 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2005olive oil
I've discovered an additional benefit to buying olive oil only in glass bottles and keeping it in the frig: you can spot adulterated oil without opening it. Good olive oil starts turning cloudy within a day of being put in the frig, and becomes a uniform soft gel within 3 days. Well, a local store had a special on an 'Italian extra-virgin' oil. The price was suspiciously low, so I just bought one and put it in the frig. It took 3 days before there was any cloudiness, and it was in streaks, not uniform. After a week it was obvious that there were two kinds of oil in that bottle, one of which wasn't going to gel. I notified our food inspection people, and they were able to confirm that the product contained about 2/3 cheap olive oil and 1/3 other vegetable oil(s). They haven't yet been able to determine whether the product came from Italy that way (as claimed on the label) or not. They noted that they catch an average of two cases a year of this that involve large quantities of oil. Our highway people believe in 'Stay Alert - Stay Alive'. It applies to food too. > I notified our food inspection people, and they were able to > confirm that the product contained about 2/3 cheap olive oil and > 1/3 other vegetable oil(s). Well done! :)  SignatureEnrico C > I've discovered an additional benefit to buying olive oil only in > glass bottles and keeping it in the frig: you can spot > adulterated oil without opening it. Good olive oil starts turning > cloudy within a day of being put in the frig, I read that good olive oil is cloudy at room temperature. They are rare and usually quite expensive but worth the price IMO. SignatureDawid Michalczyk http://www.art.eonworks.com - Art and Illustration >> I've discovered an additional benefit to buying olive oil only in >> glass bottles and keeping it in the frig: you can spot [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >-- >Dawid Michalczyk We use olive oil almost exclusively and I don't know of any of the effects mentioned. Good olive oil at room temperature should not be cloudy but have a "golden" color. If cold pressed olive oil is frozen small particle from the olives that are held in suspension will drop out forming sediment at the bottom of the bottle. This has no effect on the taste. Olive oil left for months at around 5° C should not turn cloudy at all. There is no reason it should. JL >>> I've discovered an additional benefit to buying olive oil only in >>> glass bottles and keeping it in the frig: you can spot [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mentioned. Good olive oil at room temperature should not be cloudy but have > a "golden" color. A good olive oil can be greenish, with golden shimmer, as well. It depends on the variety. > If cold pressed olive oil is frozen small particle > from the olives that are held in suspension will drop out > forming sediment at the bottom of the bottle. If there is sediment, that means it wasn't filtreted. Both filtrated and non-filtrated olive oils can be cold-pressed, AFAIK. > This has no effect on the > taste. Olive oil left for months at around 5° C should not turn cloudy at > all. There is no reason it should. > JL This is why I say to use coconut oil or butter. It takes longer to go rancid and you can taste the rancidity easily. It's difficult to do this with olive oil. You are playing with fire by consuming this stuff instead of butter or coconut oil. Hi Monty , This is quite contrary to modern research . I think you are going back . If butter is good why not Lard ? Kam I guess you haven't read my older posts. I've been posting here for over 3 years about my research. You can do a search for montygram and see. Bascically, you are asking the right question, but it's quite complex. Lard will vary in saturated fatty acid content, depending upon what you feed the animal. In the USA, the SFA content is about 39%, but the biggest problem is that there aren't any antioxidants in it. If you go to pubmed.com and search for lard spices rancimat, you should see some studies that make this point. If you did the same experiments with fresh coconut oil, it would not work, because coconut oil is so saturated that it takes a very long time to go rancid. Free radical damage is the underlying mechanism for "chronic disease" - that is clear from the scientific evidence. The oxidative stress from fatty acids causes the most damage. It is the unsaturated fatty acids in the lard that are the problem, along with the lack of antioxidants, exposure to air during processing, the time it takes to get from the slaugherhouse to your mouth, etc., but not the saturated fatty acids. When "experts" say that "saturated fat is bad," what they mean is that beef and pork is not as healthy as chicken and fish. I agree, but again, it's not the saturuated fatty acids. Beef and pork have a little bit more saturated fatty acid content, but it's the higher iron, cholesterol, arachidonic acid, and stearic acid in beef and pork that are the problem, along with the unsaturated fatty acids and the fact that most people cook at high temperatures while exposed to air. And consider this, the people with the lowest rates of "chronic disease" are the ones stuffing themselves with coconut oil. But it's not the saturated fatty acids. Print this out, and keep it as a reference for when you read the studies that say "saturated fat is bad" so that you will understand the word games they are playing. If you don't understand something that I wrote above, feel free to ask questions. > I guess you haven't read my older posts. I've been posting here for > over 3 years about my research. You can do a search for montygram and > see. Well, I for one would like to know if you are a naturopath or not? If not, what kind of a doctor are you? Also, what school of higher learning are you associated with? You once mentioned that you teach students. Students of what do you teach? I'd prefer to let the evidence speak for itself. When Peter Duesberg, one of the top virologists in the world and a member of the Academy of Science, spoke out against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, he was attacked in every way imaginable, as was Nobel Prize winning biochemist Kary Mullis (they said his surfing was problematic, for example). If these guys are going to be attacked simply for asking for evidence to support claims that lead to people taking highly toxic medication that they may not need, and in fact might kill them, why should anyone want to "go public?" That is why I am using this forum. I do hold a Ph.D. from a major U.S. university. The most important thing is to get people thinking for themselves, and I'm trying to show you all that there is an underlying mechanism involved in "chronic disease" that is directly tied to real, basic science. Proton and electron type stuff, not surrogate marker multivariate correlation coefficient type stuff. Always ask for the raw data, and if you can get it (once I was told that I could not see the blank survey forms used in one study due to "confidentiality" even though it was BLANK and I could never know who was in the study!), start asking yourself what the basic science to it is. Understanding and knowledge are two very diffferent things. You don't need to be a walking encyclopedia to have a tremendous amount of understanding, and in fact what is contained in books is often very wrong. Try to read the following: start with Bruce Fife's good, basic, "Saturated fat may save your life," then go on to Peter Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus," and then go on to Gilbert Ling's "Life at the cell and below-cell level." "The Modern Nutritional Diseases" by Ottoboni and Ottoboni is okay as well. "The Cookbooks Decoder" by Grosser is also good and very basic (though as usual, some of it is incorrect). You can read biochemist Ray Peat's work on the internet. Just do a google search for Ray Peat Newsletter. Some of his writing is complicated and some is much more accessible. However, as I said, if you do a search in this newsgroup for montygram, you will see how I have tried to explain things very simply. Sometimes I do a better job than other times, but if you read a lot of them, I think things will begin to make sense. > I'd prefer to let the evidence speak for itself. When Peter Duesberg, > one of the top virologists in the world and a member of the Academy of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > public?" That is why I am using this forum. I do hold a Ph.D. from a > major U.S. university. It isn't a Ph.D. in life science or chemistry though, since you neither are a chemist, a nutritionist a biochemist nor a doctor. In so far your Ph.D., if you should actually have one, is completely irrelevant on this forum/ in these discussions. > I do hold a Ph.D. from a > major U.S. university. Yeah, right, sure ... Sorry, but I do NOT believe you. Kooks are a dime a dozen. There are plenty of academics on these ngs who have disclosed who they are or at least what they have a degree in, and even the university that they are associated with. And, some post with a disclaimer at the bottom of each post. You have NOT, ego you have a reason not to. Parnoidia of persecution is a sure fire tip off for a Quack, per Quackwatch. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. Thank you both for demonstrating exactly why I prefer to remain anonymous and unaffiliated. > Thank you both for demonstrating exactly why I prefer to remain > anonymous and unaffiliated. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! No problem'o, Quack. There are dozens and dozens of true academics posting on these ngs with absolutely no problems. But, only you will be persecuted because somebody might actually discover that you are a fraud. I rather doubt that you have ever written a book, let alone conduct research. SBH is a published research MD. Steve posts on these ngs. What is your problem? Oh! I know you have a mail order degree in Natural Hygiene. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. :) Does that mean he has spent all his time writing articles and hasn't researched many? That isn't necessarily impressive for most of us. What he posts, sometimes is very impressive, when he isn't being an a.shole about things he knows nothing about. . > SBH is a published research MD. Steve posts on these ngs. >> SBH is a published research MD. Steve posts on these ngs. > > Does that mean he has spent all his time writing articles and hasn't > researched many? That isn't necessarily impressive for most of > us. A good measure is the number of citations in peer reviewed articles written by others. Obviously one can't be cited without writing anything :-) I'd say one can't typically be considered "researcher" before getting at least few hundreds of citations. It's possible to have advanced understanding of a field of science without publishing anything. But scientific research involves more and the citation rate is a good measure. Even unappreciated geniuses like "Montygram" says he is would have a backbone of publications with more than mediocre citation rates. DZ > Even unappreciated geniuses like "Montygram" says > he is would have a backbone of publications with more than mediocre > citation rates. Montygram an unappreciated geniuse? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! The dude is too gutless even to identity what academic field he is in. Now, that is pretty pathetic! He probably bought a mail order natural hygiene degree. Another post of his commented on natural hygiene. Quacks have a pathological need to point out that they have a degree. He keeps on bringing up the subject even though it is totally besides the point. Yep, I have no doubt whatsoever that he is a fake. Just my opinion, but I am always right. :) > I do hold a Ph.D. from a > major U.S. university. Yeah, right, sure ... Sorry, but I do NOT believe you. Kooks are a dime a dozen. There are plenty of academics on these ngs who have disclosed who they are or at least what they have a degree in, and even the university that they are associated with. And, some post with a disclaimer at the bottom of each post. You have NOT, ego you have a reason not to. Parnoidia of persecution is a sure fire tip off for a Quack, per Quackwatch. Just my opinion, but I am right as usual. > I'd prefer to let the evidence speak for itself. Yeah, right, sure. Taking a closer look at this post of yours, I find that it is total hot air, or B/S. And, I do NOT mind saying so either. > I'm trying to show you all that there is > an underlying mechanism involved in "chronic disease" that is directly > tied to real, basic science. I was once attacked on smn for using the term "chronic disease" recklessly as you have above. Your use of "chronic disease" highlights your lack of knowledge of this subject. > Always ask for the raw data, and if you can get it ... Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I was once told by another air head, like yourself, to always email the study author for more information. Personally, I think that only an idiot would do what you have just suggested. But, what you should have said (but did NOT) was that you should always take a close look at the tables and figures provided in the study. These will always summarize the study data. This will allow you to eyeball the data, or to even plug the study data into your own Excel spreadsheet template. The authors will generally, also, make interesting comments in the footnotes found on these graphic tables. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Sometimes I do a better job > than other times, but if you read a lot of them, I think things will > begin to make sense. You really sucked on this post. And, things do make a lot more sense once you have considered their source. You have my condolences. > if you do a search in this newsgroup for montygram, you will see how > I have tried to explain things very simply. Sometimes I do a better > job than other times, but if you read a lot of them, I think things > will begin to make sense. You don't respond to criticism, therefore your posts are just unsubstantiated opinions. You can claim that earth is flat or that humans can introduce double bonds before carbon 9 in fatty acids. The former would indicate lack of common sense rather than you being a 21 century Pythagoras. The later would indicate you need to crack open a Biochemistry 101 textbook. > > if you do a search in this newsgroup for montygram, you will see how > > I have tried to explain things very simply. > You don't respond to criticism, therefore your posts are just > unsubstantiated opinions. I agree with you completely. Montygram does not respond to criticisms. I am not the only person to have knocked Montygram's credentials, over the years. See: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/bd87b711d034073f?hl=en& Also: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/msg/ed16951236e4924d?hl=en& We all have raised valid criticisms of Montygram. :) Montygram's kooky positions on health are as follows. All "chronic diseases" are cause by the consumption of PUFAs. To prevent these "chronic diseases" all you have to do is meticulously avoid all consumption of PUFAs, and that includes Omega-3 EFAs. He claims that you can live a very long healthy life without any Omega-3 EFA in their diet whatsoever. Therefore, neither the Omega-3 EFAs nor anyother PUFAs offer any health benefits for the mature adult. PUFAs are quite dangerous to your health, according to Montygram. Montygram calls the notion that "monounsaturated fats are good," total nonsense. And, that all the studies that document that olive oil offers health benefits are therefore totally wrong. The solution according to him is coconut oil. Of course, Montygram believes that coconut oil is bad for you too because it contains a tiny amount of PUFAs. Therefore, you have to be very cautious about which coconut oil you are consuming. Furthermore, Montygram says that medical scientism is wrong. And, nobody needs to know more about anything than the basic science of "free radical damage" or "lipid oxidation." Thus he claims to believe in the scientific method, when in reality Mongtygram only believes in textbook basic science NOT medical scientism or the scientific method that is applied to health research. Have I got your Quackery correct, Montygram? This post has been a must read about Montygram's Quackery. > I do hold a Ph.D. from a major U.S. university. What field; what school? > I've been posting here for over 3 years about my research. > The problem you should consider is the one I encountered after several > years on a diet of whole grains, nuts, seeds, and beans, with small > amounts of fruits and vegetables. > I am still taking stomach acid and pepsin supplements, ... Could repeat the details of your "several years research" with high-protein diets, as above, and how and why that destroyed your digestive system to the point of being currently addicted to "digestive aids"? Why did it take so long for you to discover that high-protein diets are destructive to health? Laurie > > I do hold a Ph.D. from a major U.S. university. > What field; what school? > Could repeat the details of your "several years research" with > high-protein diets, as above, and how and why that destroyed your digestive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Laurie A diet high in protien damage the kidneys . Kam On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:52:38 +0000 (UTC), Kamalakar Pasupuleti wrote in <news:6ebdc5cf3c412c094908963e5c39f8cc.67313@mygate.mailgate.org> on sci.med.nutrition : > A diet high in protien damage the kidneys . How high? > > A diet high in protien damage the kidneys . > > How high? Over 60 percent of animal protien everyday on a regular basis will be putting sufficient load on the kidneys . The damage will be slow / fast depending on age and other related health factors . I have no idea how far it is true but the doctors in India do recommend a vegeterian diet for people with CAD and hypertension . Kam > > A diet high in protien damage the kidneys . > > How high? Over 60 percent of animal protien everyday on a regular basis will be putting sufficient load on the kidneys . The damage will be slow / fast depending on age and other related health factors . I have no idea how far it is true but the doctors in India do recommend a vegeterian diet for people with CAD and hypertension . Kam On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:33:40 +0000 (UTC), Kamalakar Pasupuleti wrote in <news:66e9cd45ad45c65db5afbdb944db8849.67313@mygate.mailgate.org> on sci.med.nutrition : >>> A diet high in protien damage the kidneys . >> >> How high? > > Over 60 percent of animal protien everyday on a regular basis Well, that's quite a lot! :) > will be putting sufficient load on the kidneys . The damage will > be slow / fast depending on age and other related health factors . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kam > A diet high in protien damage the kidneys . Two questions: 1) How much is "high"? 2) Could you point me to studies showing that "high" protein diets damage the kidneys? In article <6ebdc5cf3c412c094908963e5c39f8cc.67313@mygate.mailgate.org>, > > > I do hold a Ph.D. from a major U.S. university. > > What field; what school? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Kam Bullsh**. SignatureOm. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson OmManiPadmeOmelet, Please remind me NEVER to reply to "Kamalakar Pasupuleti" again. Kamalakar is a rude ungrateful twit, who is a few beers short of a six pack. :( Ah! Thats it. Kamalakar kind of reminds me of OmManiDogOmeletFace. Ha, Hah, Ha! > OmManiPadmeOmelet, Please remind me NEVER to reply to "Kamalakar > Pasupuleti" again. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ha, Hah, Ha! What went wrong ? Kam > I read that good olive oil is cloudy at room temperature. They are rare > and usually quite expensive but worth the price IMO. How about using olive oil instead of extra virgin , it is much cheaper and can withstand higher cooking temperatures . Kam On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:40:26 +0000 (UTC), Kamalakar Pasupuleti wrote in <news:05095356a5da57c17442707511b9243f.67313@mygate.mailgate.org> on sci.med.nutrition : >> I read that good olive oil is cloudy at room temperature. They are rare >> and usually quite expensive but worth the price IMO. > > How about using olive oil instead of extra virgin , it is much > cheaper and can withstand higher cooking temperatures . Well, extra virgin is the "real thing", just unrefined olive fruit squash, it tastes better when you use it uncooked, which is the best way to use oils imho, and according to this study it has a greater amount of "good" polyphenols ... "Extra virgin olive oil was found to have the greatest amount (48 mg/gram of oil) of polyphenols, when compared with other olive or vegetable oils. " http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN/Vol5/Num2/52p105.htm Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) 5: 105-107 Phenolic content of olive oil is reduced in extraction and refining Analysis of phenolic content of three grades of olive and ten seed oils Colquhoun DM1 MBBS FRACP, Hicks BJ1 RN BHMS, Reed AW2 Mphil(Sc) 1. The Wesley and Greenscopes Hospitals, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 2. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Three grades of olive oil and ten vegetable cooking oils were analysed for their phenolic content. It was hypothesised that as olive oil passed through the chemical extraction process, polyphenols would also be removed, thus reducing the antioxidant properties of olive oil. Other commonly used edible vegetable oils were analysed for comparative reasons. Extra virgin olive oil was found to have the greatest amount (48 mg/gram of oil) of polyphenols, when compared with other olive or vegetable oils. No polyphenols were detected in sunflower, walnut, peanut or almond oils. All other oils tested had a polyphenolic content between 2 and 10 mg/gram of oil. The results of the study confirms the above hypothesis that the phenolic content of olive oil is reduced by chemical extraction and refining. [...] "I'd prefer to let the evidence speak for itself." Unfortunately, montygram, you go far beyond that. In fact, if I were a PUFA, I'd sue you for slander and would have no problem winning. "I'd say one can't typically be considered "researcher" before getting at least few hundreds of citations." Depends on what field you are in. In experimental physics (my main field) 10 good citations can get you tenure. Even though I and my team managed half a dozen world firsts in a hot field, I doubt I reached a hundred before I retired. In biological sciences even the best workers can take decades to reach a hundred. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.