn oil were the main food

oils, and they produced a pronounced biological burden via trans fats and

hydrogenation, in addition to the thyroid-suppressing effect; all that would

have been alleviated somewhat by providing some decent food oil to live on

all good,

Duncan

>

> This is exactly the type of thing that perpetuates all the rampant myths about

heart disease and fats. And at the end they basically admit that the study

subjects were still at risk for heart disease, they don't know the long term

effects of this supplementation and that it would merely be an adjunct to their

medications