for Montygram- canola oil as antioxidant. is it still nad?

That's fine, but:

1. When you buy the oil in your local store, you will not be getting an
oil that is protected by strong antioxidants. I've posted a study
several times in which piglets fed canola or soy oil. Even comparing
canola oil to another unstable oil resulted in rapid depletion of
vitamin E in the canola oil fed animals. One statement in this study:
"It is known that ingestion of oils containing polyunsaturated fatty
acids (PUFA) of the n-3 and n-6 series results in a high degree of
unsaturation in membrane phospholipids which in turn may increase lipid
peroxidation, cholesterol oxidation, free radical accumulation and
membrane damage."

Source: "Sauer, F.D., Farnworth, E.R., Bélanger, J.M.R., Kramer,
J.K.G., Miller, R.B., and Yamashiro, S. 1996. Additional vitamin E
required in milk replacer diets that contain canola oil. Nutr. Res.
17:259-269.

And there is this:

"The pigs were fed four corn starch-based diets that contained 15%
crude protein from isolated soy protein. Diet 1 contained no canola oil
(C-0); diet 2, 15% canola oil (C-15); diet 3, 15% canola oil that was
heated under vacuum at 180 degrees C for 12 h (C-15/12); diet 4, 15%
canola oil that was heated under vacuum at 180 degrees C for 24 h
(C-15/24). Heat treatment resulted in a 4- to 5-fold increase in the
content of malonaldehyde which is derived from the oxidation of fatty
acids and which is closely related to odour and rancidity in lipids."

Source:
Z Ernahrungswiss. 1995 Sep;34(3):224-30.
"Effect of dietary canola oil and its degree of oxidation on exocrine
pancreatic secretions in growing pigs."
Ozimek L, Mosenthin R, Sauer WC.

2. Even if you could find such an oil as they describe, would you eat
it raw? If not, how do you know how good this antioxidant would be
after being cooked unless experiments were done?

3. Why would you take a risk with a new oil that is potentially very
unstable when you do not have to do so?

4. Canola contains erucic acid, and the amount of it can vary.
Rapeseed oil, from which canola was bred, is now in many foods, from
"junk food" to "health food." Erucic acid inhibits neutrophil elastase
like nothing scientists have ever seen, and you need it to break down
lesions, which is why some researchers have seen fibrotic heart lesions
in people who consume this oil. There was an episode of Dr. G. Medical
Examiner (I think it's on the TLC channel) in which a woman in her
early or mid twenties just dropped dead. She was a poor woman who ate
"junk food," most of which was probably loaded with rapeseed oil. Dr.
G. found fibrotic heart lesions that she simply could not believe. She
had no explanation for it. The explanation is actually simple, if you
know the literature.

4. Consuming a lot of canola will mean that your body will eventually
be full of arachidonic acid, because canola is at least 35% or so
linoleic acid. If you don't know why this is a problem, you haven't
been reading my posts very well. Go to pubmed.com and search for
arachidonic cancer, LTB4 cancer, PGE2 cancer, PGE2 heart disease, etc.

Stop playing the shell game (or falling for them). You have to do
experiments correctly. Comparing a group of people who consume a lot
of a very unstable oil to a group that is consuming a different, but
also highly unstable oil, makes no sense. That is why I challenge
people to my experiment, which would compare a highly unstable oil to
the most stable one that exists on the planet. You can load your
animals up with canola oil, fish oil, flax oil, safflower oil, walnut
oil, etc. The oils that have great stability are high quality olive,
macadamian, palm kernel, or coconut, but only with coconut can you
taste the freshness and know that it is of the highest quality.

I'm still waiting for someone to take me up on my offer.

Another point: they don't tell you how much of this substance could be
detected in the average bottle of canola oil in the local supermarket.
One would also want to test baked goods, fried foods, etc., in which
canola oil was used. If you can find such a study, go ahead and post
it. That would be relevant and important. In the meantime, there is
no reason to take risks that are not necessary.

You might want to ask yourself why this experiment was done (which
makes canola oil "look good"😉 whereas more relevant and practical
studies were not, unless you can find them. Do you realize how much
money is made from canola oil these days? Do you think that conflicts
of interest do not exists in this kind of research? The plant probably
needs very little antioxidant, which actually puts a break on growth,
and this is particularly true of plants that have short growth seasons
and are in cold climates.

I would be very surprised if anything but a trace amount of this
substance was found in a bottle of canola oil at your local
supermarket. I would not be at all surprised if an undectable amount
was found.

thanks for your replay. I wasn't sure, when I saw this study. but you
convinced me.

(I am not writing longer cause it hard for me to write in english)

montygram said:

4. Consuming a lot of canola will mean that your body will eventually
be full of arachidonic acid, because canola is at least 35% or so
linoleic acid. If you don't know why this is a problem, you haven't
been reading my posts very well. Go to pubmed.com and search for
arachidonic cancer, LTB4 cancer, PGE2 cancer, PGE2 heart disease, etc.

According to the USDA canola contains 20% or so linoleic acid.

Ora

I just want you to keep thinking, and keep asking the relevant
questions. That is a major problem, because studies are often not on
point, not conducted correctly, and sometimes fraudulent. The
researchers often have major conflicts of interest and incorrect
conclusions are not uncommon. If they are going to spend a ton of
money on research, why aren't they doing experiments that make sense?
We want to know about overall mortality, first and foremost, then
perhaps morbidity, though that is open to some interpretation. It is
known by all that rancid fats are very dangerous, so why not just
recreate common situations (in terms of what people actually eat) and
give it to animals, and see how long they live? Then compare that to
animals fed a similar diet, but with fats that are very stable
chemically. We should all be at least a little upset that this is
rarely being done with all the tax dollars they take from us.

Feel free to ask more questions or to post studies that you don't
understand. I'm not saying I'm an "expert," but I usually know what to
look for. And, as has been said for a long time, "in the land of the
blind, the one-eyed man is king." If the relevant experiments had been
done (or in some cases when they have been done, they have not been
examined closely), we would all know a lot more than we do today.

With regard to the canola oil fatty acid content:

They seem to be breeding new verions of canola all the time. I think I
may have meant overall PUFA content, so I may have made a mistake
there, but don't miss the forest because the trees get in your way.
The Canola Council of Canada says that common canola oil is now 21%
linoleic and 11% alpha-linolenic, which explains the chemical
instability after it is refined (the omega 3s cannot withstand much
"refining"😉. And if you consume enough of this oil, it is highly
likely that your body will incorporate AA instead of Mead acid into
your cells because 21% is fairly high. It is an interesting question,
though. Since Mead acid is easily displaced by more unstable fatty
acids, it would not likely be in most tissues. On the other hand, not
enough long-chain omega 3s would be made, so it seems very likely that
most tissues would incorporate arachidonic acid (again, why hasn't such
an experiment been done? It's cheap and easy).

In any case, because canola oil is so unstable, that might be the least
of your problems. The thing that is most interesting is how the public
can be told that something that appears to be very dangerous is "one of
the best oils you can consume." This is about as irresponsible as you
can get, but my sense is that they really don't understand anything
about chemistry. That's why I challenge anyone to take me up on my
experiment offer which is direct and on point. No room for "massaging"
the results or making ludicrous claims. If "saturated fat" is
unhealthy and omega 3 and 6 PUFAs are "essential," then there is no
doubt that the coconut oil fed mice should die sooner than the animals
fed (or force fed, if necessary) the canola and fish oil. But nobody
who believes this apparently believes it enough to put a few thousand
dollars up to prove it, as I am willing to do. That doesn't inspire
much confidence. I don't know what their motivations are, but the way
they try to mislead people and ignore the scientific method while
saying that their claims are "scientific" is reprehensible.