Ask Lemmy

26281 readers

1383 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

182

What are your weird food rules? (lemmy.world)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

279 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For example:

When you open a fresh jar of peanut butter do you only work through one side until it is completely empty then start on the other side?
Or when you get those shallow tubs of hummus does it have to make it back home undisturbed? Then one of the baggers at the grocery store shoves it sideways into the bag completely ruining the symmetry.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Well you can find quite a few scientific studies saying exactly what I've said. I agree that plant based oils are not all the same though.

Just one example:

3918 of those who cooked with vegetable/gingili oil had ASCVD, and 249 of those who cooked with lard/other animal fat oils had ASCVD. The prevalence of ASCVD in vegetable/gingili oil users (31.68%) was higher than that in lard/other animal fat oil users (17.46%). Compared with lard/other animal fat users, the multivariate-adjusted model indicated that vegetable oil/sesame oil users were significantly associated with a higher risk of ASCVD (OR = 2.19; 95%CI, 1.90-2.53). Our study found that cooking with lard/other animal fat oil is more beneficial to cardiovascular health in older Chinese.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36336120/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that link! It seems that the analysis is reviewing oil used for cooking, not for raw consumption. I think this makes sense since certain plant seed oils shouldn't be heated past a certain point at which they become unhealthy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, but that study is just bonkers. They use one type of oil (sesame) and sneak in the spurious generalization of "vegetable/sesame oil", as if it were representative. It is not.

Here you can see the range of unsaturated fat percentages in different plant oils: https://images.ctfassets.net/stnv4edzz8v3/25E1IVeShv9HOcse0Luc5p/dbe6b2165d4ca7f4a93e2f912f3bcdf6/Polyunsaturated_fats_in_plant_oils.png

Unfortunately, neither rapeseed nor sesame are in there, but you should see how much they differ. Stay away from sunflower seed oil, at least when cooking at home. Rapeseed or olive are good. Don't use more heat than necessary.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Where do you get the idea that they focus only on sesame oil?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, they don't say what they mean with "vegetable", but it's just put in the same group with gingili oil. I don't know if you're in science or otherwise familiar with statistics, but that's a problematic indication. They don't justify why they group them, how many of those replied with gingili etc., and they don't provide a separate analysis. Other major flaws with the study:

it's correlational, but makes a causal inference. That is basic stats, you can't do that, even if there are no other easy ways to make causal inferences on that topic.
the groups vary significantly on many factors, such as total size, smoking status, gender distribution, drinking status etc. They "adjust" for that, but that's not how "adjusting" works. You can't just adjust for characteristics of the person and then pretend it's all controlled for. There is a great paper on this problem, which is unfortunately quite common: doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.110.1.40

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I see your point, thanks for the insight! Did you base your reply on the abstract or the full article, because they do specify "vegetable" oil. Also, in their defence, they not only state that they only intended to show a correlation instead of a causal effect, and even add that:

we only found the relationship between the cooking oil type and cardiovascular health in the elderly over 65 years old in China, and could not explain the reason.