1

votes

Anyone hear of, or use linola?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created October 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Apparently there is a different kind of flax seed called linola that has ~2% ALA and ~75% GLA the rest are SFA and MUFA. This different lipid profile has also added to its oxidative stability. None of the other nutrients were changed in quantity or quality.

At first glance this appears to be objectively better; less oxidation, more anti- inflammatory.

I know its wiki, but hey it's something.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on November 07, 2012
at 02:24 AM

Thanks for the info daz.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 25, 2012
at 02:44 PM

Ad hominem aside, I realize the only thing I have failed at during this exchange is to receive a working hypothesis from you. I will offer one more lesson in logic before we part, the null hypothesis is the default/general/neutral (whatever definition is easier understand), I do not need 'scientific justification' because the null cannot be proven (I am not justifying anything), only rejected. My position is that GMO are NOT worse for you.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 25, 2012
at 01:53 PM

You must be fun at parties! You obviously do not have a formal scientific training, but it is great that you are so interested! If you formulate a null hypothesis -- First you must have scientific justification for your hypothesis. Second, the Null Hypothesis must meet general avoidance of anchor -- I submit that you fail both qualifiers. Finally, it is the burden the submitter to reject or fail to reject their OWN null hypothesis. I cannot just say that Tiger's blood is better than milk in every way and leave it up to the community to refute me -- that's just bad science.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 25, 2012
at 12:09 AM

My position is the null hypothesis, you assert and have continued to assert the alternative hypothesis (GMO cause harm) It's ridiculous to constantly have to rehash basic logic when all I want is a workable hypothesis. The single human study to look at gene transfer from Soy found no such transfer took place and no other ill effects were noticed. Please tell me why I should care about a rat study that you have already misinterpreted more than a human study. Also, please provide a working hypothesis for your argument about GMO.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 24, 2012
at 05:50 PM

However, If you want to play this game -- See Soya -- Increased Allergy rate among consumers, and a proof of fundamental change to gut DNA. In a study with mice, those that consumed Soya showed changes to the liver that are consistent with reduced metabolic rate.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 24, 2012
at 05:49 PM

In science (as oppose to judicial inquiries) the burden of proof is on the submitter. You submit that GMO is as safe as the natural product. This is what you must prove. It is scientifically unjustifiable to presume that GM foods are safe. You also seem to think genetic modification is a straightforward event -- It is not. It is very very messy.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 24, 2012
at 02:59 PM

I will reiterate. The burden of proof lays with you because you are making an assertion that 'unintended side effects' could happen. Now you must state facts this is based on. Your analogy to Trans fat is ineffective and unrelated. In order to use the analogy you must have already assumed that 'unintended side effects' will come to light from GMO, you are begging the question. What is your assumption based on?

Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on October 23, 2012
at 07:26 PM

http://paleohacks.com/questions/19331/gla-a-good-omega-6#axzz2A9TnqHk7

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 23, 2012
at 07:02 PM

I didn't say trans fats were GMO. I used them as an example of unintended side effects. Also, Darwinian Natural Selection is not a theory of evolution. It is a theory of adaptation via survival traits he called it "descent with modification" -- please read "On the Origin of Species". We have come to conclude that the cummlative effect of these adaptations, over time, fits one of the paradigms of modern biological evolution (but it is only one type). I did used the wrong term when I used the verb "to". Finally, the burden of proof is not on the receiver, that is never the case.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 23, 2012
at 06:20 PM

Trans fats are not GMO in any way shape or form. Humans (and any life for that matter) doesn't evole to 'do' anything, we didn't evolve to 'eat' certain things, evolution its a feedback loop between our evironment and our genes, this is called natural selection. Evolution is not halted, we are not the 'end product' by any means. Please revise your understanding of evolution. You appeal to emotion and appeal to the future, both of which are logical fallacies and fail as a working hypothesis. "GMO is bad" that is your assertion? if it is the burden of proof lays with you

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 23, 2012
at 02:34 PM

Who knows what we will know about solin 50 years from now. What I do know is that my body did not evolve to eat GMO, and science has not been able to trump nature in terms of producing food for human consumption.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 23, 2012
at 02:34 PM

Unintended side effects. Take Trans Fats for example. the hyrdogenation process was designed to stabilize the oils. Not only did this reduce the cost of using the fats in foods, the use of partially hydrogenated oils was also encouraged as they were healthier than saturated fats. This led to widespread use from 1950 forward. Only in the 1990s were we able to see the unintended consequences (yes there were earlier studies, but nothing definitive).

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 23, 2012
at 02:23 PM

What exactly is the fear of GMO based on? I have yet to hear a working hypothesis on this and it sounds like a boogeyman to me. The logic is as follows: Linola is make up of a myriad of constituents, these constituents are deemed to be beneficial to the avg human and superior to flax, therefore, linola is to be deemed to be beneficial to the avg human and superior to flax. Please point out if I am missing something.

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 23, 2012
at 02:03 PM

GLA, not regular LA

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 22, 2012
at 09:38 PM

has anyone used it, why isn't there more buzz about it, why isn't it sought after.....

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 22, 2012
at 06:02 PM

What is the question. Would we use it?

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 17, 2012
at 01:42 PM

hmm, interesting.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 17, 2012
at 04:47 AM

never seen it in any shops (seed or oil form) & i live in Australia (where it was developed)

  • 81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

    asked by

    (528)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1429D AGO
Frontpage book

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

3 Answers

1
543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on October 22, 2012
at 09:47 PM

as an update to my comment above.
it looks like there is a product sold in Australia that contains Linola, tho its a snack for horses.

"Linola Gloss contains ground Linola seed, Molasses, Psyllium Husks, Barley, Maize and other (secret) natural ingredients. No artificial additives at all. Linola is an oilseed developed by the CSIRO through conventional plant breeding."

Refs:
http://www.facebook.com/jomaxhorsesnax/info
http://www.jomax.com.au/about_linola.jpeg.html (decrepit web site) http://www.sydneyequestriansupplies.com.au/jomax-horse-snax-6-pack.html

edit: just had another quick look around some aussie web sites. it looks like the linola crop is mainly grown for animal feed. Though i did find one bakery which uses linola in some of their foods; google 'linola site:muffinbreak.com.au' if interested

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on November 07, 2012
at 02:24 AM

Thanks for the info daz.

0
Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on October 23, 2012
at 01:17 PM

I don't understand. Linola seems to be bred to be high in linoleic acid (LA - omega 6) and low in linolenic acid (ALA - omega 3). Why is this good?

http://www.ienica.net/crops/linola.htm

81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

(528)

on October 23, 2012
at 02:03 PM

GLA, not regular LA

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on October 23, 2012
at 12:31 PM

I think the primary concern of solin in this community is that it's another GMO, and I tend to stay away from GMO. And this is not just selective breeding, this is hard core, chemical mutagens processes.

There's been research into how it compares to flax in animals:

  • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22439325
  • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12086055

    There's a lot of blogs, primarily vegetarian blogs, that are very excited about the prospects (so there is some buzz).

    For the rest of the SAD community, linseed oil based on solin is still more expensive than canola and other vegetable oils, but the production estimates show it can be reduced a bit to get it more in line with those oils. At that time it will likely be put into all sorts of products that people eat, advertised as "Healthy" -- but they won't know because they don't read the labels!

    But in the paleo community, flax is typically not a big player, and GMO is not a big player, so a GMO flax is not going to create a lot of buzz.

  • 3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

    (26217)

    on October 23, 2012
    at 02:34 PM

    Who knows what we will know about solin 50 years from now. What I do know is that my body did not evolve to eat GMO, and science has not been able to trump nature in terms of producing food for human consumption.

    3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

    (26217)

    on October 23, 2012
    at 02:34 PM

    Unintended side effects. Take Trans Fats for example. the hyrdogenation process was designed to stabilize the oils. Not only did this reduce the cost of using the fats in foods, the use of partially hydrogenated oils was also encouraged as they were healthier than saturated fats. This led to widespread use from 1950 forward. Only in the 1990s were we able to see the unintended consequences (yes there were earlier studies, but nothing definitive).

    3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

    (26217)

    on October 23, 2012
    at 07:02 PM

    I didn't say trans fats were GMO. I used them as an example of unintended side effects. Also, Darwinian Natural Selection is not a theory of evolution. It is a theory of adaptation via survival traits he called it "descent with modification" -- please read "On the Origin of Species". We have come to conclude that the cummlative effect of these adaptations, over time, fits one of the paradigms of modern biological evolution (but it is only one type). I did used the wrong term when I used the verb "to". Finally, the burden of proof is not on the receiver, that is never the case.

    81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

    (528)

    on October 23, 2012
    at 02:23 PM

    What exactly is the fear of GMO based on? I have yet to hear a working hypothesis on this and it sounds like a boogeyman to me. The logic is as follows: Linola is make up of a myriad of constituents, these constituents are deemed to be beneficial to the avg human and superior to flax, therefore, linola is to be deemed to be beneficial to the avg human and superior to flax. Please point out if I am missing something.

    3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

    (26217)

    on October 24, 2012
    at 05:49 PM

    In science (as oppose to judicial inquiries) the burden of proof is on the submitter. You submit that GMO is as safe as the natural product. This is what you must prove. It is scientifically unjustifiable to presume that GM foods are safe. You also seem to think genetic modification is a straightforward event -- It is not. It is very very messy.

    81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

    (528)

    on October 23, 2012
    at 06:20 PM

    Trans fats are not GMO in any way shape or form. Humans (and any life for that matter) doesn't evole to 'do' anything, we didn't evolve to 'eat' certain things, evolution its a feedback loop between our evironment and our genes, this is called natural selection. Evolution is not halted, we are not the 'end product' by any means. Please revise your understanding of evolution. You appeal to emotion and appeal to the future, both of which are logical fallacies and fail as a working hypothesis. "GMO is bad" that is your assertion? if it is the burden of proof lays with you

    81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

    (528)

    on October 24, 2012
    at 02:59 PM

    I will reiterate. The burden of proof lays with you because you are making an assertion that 'unintended side effects' could happen. Now you must state facts this is based on. Your analogy to Trans fat is ineffective and unrelated. In order to use the analogy you must have already assumed that 'unintended side effects' will come to light from GMO, you are begging the question. What is your assumption based on?

    3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

    (26217)

    on October 24, 2012
    at 05:50 PM

    However, If you want to play this game -- See Soya -- Increased Allergy rate among consumers, and a proof of fundamental change to gut DNA. In a study with mice, those that consumed Soya showed changes to the liver that are consistent with reduced metabolic rate.

    3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

    (26217)

    on October 25, 2012
    at 01:53 PM

    You must be fun at parties! You obviously do not have a formal scientific training, but it is great that you are so interested! If you formulate a null hypothesis -- First you must have scientific justification for your hypothesis. Second, the Null Hypothesis must meet general avoidance of anchor -- I submit that you fail both qualifiers. Finally, it is the burden the submitter to reject or fail to reject their OWN null hypothesis. I cannot just say that Tiger's blood is better than milk in every way and leave it up to the community to refute me -- that's just bad science.

    81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

    (528)

    on October 25, 2012
    at 12:09 AM

    My position is the null hypothesis, you assert and have continued to assert the alternative hypothesis (GMO cause harm) It's ridiculous to constantly have to rehash basic logic when all I want is a workable hypothesis. The single human study to look at gene transfer from Soy found no such transfer took place and no other ill effects were noticed. Please tell me why I should care about a rat study that you have already misinterpreted more than a human study. Also, please provide a working hypothesis for your argument about GMO.

    81181cab058dd652659e4bb2e6f25843

    (528)

    on October 25, 2012
    at 02:44 PM

    Ad hominem aside, I realize the only thing I have failed at during this exchange is to receive a working hypothesis from you. I will offer one more lesson in logic before we part, the null hypothesis is the default/general/neutral (whatever definition is easier understand), I do not need 'scientific justification' because the null cannot be proven (I am not justifying anything), only rejected. My position is that GMO are NOT worse for you.

    Answer Question


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