PDA

View Full Version : Grape Seed Oil



Artem_
07-14-09, 10:20 pm
What's your guys' opinion on this? I'm on keto and taking a tbsp of fish oil or olive oil with my meals for the fat source. Is this a good addition?

krazyassmexican
07-14-09, 11:05 pm
What's your guys' opinion on this? I'm on keto and taking a tbsp of fish oil or olive oil with my meals for the fat source. Is this a good addition?

not really, you better off going with cashews, almonds, natural pb, MAC NUT oil

stumblin54
07-15-09, 12:54 pm
What's your take on palm kernel or coconut oil?

Stumblin

GJN5002
07-15-09, 1:01 pm
What's your guys' opinion on this? I'm on keto and taking a tbsp of fish oil or olive oil with my meals for the fat source. Is this a good addition?

Grape seed oil is high in omega 6's which you want to limit because our diets are full of omega 6. Its also industrially processed carcinogenic solvents unlike olive/macademia nut oil.

GJN5002
07-15-09, 1:03 pm
What's your take on palm kernel or coconut oil?

Stumblin


The Latest Studies on Coconut Oil
By Mary G. Enig, PhD

One of the very useful oils in the food supply comes from the coconut. Coconut oil has suffered from unjust criticism for more than 30 years in the United States because some of the governmental and food oil organizations, as well as consumer activist organizations such as Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), have claimed that coconut oil as a "saturated fat" is shown to be atherogenic. This is not true.

There is a variety of supportive research published in 2003, 2004, and 2005, which shows the importance of coconut oil. Also, information on coconut oil is currently coming into the research literature from numerous countries, including India, Norway, Iran and the United States.

The following are some of the most recent studies showing the benefits of coconut oil. These studies contradict claims that coconut oil contributes to heart disease and also support earlier research showing an antimicrobial role for the fatty acids in this traditional fat.

BENEFICIAL FOR HEART DISEASE
Recent research contradicts claims that coconut oil causes atherosclerosis and heart disease. In a study published in Clinical Biochemistry, 2004,1 researchers looked at coconut oil as a component of diet in laboratory animals (Sprague-Dawley rats). In this study, virgin coconut oil, which was obtained by wet process, had a beneficial effect in lowering total cholesterol, triglycerides, phospholipids and low density lipoproteins (LDL). The effects were uniformly beneficial. In serum and tissues, very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol levels were lowered and HDL-cholesterol was increased. The polyphenol fraction of virgin coconut oil was also found to prevent in vitro LDL-oxidation. We know that oxidized cholesterol can initiate the process of atherosclerosis—the fatty acids in coconut oil prevent this oxidation. The results in this study were interpreted as due to the biologically active polyphenol components present in the oil.

LOWERS LP(A)
Another study dealing with lipoproteins and cholesterol was carried out in women. Researchers found that coconut oil-based diets lowered post-prandial tissue plasminogen activator and lipoprotein (a).2 Lp(a) is a blood marker that is a much more accurate indication of proneness to heart attack than cholesterol levels. Researchers had believed that levels of Lp(a) were unaffected by various forms of dietary fat intake. However, in this study, Lp(a) was lowered when the subjects consumed a high-saturated fat diet and somewhat lowered when they consumed a slightly lowered-saturated fat diet. The saturated fat used in both of these diets was coconut oil. The control diet was based on a monounsaturated oil.

POISON ANTIDOTE
One of the more interesting uses of coconut oil found in the human toxicology literature involves the beneficial use of coconut oil as a successful treatment for acute aluminium phosphide poisoning. This poison is used to control pests in grain storage facilities where it functions as a poisonous gas, namely phosphine gas, which is a mitochondrial poison. There is no known antidote for aluminium phosphide. The patient described in this case study survived following rapid treatment which included taking baking soda and coconut oil, as well as supportive care, and it was concluded that coconut oil had a significant use as an added part of the treatment protocol in this type of poisoning.3

ANTI-MICROBIAL
A few researchers have known for some time that a derivative of coconut oil, lauric acid and monolaurin, are safe antimicrobial agents that can either kill completely or stop the growth of some of the most dangerous viruses and bacteria. Many bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics but herbal oils such as the oils of oregano and the major fatty acid from coconut oil, lauric acid, which the body turns into the monoglyceride, monolaurin, are showing great promise as anti-bacterial and anti-viral agents. Monolaurin, in particular, is being shown to be useful in the prevention and treatment of severe bacterial infections, especially those that are difficult to treat or are antibiotic resistant. Difficult bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus as well as other bacteria have been studied here in the United States in research groups such as Dr. H.G. Preuss’s group at Georgetown University. They found that monolaurin combined with herbal essential oils inhibited pathogenic bacteria both in the petri dish (in vitro) and also in mice (in vivo).4

stumblin54
07-15-09, 3:07 pm
Nice GJN, I've been taking the stuff every day for a while now and love it. You takin' anything like it?

Stumblin

krazyassmexican
07-15-09, 3:13 pm
Nice GJN, I've been taking the stuff every day for a while now and love it. You takin' anything like it?

Stumblin

i agree on the coconut oil, it is the shit but i hate the fact that the fuckin oil is like an ointment (spellin)

and i hate the way it feels

Wasteland
07-15-09, 3:14 pm
Grape seed oil is high in omega 6's which you want to limit because our diets are full of omega 6. Its also industrially processed carcinogenic solvents unlike olive/macademia nut oil.

Don't dismiss it out of hand. Depending on the use/appliation, grapeseed oil can be very beneficial. Because it has a very high smoke point (over 400 F), it's a great oil to cook with. I do.

One '04 study looked at grape seed oil and found that it could raise HDL ("good cholesterol") and lower LDL ("bad cholesterol").

If you look hard enough, everything has pros and cons. Thus, you need to balance the pros and the cons. In other words, as always, you have to know what you need first (and why you need it), then determine what to use. You should rarely, however, dismiss things out of hand. All too often, people take away generalizations or grand pronouncements from posts/threads, like grape seed oil is bad, avoid at all costs. As with life, balance. Everything in moderation.

But getting back to the original post, I don't supplement with straight grape seed oil. I believe there are better fats for general dietary needs. I just cook with it.

GJN5002
07-15-09, 3:38 pm
Nice GJN, I've been taking the stuff every day for a while now and love it. You takin' anything like it?

Stumblin

yea I like coconut oil and macademia nut oil. I really dont like the tast of olive oil so I usually only use it to make homeade dressing. I tend over measure my peanut butter so if I use oil I will measure it out right and eat the right amount. Getting your fats in makes such a difference in the way you feel. So many bodily functions are depenant on having sufficient fat intake.

GJN5002
07-15-09, 3:40 pm
Don't dismiss it out of hand. Depending on the use/appliation, grapeseed oil can be very beneficial. Because it has a very high smoke point (over 400 F), it's a great oil to cook with. I do.

One '04 study looked at grape seed oil and found that it could raise HDL ("good cholesterol") and lower LDL ("bad cholesterol").

If you look hard enough, everything has pros and cons. Thus, you need to balance the pros and the cons. In other words, as always, you have to know what you need first (and why you need it), then determine what to use. You should rarely, however, dismiss things out of hand. All too often, people take away generalizations or grand pronouncements from posts/threads, like grape seed oil is bad, avoid at all costs. As with life, balance. Everything in moderation.

But getting back to the original post, I don't supplement with straight grape seed oil. I believe there are better fats for general dietary needs. I just cook with it.

I wouldnt say dont ever use it, with most peoples western diets, they are taking in a large amount of omega 6 and not enough omega 3 so if you were going to supplement with an oil, I'd suggest an omega 3 or a 7 like macademia nut oil. I like to try to eat organic as much as I can so I tend to avoid foods that have been processed or had harsh chemiclas used in processing. It is good for cooking though

Wasteland
07-15-09, 4:39 pm
I wouldnt say dont ever use it, with most peoples western diets, they are taking in a large amount of omega 6 and not enough omega 3 so if you were going to supplement with an oil, I'd suggest an omega 3 or a 7 like macademia nut oil. I like to try to eat organic as much as I can so I tend to avoid foods that have been processed or had harsh chemiclas used in processing. It is good for cooking though

You raise a good point about the intake of n-6 vs. n-3 fatty acids. I agree with you. Most diets could stand to benefit with increased n-3 FA to offset higher n-6 consumption.

stumblin54
07-16-09, 12:19 am
The higher omega 6 consumption can be countered by simply taking a few fish oil capsules per day. That way the ratio will be about a perfect 1:1.

Stumblin

Wasteland
07-16-09, 8:59 am
The higher omega 6 consumption can be countered by simply taking a few fish oil capsules per day. That way the ratio will be about a perfect 1:1.

Stumblin

I'm not sure if there is a "perfect" ratio stumblin54, but I do get some EFA from my Animal Omega.

stumblin54
07-16-09, 12:27 pm
Well the ratio for omega 6 to omega 3 consumption should be around 1:1, no? And if you're getting too many o-6 from foods such as tilapia, or in this case foods in the "western diet", the o-3's will be way too low so a fish oil capsule needs to complement these foods so the ratio is closer to that 1:1 omega 6 to omega 3.

Stumblin

Wasteland
07-16-09, 12:30 pm
Well the ratio for omega 6 to omega 3 consumption should be around 1:1, no? And if you're getting too many o-6 from foods such as tilapia, or in this case foods in the "western diet", the o-3's will be way too low so a fish oil capsule needs to complement these foods so the ratio is closer to that 1:1 omega 6 to omega 3.

Stumblin

I personally don't aim for 1:1. Where did you hear that this is the "perfect" ratio? Can you cite a reference at least? Some researchers postulate that a good ratio might be 2:1 or 3:1 n-6 to n-3, but in my opinion, the literature is not conclusive. Far from it. Science, unfortunately, is never that clear cut (though many try to believe it is).

I do agree that with the high n-6 intake in the typical American diet, we should strive to offset that with n-3 consumption.

krazyassmexican
07-16-09, 12:45 pm
Well the ratio for omega 6 to omega 3 consumption should be around 1:1, no? And if you're getting too many o-6 from foods such as tilapia, or in this case foods in the "western diet", the o-3's will be way too low so a fish oil capsule needs to complement these foods so the ratio is closer to that 1:1 omega 6 to omega 3.

Stumblin

i agree with you, that is basically what was call street smart fat intake (an article from a couple of years back)

Wasteland
07-16-09, 12:58 pm
i agree with you, that is basically what was call street smart fat intake (an article from a couple of years back)

In that article, how did the author(s) arrive at 1:1? Experience? Based on studies? Combination? And what is the takeaway?

Right or wrong, this is how "knowledge", whether accurate or not, becomes entrenched in our minds and what might have started as a Question becomes transformed into an Answer. Debate is removed from the equation. I find this trend troubling and the internet has only served to exacerbate and accelerate this problem: I read something. I'll post what I read on a forum. A few people read it. Now suddenly, we have arrived at the Truth, whether it was ever meant to be the truth or not.

To rely on and believe in what you've read (or been told for that matter), without critically interrogating the assumptions and perspectives of those who write (or tell), invites trouble. With the prominence of the internet, we have more information at our fingertips than at any time prior in history. This both liberates and enslaves.

The problem is, many people do not know what to do with all that information or how to use it properly, how to frame or contextualize it. This enslaves them. At best, it forces them to adopt simplistic answers to complicated questions. At worst, it can have damaging repercussions.

I'm not saying anything about that article specifically however, as I haven't read it. Nor am I saying that the 1:1 ratio is incorrect. But to have a useful discussion or debate, we have to bring reason to bear, along with evidence to substantiate our viewpoints. Can you find the article krazyassmexican? I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks.

GJN5002
07-16-09, 3:29 pm
I believe (from the research Ive done) that many of the sicknesses people have in modern society are due to a very high omega 6 intake and very small omega 3 intake. In the paleo days the intake was closer to 1:1 not some people are closer to 30:1. I always try to keep my omega 3's up and 6's down. I really dont even see a point to supping with omega 6's, they are in so many foods unlike omega 3's. As far as giving you an article that states sums this up neatly, I cant do that, its the culmination of a lot of reading and listening.

As far as the 1:1, the principle of balance has always seemed like a good idea.

Wasteland
07-16-09, 4:13 pm
I believe (from the research Ive done) that many of the sicknesses people have in modern society are due to a very high omega 6 intake and very small omega 3 intake. In the paleo days the intake was closer to 1:1 not some people are closer to 30:1. I always try to keep my omega 3's up and 6's down. I really dont even see a point to supping with omega 6's, they are in so many foods unlike omega 3's. As far as giving you an article that states sums this up neatly, I cant do that, its the culmination of a lot of reading and listening.

As far as the 1:1, the principle of balance has always seemed like a good idea.

I agree that many of the maladies that we suffer from today can traced back, in general, to our diets, and specifically with our intake of fats (such as n-6 and n-3), for instance. I also agree that, in general, the typical American diet is too high in n-6 and too low in n-3. Here are some concrete things, things for which you are free to dispute.

According to Dr. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and her colleagues from Ohio State, she speculates that early hunter-gathers had a n-6:n-3 ratio of 2:1 to 3:1. Her group also believes that, by comparison, today in North American, the ratio is between 15:1 to 17:1, and that the shift took place some time after 1913 when refined vegetable oils entered our diets. The gist of her argument is that, with our current intake of fats, these increases the likelihood for depression and inflammatory disease.

I point this study out for a few reasons. First, it at least substantiates some part of this discussion. Now we a common point of reference--what early man was getting (possibly 2:1 or 3:1) and what we are today probably getting (15:1 to 17:1). Now let's debate the merits of this point if you like. Where did you obtain your 1:1 and 30:1 numbers?

Second, though you can read her findings in a study, this does not make it the Truth. It's just one study that has come to a certain set of conclusions. All questions should remain on the table and we shouldn't take anything as the absolute truth.

Third and concomitantly, we should not take her conclusions and from that, determine there is an ideal or "perfect" ratio and believe that's the end of the story. You should not take this post or parts of this post and then start posting it elsewhere as that absolute truth. See what I mean? Nor should you spend an inordinate amount of time in the day calculating your intake, measuring fats out, and trying to achieve some perfect ratio. Let's say you can hit 1:1. Is it worth the time and effort? Is it really better than 2:1 or 3:1 or 1.5:1? As always, I believe science should function as a guide. From there, we experiment and apply our own set of experiences.

Now you can, if you like, provide an opposing perspective and argue that 1:1 is a better ratio. Ok, that's fine. Provide some substantiation and let's talk. As I said before, I'm personally not invested in promoting any specific ratio, be it 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1. For me, the jury is still out.

But talking about an issue by saying things like, "I heard" or "I read somewhere" (when what you heard or read may not, in fact, be based on anything factual) will lead to a discussion that is less productive, no?

GJN5002
07-16-09, 10:31 pm
I agree that many of the maladies that we suffer from today can traced back, in general, to our diets, and specifically with our intake of fats (such as n-6 and n-3), for instance. I also agree that, in general, the typical American diet is too high in n-6 and too low in n-3. Here are some concrete things, things for which you are free to dispute.

According to Dr. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and her colleagues from Ohio State, she speculates that early hunter-gathers had a n-6:n-3 ratio of 2:1 to 3:1. Her group also believes that, by comparison, today in North American, the ratio is between 15:1 to 17:1, and that the shift took place some time after 1913 when refined vegetable oils entered our diets. The gist of her argument is that, with our current intake of fats, these increases the likelihood for depression and inflammatory disease.

I point this study out for a few reasons. First, it at least substantiates some part of this discussion. Now we a common point of reference--what early man was getting (possibly 2:1 or 3:1) and what we are today probably getting (15:1 to 17:1). Now let's debate the merits of this point if you like. Where did you obtain your 1:1 and 30:1 numbers?

Second, though you can read her findings in a study, this does not make it the Truth. It's just one study that has come to a certain set of conclusions. All questions should remain on the table and we shouldn't take anything as the absolute truth.

Third and concomitantly, we should not take her conclusions and from that, determine there is an ideal or "perfect" ratio and believe that's the end of the story. You should not take this post or parts of this post and then start posting it elsewhere as that absolute truth. See what I mean? Nor should you spend an inordinate amount of time in the day calculating your intake, measuring fats out, and trying to achieve some perfect ratio. Let's say you can hit 1:1. Is it worth the time and effort? Is it really better than 2:1 or 3:1 or 1.5:1? As always, I believe science should function as a guide. From there, we experiment and apply our own set of experiences.

Now you can, if you like, provide an opposing perspective and argue that 1:1 is a better ratio. Ok, that's fine. Provide some substantiation and let's talk. As I said before, I'm personally not invested in promoting any specific ratio, be it 1:1 or 2:1 or 3:1. For me, the jury is still out.

But talking about an issue by saying things like, "I heard" or "I read somewhere" (when what you heard or read may not, in fact, be based on anything factual) will lead to a discussion that is less productive, no?

So we shouldnt reference vague things we read or heard, but we cant use a study as a concrete resource, only as a guide? So how then do we ever debate anything if there is so much uncertainty?

I generally dont throw up very specific facts without something to back it upm but who has time to find every study theyve ever read?

I know this has been a good conversation and no one is randomly throwing facts, that does happen often though, I wont argue that.

krazyassmexican
07-16-09, 10:56 pm
So we shouldnt reference vague things we read or heard, but we cant use a study as a concrete resource, only as a guide? So how then do we ever debate anything if there is so much uncertainty?

I generally dont throw up very specific facts without something to back it upm but who has time to find every study theyve ever read?

I know this has been a good conversation and no one is randomly throwing facts, that does happen often though, I wont argue that.


last time i heard a cience junky the man waived studies and weighted a whooping 130lbs and goes by the name of S.... B......

i rather quit reading studies and get my ass to the gym and to the kitchen

stumblin54
07-17-09, 12:39 am
So Wasteland, are you opposed then to using 1:1 as a guideline or goal for daily fat intake? Surely this is a better ratio than 15:1 or 17:1 yes? After all these facts, be them true or not (I'll take the blame for the downward spiral of this thread), isn't the gist of this argument that a more balanced ratio is key? If an ignorant person on this subject stumbled across this thread I believe they would walk away with a better understanding of having a more balanced omega fat ratio in their daily food intake, so for what we are going around in circles about here, I think the job has been done. A more evenly balanced omega ratio means better performance, because this is the ultimate underlying goal for everyone on here no matter what the specifics of it may be...

Stumblin

Wasteland
07-17-09, 9:03 am
So we shouldnt reference vague things we read or heard, but we cant use a study as a concrete resource, only as a guide? So how then do we ever debate anything if there is so much uncertainty?

I generally dont throw up very specific facts without something to back it upm but who has time to find every study theyve ever read?

I know this has been a good conversation and no one is randomly throwing facts, that does happen often though, I wont argue that.

gjn5002, of course you can, but for some, using what you "heard" is tantamount to rumor or gossip and not credible. If you read it, cite the source. I think too often people can become intellectually lazy on forums. This is often how bad information gets disseminated. A rumor becomes something you hear, which, when repeated enough becomes fact somewhere else. Suddenly, everyone is parroting the same thing, right or wrong. You know what I mean?

If you prefer to use what you read or heard in arguments, so be it. Use rhetorical flourishes and rely on persuasiveness. But be prepared when some people ask for clarification or substantiation, that's all. Be prepared to respond to those who choose to provide concrete information (whatever that might be). This is the nature of debate.

You debate issues precisely because there is uncertainty. But the point of any debate, it seems to me, is not necessarily to reach certainty, just a better understanding. The problem too often, I feel, is that people debate to reach an absolute, a final word, a complete and irrefutable answer. Sadly, such things rarely exist.

Wasteland
07-17-09, 9:10 am
last time i heard a cience junky the man waived studies and weighted a whooping 130lbs and goes by the name of S.... B......

i rather quit reading studies and get my ass to the gym and to the kitchen

This is precisely one of the problems I cited earlier. That the internet in general, and something like pubmed specifically, has made "scientists" of us all. Access to unfettered information is not necessarily a good thing. Knowledge can liberate and it can enslave. In both cases, this often happens without us even being aware it's happening. There's more information than we can handle and sadly, most do not know how to frame or use that information judiciously. That leads to the above phenomena you describe.

As with all things, there has to be a balance between experience (personal) and knowledge (that which lies outside your own frame of reference). Knowledge serves as a guide, but knowledge that is not put into practice (praxis) remains abstract, theoretical and ultimately sterile. Personal experience (subjectivity) not tempered by objectivity forces individuals to remain myopic and unmoored from the larger reality.

Wasteland
07-17-09, 9:14 am
So Wasteland, are you opposed then to using 1:1 as a guideline or goal for daily fat intake? Surely this is a better ratio than 15:1 or 17:1 yes? After all these facts, be them true or not (I'll take the blame for the downward spiral of this thread), isn't the gist of this argument that a more balanced ratio is key? If an ignorant person on this subject stumbled across this thread I believe they would walk away with a better understanding of having a more balanced omega fat ratio in their daily food intake, so for what we are going around in circles about here, I think the job has been done. A more evenly balanced omega ratio means better performance, because this is the ultimate underlying goal for everyone on here no matter what the specifics of it may be...

Stumblin

stumblin54, not not at all. I'm not opposed to 1:1. But I don't support it either. I think everyone here has missed my point, for which I take responsibility. Some have called me needlessly obtuse, lol. Anyway, I do agree with many of the points in this thread. I thought that was clear? More n-3s and fewer n-6s are needed in the typical Western diet.

GJN5002
07-17-09, 10:04 am
gjn5002, of course you can, but for some, using what you "heard" is tantamount to rumor or gossip and not credible. If you read it, cite the source. I think too often people can become intellectually lazy on forums. This is often how bad information gets disseminated. A rumor becomes something you hear, which, when repeated enough becomes fact somewhere else. Suddenly, everyone is parroting the same thing, right or wrong. You know what I mean?

If you prefer to use what you read or heard in arguments, so be it. Use rhetorical flourishes and rely on persuasiveness. But be prepared when some people ask for clarification or substantiation, that's all. Be prepared to respond to those who choose to provide concrete information (whatever that might be). This is the nature of debate.

You debate issues precisely because there is uncertainty. But the point of any debate, it seems to me, is not necessarily to reach certainty, just a better understanding. The problem too often, I feel, is that people debate to reach an absolute, a final word, a complete and irrefutable answer. Sadly, such things rarely exist.

I understand your postition and for the most part agree. There is definately a lot of random knowledge thrown about on forums with little to no evience ot back it up. I frequently am the kind of person to ask for a study or some evidence and expect people to do the same from me. As concrete as we think science is, it many times is not because as youve pointed out, studies arent absolute. There are variables, controls, error, and interpretation involved.

Atleast we can all agree more n-3 and less n-6 is good in the western diet.

Wasteland
07-17-09, 10:18 am
I understand your postition and for the most part agree. There is definately a lot of random knowledge thrown about on forums with little to no evience ot back it up. I frequently am the kind of person to ask for a study or some evidence and expect people to do the same from me. As concrete as we think science is, it many times is not because as youve pointed out, studies arent absolute. There are variables, controls, error, and interpretation involved.

Atleast we can all agree more n-3 and less n-6 is good in the western diet.

Exactly gjn5002, I'm glad you understand. The point of referencing a study is not to "win" an argument (e.g., I posted more studies than you, my studies are better than yours, so I win the argument). It is not to offer the last and definitive word on a question. To me, studies open the door to additional studies, to new pathways of thinking and understanding. No, I believe the point is to offer a common frame of reference so that we're all on the same page, discussion-wise. A good study or two can help shape and clarify a debate. Too often though, people use a study or studies as a blunt rhetorical instrument. Too often, debates on forums are about winning, not learning.