2

votes

smoke points vs oxidization, also questions about rice bran oil

Commented on November 21, 2014
Created November 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM

So I am currently going to cooking school and I have to right a research paper on a topic of my choice. It doesn't have to be properly sourced but I obviously want it to be as accurate as possible. I was thinking about doing a comparison of different oils and fats. At the school they are big proponets of rice bran oil, and generally think whole grain vegetrarian is the healthiest way to eat.

I do think that rice oil is probably better than other vegtable oils, but not as good as the more saturated fats. They like it at the school because of its high smoke point, and you can deep fry with it more times before it starts to break down than with canola. The rice oil they use is cold filtered. From my understanding the reason that certain vegtable oils have high smoke points is because of how much they are refined. In the case of things like "cold filtered" rice oil, is there still refining going on? Would the reason for being able to fry with rice oil more times than canola be related to the saturated fat content or is it refined more?

 

im also curious if anyone has done a comparison of how many times you can reuse a fat like ghee or tallow to fry compared to something like canola or rice bran oil. I would assume the tallow would last longer, but i know from experience that duck fat breaks down fairly quickly, however it is higher in pufa.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

2
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on November 18, 2014
at 11:36 AM

I did recently come across this:

"Monitoring of Quality and Stability Characteristics and Fatty Acid Compositions of Refined Olive and Seed Oils during Repeated Pan- and Deep-Frying Using GC, FT-NIRS, and Chemometrics"

 

Too bad they didn't include coconut, unrefined palm, lard and tallow in their study.  The obvious "No shit" results as expected:

 

"Refined olive oil, as frying oil, was found to be more stable than the refined seed oils. In fact, this oil has proven the greatest resistance to oxidative deterioration, and its trans-fatty acid contents and percentages of total polar compounds were found to be lower at 160 °C during deep-frying. Finally, chemometric analysis has demonstrated that the lowest deterioration of the quality of all refined oils occurred in the refined olive oil during deep-frying at 160 °C and the highest deterioration occurred in the refined sunflower oil during pan-frying at 180 °C."

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 18, 2014
at 01:55 PM

It is kind of an obvious result but still, it needs to be said. So many people say "don't cook with olive oil" and instead they use some other garbage oil, when in reality olive can withstand oxidation and chemical deterioration much, much better. Olive oil is great stuff, I  cannot say enough good things about it. Thanks for providing some good research raydawg.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on November 18, 2014
at 03:48 PM

So, I used to cook with "lite" olive oil, I'd hate to use the good EVOO for cooking, and when I rarely do, I mix it up with butter to raise the smoke point and keept the temp as low as I can.  There's a lot of fake OO out there, anyone know whether the "lite" stuff, the 2nd pressing is also faked?

I generally just cook in ghee these days or avocado oil.  I'd like to return to lite olive oil as it's less expensive than avocado, but only if I can be sure it's not fake.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 18, 2014
at 06:15 PM

Those reports about "fake" olive oil are mostly BS. It's a dirty underhanded tactic by the California olive oil industry claiming that other olive oils are "fake". The report was even funded by the California olive oil growers/suppliers. In reality, the olive oils that they are accusing of being fake are legit. They are claiming that the adulterated stuff (which according to them is all commercial olive oils form Italy) is cut with other seed oils, but their chemical tests actually show that the oils are chemically the same as olive oil, this alone should raise suspicion. The oils that they are badmouthing only failed the "taste test" which is a highly subjective test, in which an olive oil which is legit can fail the test simply because it was on the supermarket shelf  for too long, or was exposed to warm temperatures or too much light, therefore losing its extra-virgin flavor. Buy your olive oil and don't worry about adulteration.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 18, 2014
at 06:23 PM

The olive oil is not fake. That study about the olive oil being fake was a BS study put out by the California oil industry with the intent of smearing the foreign competition posed by Italian olive oils. The chemical tests actually show that the oils they accuse of being fake are perfectly legitimate. The whole thing was funded by California olive oil suppliers so it's nothing more than an underhanded scare tactic to make people buy their oils instead. Turns out the only test that the foreign olive oils failed were the "taste-test" which are highly subjective and can be easily influenced. A legit olive oil can still fail the taste test if it has been on the supermarket shelf too long or has been in a warm area or exposed to a lot of light. Ultimately the only taste test that matters is yours, if you like the taste, then use it. Keep using olive oil, it's not adulterated.

By the way, light olive oils were never under scrutiny in the first place. Those are legitimate as well.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on November 18, 2014
at 07:31 PM

w00t!  I'll go back to the cheaper lite OO for cooking.

2
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2014
at 03:49 PM

I'd like to point out that not all PUFAs are created equal. Paleos are quick to damn omega-6s as problematic, but they are in fact, less reactive than omega-3s! Let's just consider the EFAs, Linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid. The former is an omega-6 fat, the latter is an omega-3 fat. LA has 2 double bonds, ALA has 3 double bonds. It's the number of double bonds (and the number of methylenes between them) that determine their reactivity. ALA is significantly more reactive than LA… which is significantly more reactive the OA. Somebody might be able to find some numbers, but as a chemist, I would guess a factor of 100-10000 separating ALA/LA and LA/OA. 

So in order of decreasing reactivity: ALA >> LA > OA > Saturates

So why are omega-6 rich oils, good for frying? Because their smoke points are higher, which has more to do with the fatty acid length, not it's unsaturation. That's why coconut oil has a low smoke point, why butter has a low smoke point, etc…

Ok, that's the chemistry of it all… what about nutrition? We need a little omega-3, a little more omega-6, and plenty of MUFA and some saturated fat. The paleo ratio is 1:1 omega-3 to omega-6, but that's really too low, unless you're consuming tons of PUFA daily. The less PUFA you consume, the less omega-3 you need. Saturates as much as paleo folks want to love them don't produce better health outcomes (arguably, health markers are worsen.) Fried foods in particularly are nothing but fats and carbs… a bolus of starch and saturated fat is a good way to destroy your health. A MUFA/starch bomb would be better in terms of healthfulness. 

So… rice bran oil… high smoke point makes it good for cooking. Nutritionally, it's not great, but not bad. It's superior to lard/tallow/coconut oil for its smokepoint but inferior to them for its fat composition. It's on par with a number of other vegetable oils for smoke point, but somewhat better than other oils in terms of nutrition. A review of oils, their smoke points, composition and nutrition should make for an interesting paper, just don't get too hung up on paleo dogma. 

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 19, 2014
at 02:23 PM

It's not a bam! it's bad for you now transition when you hit the smoke point. As I noted below, even room temperature oil is oxidizing at a certain rate, increasin the temperature only increases the rate of oxidation. At the smoke point, you're getting combustion products forming which are a whole other ball game reallly. Burning any food is a bad idea chemically, you make all sorts of nasties. 

Medium avatar

(10601)

on November 17, 2014
at 10:51 PM

For me, one thing that could favor rice oil is avoiding purification. I use refined olive oil because the non-oil conponents that cause it to smoke have been removed. Unrefined EVOO is completely unsuitable for hot frying.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 11:03 PM

Nothing wrong with refined olive oil for cooking. It's also good for home made mayo.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 04:06 PM

I absolutely agree with you on this. And I second the notion that OA is probably better than SF for a number of health outcomes. It seems like the paleo community only talks about PUFA and SFA as if MUFAs didn't exist. Some people in the people community seem to think you are either eating PUFA or SFA, thus creating a false dichotomy by ignoring MUFAs. I laugh when I hear people say that animal fats are healthy because they don't have PUFAs but olive oil is unhealthy because it has too many PUFAs. Olive oil only has 10% PUFA by weight while chicken fat has 21% PUFA by weight, pork fat has 11% PUFA by weight, and duck fat has 13% PUFA by weight. Olive oil literally has less PUFAs than all of these animal fats! Honestly, it just feels like there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding fats in the paleo community.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2014
at 05:09 PM

I feel MUFAs have been wrongly ignored by the paleo academic community. So much data out there supporting the benefit of a high MUFA diet, we have got to give credit to such research. 

There are other misconceptions that won't die. Pastured beef is a good source of omega-3s, for example. Beef is a low in PUFA, pastured or not. Keeping beef off pasture removes the small fraction of omega-3 they might have. *puts on my farmer hat now* Goes back to the issues with grain-feeding too. It's the exclusion of pasture that causes imbalanced fat ratios in beef, not the inclusion of grain. If you feed some grain and pasture, the fat is largely balanced and healthy. 

34a31e6e59ee73ac7ddfd96c3e653919

(232)

on November 18, 2014
at 02:07 AM

OK so after reading these responses I have a few more questions. What exactly is it that determines the smoke point of an oil? Is it just the level of refinement and length of fatty acid as you were saying? Or is there something else that I am missing? Are o-6s longer or shorter than the saturates found in butter? Wouldn't the reason for butter having a low smoke point be that the milk solids burn? Or are you saying clarified butter has a lower smoke point than some veg oils?

Also when you are talking about high o-6 oils being good for frying are you talking in terms of health or just taste and reusability? From my understanding oils reaching their smoke point causes oxidization. Along with that simply sitting at room temp for periods of time can cause oxidization aswell. Because of this you could assume that rice oil would be more oxidized to begin with than the more saturated lard. So if lard has a lower smoke point, but higher saturation than rice oil would the lard end up with less oxidization even if it smoked since the rice oil would be more oxidized to begin with? Am I looking into the oxidization side of things too heavily?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 05:51 PM

I couldn't agree more with you on the MUFA issue. There are several decent studies out there showing that MUFAs are very beneficial. I wish the Paleo community would stop sweeping them under the rug in favor of the more "faddish" coconut oil or mcts.

As for the beef issue, I also agree with you there. I have always found it puzzling that people go to beef for their omega-3, when beef is extremely low in PUFA. It always seemed like common sense to me that if omega-3's were desired, fish is a much better source by at least an order of magnitude. There's a million reasons to eat beef, but the omega-3's are a joke....a salmon fillet beats an entire week's worth of steak. Beef should be eaten because it's downright delicious and rich in iron, zinc, b12, etc. Also, in my view, there's nothing wrong with grain feed for cattle, I feel a lot of this "grains make cattle sick and toxic" is a fear tactic, a modest amount of grain supplementation does not harm cattle.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 18, 2014
at 03:01 AM

Two things cause a low smoke point in oil:

1) Impurities found in unrefined oils. These are small molecules, generally easily burned. A olive oil with a deep green color will smoke because of the presense of the colored compounds. Red palm oil is full of stuff (it's crazy red) that will burn if you heat it to even moderate temperatures. 

2) Small molecules burn more easily than long molecules. Fats are measured by the number of carbons in the chain. Butter for example has lots of shorter chain fatty acids (< 12 carbons), these burn easily. Palmitic (16C) and Stearic (18C) fats have much lower tendency to burn. Oleic acid (MUFA) is a 18C fat, so it's stable to heat. PUFAs, LA and ALA, are 18C fatty acids, so they have relatively high smoke points as well. 

Smoke point is not the same as oxidation (i.e. going rancid) either. Heating an oil to its smoke point does not necessarily mean you've oxidized it. Butter, tallow, lard have lower PUFAs than vegetable oils… but despite this, they also have lower smoke points. Any time you heat an oil, you increase the rate of oxidation (we chemists approximate each 10C increase as doubling the rate), high temperatures will always result in higher rates of oxidation, it's just a matter of the chemical structure of the fat. Jake seems quite concerned about OXLAMs, though I don't think I've read enough about them (anything really!) to comment. 

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on November 18, 2014
at 11:33 AM

I don't know about you, but I don't cook with fish oil. :)  The results would be disasterous.  However, n6 laden "vegetable" oils are sold for the purpose of frying.  So of course paleos are quick to damn n6's as problematic but ignore n3's.  Oxidized n3s are pretty unhealthy to consume, obviously, so much so that we hate the stench of old fish - it's something that's been culturally and insinctually been adpoted by humans to save us from bad n3s and disease.  The rest is spot on.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 18, 2014
at 12:50 PM

Raydawg, Scandanavians eat some pretty vile seafood, I would not expect those n3s to be all that pristine! 

34a31e6e59ee73ac7ddfd96c3e653919

(232)

on November 19, 2014
at 04:26 AM

What exactly would you say the health effects of an oil reaching smoke point are? I've read that it can produce carcinogens that are also found in ciggarette smoke. Does an oil passing its smoke point chemically alter the oil in a way other than the oxidization caused by heat? 

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on November 21, 2014
at 12:04 PM

"Raydawg, Scandanavians eat some pretty vile seafood, I would not expect those n3s to be all that pristine! "

 

Yeah, and Americans eat a lot of processed foods, therefore the SAD, and supposedly Asians eat tons of soy (not true until recent times), etc.  Doesn't mean it makes any of those things healthy, or health promoting.

1
00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on November 17, 2014
at 09:45 AM

Even organic, cold-pressed, seed, grain, and legume oils are naturally high in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. Our bodies need some of this; every cell membrane has some of it. But estimates for a healthy intake range from 4g—15g/day, and we must keep it in a proper ratio with anti-inflammatory omega-3 fats.Rice bran oil is about 25% O-6 fats, which seems high, especially if you're gobbling it in the amounts your instructors tell you to. When linoleic acid (LA; the major O-6 fatty acids in plants) is exposed to heat—as it inevitably is during food processing or cooking—harmful compounds called OXLAMs (Oxidized Linoleic Acid Metabolites) are formed. OXLAMs contribute to a process of cellular damage called “oxidative stress,” and are associated with a variety of infammatory diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to fibromyalgia to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). OXLAMs are a major component of atherosclerotic plaques and play a central role in the development of heart disease.

Try arguing that lard's a great fat for cooking!  Its smoke point is 410F, which is all you need for most deep frying, and I re-use it 6 times before replacing it.  I've got more details in my blog post "Why I cook with lard." 

If they give you an "F" for your temerity, ask these so-called vegetarians (most of whom eat meat) how they deal with the OXLAMs formed by heating the rice bran oil. Then ask them how they're getting their vit. A, D, E, and K, and how they expect to get it to its destination without adequate fat as a solubilizing carrier.  Then ask them how they're getting their stearic, palmitic, and myristic fatty acids, since plants don't have them in any appreciable amounts (see this chart). 

Then ask them how they prevent calcium from building up in their arteries, since they need vit. K (a fat-soluble vitamin)  to mobilize it and guide it to the bones.  And since I'm on the topic of bones, ask them how they're getting the gelatin, chondroitin sulfate, and glycosaminoglycans needed for basic bone structure, since you can get those only from long-simmered animal bone broth with the feet in the mix.

After you get expelled, you can start your own damn culinary institute.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 19, 2014
at 10:31 PM

"PUFA consumption is too low (if you are beef and coconut-crazy). Eat lots of olive oil, fish and pork, folks!"

A million times this.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 19, 2014
at 02:40 PM

Jake… talking DHA/EPA from ALA… we need minute amounts of DHA/EPA (pregnant women, lactating women need more, but also produce more). DHA/EPA are scant in nature because they are so reactive. A few grams of ALA a day probably meets the average persons needs. 

Cartoene to vitamin A is similar. The more retinol you eat, the lower your conversion of carotenes. The more carotenes you eat, the lower the conversion. Retinol is toxic in high doses, it makes perfect sense that conversion would be low and concentration in nature would be low. 

I agree, just because our bodies can synthesize something doesn't mean it cannot also be consumed. The obcession over collagen is odd though because in a protein-sufficient diet, you will not be proline/glycine deficient (being prevalent in nearly all foods). 

I disagree with paleo dogma on omega-6s though. The omeag-3 to 6 ratio is too low in paleo circles. PUFA consumption is too low (if you are beef and coconut-crazy). Eat lots of olive oil, fish and pork, folks! (Wish I had a pig in the freezer instead of a cow!) 

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2014
at 04:16 PM

A plant-centered diet can have plenty of health fat… plenty of healthy fat-solubles as well. Collagen, saturated fat, and GAGs are non-essential as well… we have the biochemical machinery to synthesize all of them. Omega-6s are reactive, but less so than omega-3s. Healthy ratios of omega-6:3 are wide and varied as well. 

00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on November 17, 2014
at 05:00 PM

@Matt_11, a plant-centered diet is inefficient.  In general, humans are terrible converters of plant nutrients to their bioavailable forms.   For example, humans convert about 2% of the alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, and alpha-cryptoxanthan in carrots into retinol, the bio-available forIm of vit. A.  Similarly, humans convert 5%, at best, of the short-chain omega-3 fatty acids found in plants to the long-chain EPA and DHA that bodies need. If you can provide the academic citations to illustrate the conversion ratios for the raw materials required for fatty acid synthesis of palmitic, stearic, and myristic fatty acids, do so.

Second, your use of the term non-essential is deliberately misleading. In biology, essential doesn't mean unnecessary; it means the body can't make it.  A required substance can be vital for the body but not essential.  Collagen and GAGs are VITAL for creating bone structure; the bones require collagen make the latticework structure of the bone.  Without sufficient collagen (and its cofactors), bones can be dense, but they'll be brittle.

Stop using the strawman argument about fatty acid reactivity. I never said that O-6 fats are more reactive than O-3 fats, and it's not germane to the OP's instructors' assertions. What *is* relevant is the amount of O-6 fats that they're promoting eating by encouraging the liberal use of rice bran oil as a cooking fat.  And you didn't adress the issue of OXLAMs.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 05:29 PM

@jake3_14 Wait, are you suggesting that plant foods don't have palmitic, stearic and myristic acid? That flat out wrong. 

- Cocoa butter (found in chocolate) has 33% stearic acid and 25% palmitic acid by weight.

- Coconut oil has 16.8% myristic acid by weight.

- Palm kernel oil has 16.4% myristic acid by weight.

- Olive oil has 11.2% palmitic acid by weight.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 17, 2014
at 06:35 PM

When I refer to plant-centered, I do not mean plant-only. Though, by and large, a plant-centered diet is entirely sufficent nutritionally. A small portion of animal product and you have an optimized diet.

1) As for Vitamin A and EPA/DHA conversions… you have realise that needs for these nutrients are indeed quite low. Low conversion is not a sign of something broken, it's simply a sign that we should consume larger quantities of precursors such as carotenes and ALA. The fact that rates vary by sex and state of pregnancy/lactation is particularly telling.

2) I used the term non-essential to describe dietary essentiality. GAGs are carbohydrates, we make carbohydrates (though we should consume them as well). Collagen largely is glycine and proline… both amino acids we can synthesize in our bodies. We don't need to eat collagen to have good collegen in our bodies. We need generic protein and vitamin C. 

3) Omega-6 PUFAs are commonly damned because they're so reactive. Well, yes, they are, relative to OA and saturates, but less reactive than omega-3 PUFAs. By that logic, we should minimize our EPA/DHA intake as well to just our needs as these are even more unstable than ALA. I did not address OXLAMs as I'm rather unfamiliar with them. Doesn't seem to be a lot of info out in there either. 

00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on November 17, 2014
at 07:43 PM

@TheGastronomer, how much cocoa butter do you eat each day?  How much coconut oil?  How much palm kernel oil?  I'm serious about this: do you eat a significant amount to get these important fatty acids?  The fact is that you have to think a lot more about where to get these vital FAs if you don't eat an animal-centered diet.

Also, I never disputed that the fact that palmitic acid was easily available in olive oil.  In fact, I specifically omitted mentioning palmitic acid because of this.

00cd3b6f51530a6832fcda1712edbec3

(2411)

on November 17, 2014
at 07:40 PM

@Matt_11, our need for any nutrient is rather unknown, given the sketchy science behind th US RDA values.  For the sake of argument, suppose that we actually need 700 RAE (women) or 900 RAE (men) for vit. A daily.  *Of course* it's possible to eat enough carotenoids from plants to get this, but why would anyone want to forage for pounds of carrots or crucifers when you could eat a couple of eggs, and ounce of liver (disguised in meatloaf), an 1/4 t. of fermented cod liver oil. And I'd like to hear how much plant-based O-3 you think we need to eat every day to get the amount of long-chain O-3 we need (which no one actually knows, either, although the VITAL study will start producing papers in 2017).

Regarding essentiality, the fact that our bodies *can* synthesize something doesn't mean it's *optimal* for it to do so.  In fact, when pre-formed nutrients are available, it's a bad idea to waste energy doing internal biochemisty to provide basic nutrition.  Animal collagen is much higher in proline and glycine than vegetarian sources, so again, it's an inefficient source of those AAs.

I never condemned O6 FAs, per se.  But we both agree that we don't need much of them, and there's no argument that in excess of a small amount, they cause unnecessary and systemic inflammation.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 09:41 PM

@jake3_14 I actually consume about 55 grams of cocoa butter each day (1 Lindt 90% dark chocolate bar every day). And I often use coconut cream in my food, especially when making curry. And I literally pour olive oil on everything. So I don't see what's the big deal here is, specially since none of the fats that you have mentioned are essential fats and they can all be acquired from plants. I'd love to see an animal fat that has more stearic acid than cocoa butter or more myristic acid that coconut oil, seriously show me a single one. These fats are healthy sure I don't disagree, but they are not found exclusively in animals.

For the record I'm not a vegetarian or anything, I love eating animals, but all of the saturated fatty acids found in animals can also be found in plants.

1
Medium avatar

(10601)

on November 17, 2014
at 04:59 AM

Interesting dilemma. Best to be supportive about the rice oil if you want good marks.

I use and reuse refined olive oil for hot frying seafood like oysters and clams. As it depletes I add more, but I don't get so hot that it discolors. Rice oil could be an alternative though it costs twice as much as the olive oil.

I fry in duck fat when I have it, but that stuff is really precious. I only have it when I render a duck carcass stripped of the quarters and the breast. I get enough fat for pan frying but that's about it.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19483)

on November 18, 2014
at 11:37 AM

+1000 for the duck fat.  Stuff is gold!

0
Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 01:42 PM

High-oleic safflower oil, smoke point 510 F and almost no PUFAs (high in oleic acid, the same monounsaturated fatty acid that makes up olive oil and avocado oil). 

That's 60 F higher than that piece-of-garbage rice bran oil and a million time healthier. Pretty cheap too. It's vegan as well.

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on November 17, 2014
at 02:32 PM

I hear you, but do we have scientific evidence directly for high oleic (sunflower or safflower)? Also, the fat spectrum seems to be identical to sunflower. Any reason why the smoke point should be different? I suspect that the smoke point is only a function of impurities in the oil.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 02:52 PM

Smoke point is based on two things:

1. Volatile compounds (impurities) in the oil, which evaporate/burn when heated.

2. The temperature at which the specific fats in the oil begin to evaporate.

Evaporation occurs with fats just as it occurs with water....the only thing is that certain fats evaporate at higher temperature than others. Assuming no impurities in the oil at all, it will still smoke up if it reaches a high enough temperature because the fats will begin to evaporate. Oleic acid (the most common fatty acid found in human tissue, olive oil, avocados, macadamias, etc.) is extremely healthy and happens to have a very high smoke point.

Plenty of scientific evidence to show oleic acid is healthy; everytime you hear something good about olive oil, you are essentially hearing something good about oleic acid, since that's what it's made up of.

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on November 17, 2014
at 03:35 PM

And yet the only paper I saw gave a negative result for HO sunflower oil. It is not so simple. Canola too would be great without erucic acid.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on November 17, 2014
at 03:48 PM

Negative result of what? I don't understand what you are refering to as negative? And sunflower is not the same as safflower, completely different plants, so I don't know why you keep bringing up sunflower, when I never mentioned sunflower.

And canola oil has more omega-6 PUFAs than high-oleic safflower which means it oxidizes a lot more than safflower oil, and the smoke point is 400 F which is 110 F lower than high oleic safflower. I don't understand why you would suggest canola over high-oleic safflower oil, canola is garbage.

-----------------------------

Nutrition facts for: High oleic safflower oil

Composition (per 100 grams): 9.7g saturated, 83.6g monounsaturated, 3.8 polyunsaturated.

-----------------------------

Nutrition facts for: Canola oil

Composition (per 100 grams): 7.4g saturated, 63.3g monounsaturated, 28.1g polyunsaturated.

 

56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on November 18, 2014
at 02:44 AM

I appreciate that sunflower and safflower are different, however they are so similar in spectrum (and if anything sunflower is best in MUFA and tocopherol) that when addressing high oleic. By canola oil (sorry) I meant high oleic canola oil, which I will not buy, specifically due to the presence of erucic acid. 

 

The same may or may not be true for HO sunflower and for safflower. The point being what else is in there besides this nice fat spectrum. Perhaps all toxic compounds in these seeds are water soluble, and perhaps not. Also, I had not realized that for safflower HO is the main type of safflower oil, whereas the other two are niche products. There is that, it is cheap.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!