Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Coconut oil cures cancers
* thevirgincoconutoil . com /articleitem.php?articleid=176
* w w w .coconut-connections . com /res2.htm
* w w w .coconut-oil-central . com /natural-cures.html
* w w w .coconut-connections . com /res2.htm
* w w w .coconut-oil-central . com /natural-cures.html
Taka wrote:
> * thevirgincoconutoil . com /articleitem.php?articleid=176
>
> * w w w .coconut-connections . com /res2.htm
>
> * w w w .coconut-oil-central . com /natural-cures.html
Why do you think they're all so poorly written? :-(
The first one's utterly useless, just poorly expressed hollow claims
that there's a "miracle cure" for "cancer." Oh, goody.
I'm sure people who don't already know much about biochemistry would
have a terrible time understanding anything on that second one, which
also doesn't say much of anything, but in lots of words, and is
impossible to follow. And what's the point of using hypertext if you're
going to fill up a page with background material that's better covered
elsewhere, and all the links are away from the topic?
The third is not only under construction (barely begun), and devoid
of information, but exemplifies one of my pet peeves: half an alphabet.
They're a beginning for coconut oil advocacy, I suppose, but like so
much of the Internet nowadays, they're all about colors, layout,
puffery, and distractions, and devoid of content. Even non-commercial
sites look like lousy commercials. If you've got something to say, say
it, I say.
If there's one thing that the Internet is proving, it's that time is
precious. Who's got nothing better to do than to slog through somebody
else's rambling without knowing where it's all leading? People have
questions and want answers. They don't want to read long, crummy typing
exercises that don't make sense and only promote somebody else's
profit-making.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
> * thevirgincoconutoil . com /articleitem.php?articleid=176
>
> * w w w .coconut-connections . com /res2.htm
>
> * w w w .coconut-oil-central . com /natural-cures.html
Why do you think they're all so poorly written? :-(
The first one's utterly useless, just poorly expressed hollow claims
that there's a "miracle cure" for "cancer." Oh, goody.
I'm sure people who don't already know much about biochemistry would
have a terrible time understanding anything on that second one, which
also doesn't say much of anything, but in lots of words, and is
impossible to follow. And what's the point of using hypertext if you're
going to fill up a page with background material that's better covered
elsewhere, and all the links are away from the topic?
The third is not only under construction (barely begun), and devoid
of information, but exemplifies one of my pet peeves: half an alphabet.
They're a beginning for coconut oil advocacy, I suppose, but like so
much of the Internet nowadays, they're all about colors, layout,
puffery, and distractions, and devoid of content. Even non-commercial
sites look like lousy commercials. If you've got something to say, say
it, I say.
If there's one thing that the Internet is proving, it's that time is
precious. Who's got nothing better to do than to slog through somebody
else's rambling without knowing where it's all leading? People have
questions and want answers. They don't want to read long, crummy typing
exercises that don't make sense and only promote somebody else's
profit-making.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
"slogging." Have you seen it?
* groups.msn . com /TheScientificDebateForum-
I'm willing to help those understand, but as was the case in grad.
school, some students were simply not able to comprehend that a claim
found that its way into a book published by a major company could be
inaccurate. One must be able to do some independent, unbiased,
critical thinking, or else there's no reason to bother - you can just
do what your doctor, or some "expert" on Larry King's show says.
"slogging." Have you seen it?
* groups.msn . com /TheScientificDebateForum-
I'm willing to help those understand, but as was the case in grad.
school, some students were simply not able to comprehend that a claim
found that its way into a book published by a major company could be
inaccurate. One must be able to do some independent, unbiased,
critical thinking, or else there's no reason to bother - you can just
do what your doctor, or some "expert" on Larry King's show says.
On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
> "slogging."
If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
MattLB
> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
> "slogging."
If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
MattLB
MattLB wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
>> "slogging."
>
> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>
> MattLB
As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
boost their poisonous trans fats.
DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
molecular
chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
agree with this nonsense? ;-)
> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
>> "slogging."
>
> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>
> MattLB
As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
boost their poisonous trans fats.
DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
molecular
chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
agree with this nonsense? ;-)
On May 5, 7:26 am, RF <R...@NoDen.con> wrote:
> MattLB wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
> >> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
> >> "slogging."
>
> > If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
> > your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
> > masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>
> > MattLB
>
> As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
> shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
> boost their poisonous trans fats.
>
> DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
> for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
> make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
> molecular
> chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
> agree with this nonsense? ;-)
Coconut oil is burned for energy rather than stored. The reason is
abundant short and medium chain fatty acids which tend to be primarily
used for energy. It also boosts metabolism because it supports
thyroid for which PUFAs are detrimental. Some people also say it
kills viruses like colloidal silver but I have not seen any
explanation for it. Cattle fed coconut oil looses weight so the
farmers prefer feeding it PUFAs which do the opposite and fatten it.
IMO coconut oil could possibly help in recovering burned out adrenals
and normalizing hormonal balance.
Taka
> MattLB wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
> >> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
> >> "slogging."
>
> > If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
> > your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
> > masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>
> > MattLB
>
> As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
> shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
> boost their poisonous trans fats.
>
> DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
> for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
> make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
> molecular
> chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
> agree with this nonsense? ;-)
Coconut oil is burned for energy rather than stored. The reason is
abundant short and medium chain fatty acids which tend to be primarily
used for energy. It also boosts metabolism because it supports
thyroid for which PUFAs are detrimental. Some people also say it
kills viruses like colloidal silver but I have not seen any
explanation for it. Cattle fed coconut oil looses weight so the
farmers prefer feeding it PUFAs which do the opposite and fatten it.
IMO coconut oil could possibly help in recovering burned out adrenals
and normalizing hormonal balance.
Taka
Taka wrote:
> Coconut oil is burned for energy rather than stored.
Let's get technical. The oils are broken down. It's the glycerol
and fatty acids that are absorbed, and since all triglycerides have the
same amount of glycerol, all that matters is the fatty acids.
So what happens to the fatty acids from coconut oil in the *fed
state* when energy needs are met?
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
> Coconut oil is burned for energy rather than stored.
Let's get technical. The oils are broken down. It's the glycerol
and fatty acids that are absorbed, and since all triglycerides have the
same amount of glycerol, all that matters is the fatty acids.
So what happens to the fatty acids from coconut oil in the *fed
state* when energy needs are met?
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
The issue is toxic metabolites derived from UFAs. You don't get such
molecules from SFAs. And there's also the HCAs generated from the
cooked meat/PUFAs connection. Feed one group of common lab mammal a
diet rich in PUFAs, low in SFAs, and TFAs, but also rich in cooked
food (as is common in most human societies), and see how long they
live. Have a control group, with the animals fed a diet rich in SFAs
and also with an amount of TFAs considered just beyond the dangerous
limit by today's "experts," but low in cholesterol (so that they
aren't consuming oxidized cholesterol) and very low in UFAs (with
nearly no PUFAs), with all other things being equal, and see how long
this group lives. This is how science is supposed to proceed, but try
to find such a simple, inexpensive experiment on pubmed . com , and guess
what you will find?
molecules from SFAs. And there's also the HCAs generated from the
cooked meat/PUFAs connection. Feed one group of common lab mammal a
diet rich in PUFAs, low in SFAs, and TFAs, but also rich in cooked
food (as is common in most human societies), and see how long they
live. Have a control group, with the animals fed a diet rich in SFAs
and also with an amount of TFAs considered just beyond the dangerous
limit by today's "experts," but low in cholesterol (so that they
aren't consuming oxidized cholesterol) and very low in UFAs (with
nearly no PUFAs), with all other things being equal, and see how long
this group lives. This is how science is supposed to proceed, but try
to find such a simple, inexpensive experiment on pubmed . com , and guess
what you will find?
monty1945@lycos . com wrote:
> The issue is toxic metabolites derived from UFAs. You don't get such
> molecules from SFAs. And there's also the HCAs generated from the
> cooked meat/PUFAs connection. Feed one group of common lab mammal a
> diet rich in PUFAs, low in SFAs, and TFAs, but also rich in cooked
> food (as is common in most human societies), and see how long they
> live. Have a control group, with the animals fed a diet rich in SFAs
> and also with an amount of TFAs considered just beyond the dangerous
> limit by today's "experts," but low in cholesterol (so that they
> aren't consuming oxidized cholesterol) and very low in UFAs (with
> nearly no PUFAs), with all other things being equal, and see how long
> this group lives. This is how science is supposed to proceed, but try
> to find such a simple, inexpensive experiment on pubmed . com , and guess
> what you will find?
"The issue" according to Ray Peat?
Can I infer that you don't have an answer to the question I asked:
What happens to the fatty acids in coconut oil in the fed state?
I'm not sure I understand the experimental protocol you propose here.
What sort of "common lab mammal," and why? How does the (non-control
group) diet differ from ordinary commercial diets intended for dogs,
cats, monkeys, rats, etc.? Why use such an extraordinary diet, ("beyond
the dangerous limit") for the "control" group?
I suspect no such experiment has been done because its design is flawed.
What would be the purpose of the experiment?
(Please, Monty, when you reply to a post, provide some hint. I
rarely see the thread structure.)
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
> The issue is toxic metabolites derived from UFAs. You don't get such
> molecules from SFAs. And there's also the HCAs generated from the
> cooked meat/PUFAs connection. Feed one group of common lab mammal a
> diet rich in PUFAs, low in SFAs, and TFAs, but also rich in cooked
> food (as is common in most human societies), and see how long they
> live. Have a control group, with the animals fed a diet rich in SFAs
> and also with an amount of TFAs considered just beyond the dangerous
> limit by today's "experts," but low in cholesterol (so that they
> aren't consuming oxidized cholesterol) and very low in UFAs (with
> nearly no PUFAs), with all other things being equal, and see how long
> this group lives. This is how science is supposed to proceed, but try
> to find such a simple, inexpensive experiment on pubmed . com , and guess
> what you will find?
"The issue" according to Ray Peat?
Can I infer that you don't have an answer to the question I asked:
What happens to the fatty acids in coconut oil in the fed state?
I'm not sure I understand the experimental protocol you propose here.
What sort of "common lab mammal," and why? How does the (non-control
group) diet differ from ordinary commercial diets intended for dogs,
cats, monkeys, rats, etc.? Why use such an extraordinary diet, ("beyond
the dangerous limit") for the "control" group?
I suspect no such experiment has been done because its design is flawed.
What would be the purpose of the experiment?
(Please, Monty, when you reply to a post, provide some hint. I
rarely see the thread structure.)
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
Some more coconut oil versus safflower oil battle:
"Why you don't need vegetable oil in your carrot cake and milk shake
to protect your arteries."
* w w w .cholesterol-and-health . com /One-High-Saturated-Fat-Meal-Can-Be-Bad-Carrot-Cake-Coconut-Oil.html
Taka
"Why you don't need vegetable oil in your carrot cake and milk shake
to protect your arteries."
* w w w .cholesterol-and-health . com /One-High-Saturated-Fat-Meal-Can-Be-Bad-Carrot-Cake-Coconut-Oil.html
Taka
As for the atherogenicity of coconut oil:
Taken from an article written by Conrado S. Dayrit in the Philippine
Journal Of Cardiology entitled =93Coconut Oil: Atherogenic or Not?=94:
According to the universally accepted Lipid-Heart Theory, high
saturated fats causehypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease.
Coronary morbidity and mortality are said to be highest in the
countries and peoples consuming the highest amounts of saturated fats.
Coconut oil, with its saturated medium chain fats, has been especially
condemned for this reason. The true facts are just the opposite. The
countries consuming the highest amounts of coconut oil =96 the
Polynesians, Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Indians, Filipinos have not
only low serum cholesterol but also low coronary heart disease rates.
The reason why coconut oil cannot be atherogenic is basic. Coco oil
consistspredominantly of 65% medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) and MCFAs
are metabolized rapidly in the liver to energy and do not participate
in the biosynthesis and transport of cholesterol. Coconut oil, in
fact, tends to raise the HDL and lower the LDL:HDL ratio. Coco oil is
not deposited in adipose tissues and therefore does not lead to
obesity. It is primarily an energy supplier and as fast a supplier of
energy as sugar. MCFAs therefore differ in their metabolism from all
the long chain fatty acids, whether saturated or unsaturated.
The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis has recently taken a complete
paradigm shift =96 from a simple deposition of cholesterol and
cholesterol esters to an inflammatory condition where numerous
genetically dependent factors =96 dyslipoproteinemias, dysfunctions of
endothelial and other cells leading to invasions of the subendothelial
region by macrophages, smoothmuscle cells, leukocytes and T cells =96
all interplay in a scenario still not fully understood.
Taka
Taken from an article written by Conrado S. Dayrit in the Philippine
Journal Of Cardiology entitled =93Coconut Oil: Atherogenic or Not?=94:
According to the universally accepted Lipid-Heart Theory, high
saturated fats causehypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease.
Coronary morbidity and mortality are said to be highest in the
countries and peoples consuming the highest amounts of saturated fats.
Coconut oil, with its saturated medium chain fats, has been especially
condemned for this reason. The true facts are just the opposite. The
countries consuming the highest amounts of coconut oil =96 the
Polynesians, Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Indians, Filipinos have not
only low serum cholesterol but also low coronary heart disease rates.
The reason why coconut oil cannot be atherogenic is basic. Coco oil
consistspredominantly of 65% medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) and MCFAs
are metabolized rapidly in the liver to energy and do not participate
in the biosynthesis and transport of cholesterol. Coconut oil, in
fact, tends to raise the HDL and lower the LDL:HDL ratio. Coco oil is
not deposited in adipose tissues and therefore does not lead to
obesity. It is primarily an energy supplier and as fast a supplier of
energy as sugar. MCFAs therefore differ in their metabolism from all
the long chain fatty acids, whether saturated or unsaturated.
The pathogenesis of atherosclerosis has recently taken a complete
paradigm shift =96 from a simple deposition of cholesterol and
cholesterol esters to an inflammatory condition where numerous
genetically dependent factors =96 dyslipoproteinemias, dysfunctions of
endothelial and other cells leading to invasions of the subendothelial
region by macrophages, smoothmuscle cells, leukocytes and T cells =96
all interplay in a scenario still not fully understood.
Taka
Another thumbs up for coconut oil having medicinal properties. BPH is
an extremely common problem for aging men, and this seems to be a
viable treatment option (if it is repeatable in humans):
Effects of coconut oil on testosterone-induced prostatic hyperplasia
in Sprague-Dawley rats.
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the benign uncontrolled growth
of the prostate gland, leading to difficulty with urination. Saw
palmetto lipid extracts (SPLE), used to treat BPH, have been shown to
inhibit prostate 5a-reductase, and some major components, such as
lauric, myristic and oleic acids also inhibit this enzyme. Coconut oil
(CO) is also rich in fatty acids, mainly lauric and myristic acids. We
investigated whether CO prevents testosterone-induced prostate
hyperplasia (PH) in Sprague-Dawley rats. Animals were distributed into
seven groups (10 rats each). A negative control group were injected
with soya oil; six groups were injected with testosterone (3 mg
kg(-1)) to induce PH: a positive control group, and five groups
treated orally with SPLE (400 mg kg(-1)), CO or sunflower oil (SO)
(400 and 800 mg kg(-1)). Treatments were given for 14 days. Rats were
weighed before treatment and weekly thereafter. Rats were then killed
and the prostates were removed and weighed. CO (400 and 800 mg
kg(-1)), SPLE (400 mg kg(-1)) and SO at 800 mg kg(-1), but not at 400
mg kg(-1), significantly reduced the increase in prostate weight (PW)
and PW:body weight (BW) ratio induced by testosterone (% inhibition
61.5%, 82.0%, 43.8% and 28.2%, respectively). Since CO and SPLE, but
not SO, contain appreciable concentrations of lauric and myristic
acids, these results could be attributed to this fact. In conclusion,
this study shows that CO reduced the increase of both PW and PW:BW
ratio, markers of testosterone-induced PH in rats.
PMID: 17637195
Taka
an extremely common problem for aging men, and this seems to be a
viable treatment option (if it is repeatable in humans):
Effects of coconut oil on testosterone-induced prostatic hyperplasia
in Sprague-Dawley rats.
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the benign uncontrolled growth
of the prostate gland, leading to difficulty with urination. Saw
palmetto lipid extracts (SPLE), used to treat BPH, have been shown to
inhibit prostate 5a-reductase, and some major components, such as
lauric, myristic and oleic acids also inhibit this enzyme. Coconut oil
(CO) is also rich in fatty acids, mainly lauric and myristic acids. We
investigated whether CO prevents testosterone-induced prostate
hyperplasia (PH) in Sprague-Dawley rats. Animals were distributed into
seven groups (10 rats each). A negative control group were injected
with soya oil; six groups were injected with testosterone (3 mg
kg(-1)) to induce PH: a positive control group, and five groups
treated orally with SPLE (400 mg kg(-1)), CO or sunflower oil (SO)
(400 and 800 mg kg(-1)). Treatments were given for 14 days. Rats were
weighed before treatment and weekly thereafter. Rats were then killed
and the prostates were removed and weighed. CO (400 and 800 mg
kg(-1)), SPLE (400 mg kg(-1)) and SO at 800 mg kg(-1), but not at 400
mg kg(-1), significantly reduced the increase in prostate weight (PW)
and PW:body weight (BW) ratio induced by testosterone (% inhibition
61.5%, 82.0%, 43.8% and 28.2%, respectively). Since CO and SPLE, but
not SO, contain appreciable concentrations of lauric and myristic
acids, these results could be attributed to this fact. In conclusion,
this study shows that CO reduced the increase of both PW and PW:BW
ratio, markers of testosterone-induced PH in rats.
PMID: 17637195
Taka
RF wrote:
> MattLB wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
>>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
>>> "slogging."
>> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
>> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
>> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>>
>> MattLB
>
> As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
> shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
> boost their poisonous trans fats.
>
> DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
> for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
> make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
> molecular
> chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
> agree with this nonsense? ;-)
I think the more saturated a fat is, the less it penetrates the food
when frying. That's why lard is still considered the best for tempura.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
> MattLB wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
>>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
>>> "slogging."
>> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
>> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
>> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>>
>> MattLB
>
> As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
> shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
> boost their poisonous trans fats.
>
> DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
> for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
> make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
> molecular
> chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
> agree with this nonsense? ;-)
I think the more saturated a fat is, the less it penetrates the food
when frying. That's why lard is still considered the best for tempura.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
On May 7, 1:21 pm, Marshall Price <d0213...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> RF wrote:
> > MattLB wrote:
> >> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
> >>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
> >>> "slogging."
> >> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
> >> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
> >> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>
> >> MattLB
>
> > As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
> > shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
> > boost their poisonous trans fats.
>
> > DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
> > for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
> > make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
> > molecular
> > chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
> > agree with this nonsense? ;-)
>
> I think the more saturated a fat is, the less it penetrates the foo=
d
> when frying. That's why lard is still considered the best for tempura.
* w w w .bigoven . com /29812-Tempura,-Japanese-Way-recipe.html
indicates that peanut oil is preferred with sesame oil being the
original oil for tempura.
--
Ron
> RF wrote:
> > MattLB wrote:
> >> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
> >>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
> >>> "slogging."
> >> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
> >> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
> >> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>
> >> MattLB
>
> > As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
> > shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
> > boost their poisonous trans fats.
>
> > DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
> > for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
> > make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
> > molecular
> > chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
> > agree with this nonsense? ;-)
>
> I think the more saturated a fat is, the less it penetrates the foo=
d
> when frying. That's why lard is still considered the best for tempura.
* w w w .bigoven . com /29812-Tempura,-Japanese-Way-recipe.html
indicates that peanut oil is preferred with sesame oil being the
original oil for tempura.
--
Ron
Ron Peterson wrote:
> On May 7, 1:21 pm, Marshall Price <d0213...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> RF wrote:
>>> MattLB wrote:
>>>> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
>>>>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
>>>>> "slogging."
>>>> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
>>>> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
>>>> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>>>> MattLB
>>> As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
>>> shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
>>> boost their poisonous trans fats.
>>> DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
>>> for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
>>> make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
>>> molecular
>>> chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
>>> agree with this nonsense? ;-)
>> I think the more saturated a fat is, the less it penetrates the food
>> when frying. That's why lard is still considered the best for tempura.
>
> * w w w .bigoven . com /29812-Tempura,-Japanese-Way-recipe.html
> indicates that peanut oil is preferred with sesame oil being the
> original oil for tempura.
I'm very surprised at both of those things. Peanut oil has a high
smoke point, but isn't a traditional Japanese ingredient. Sesame oil
would behave very differently from lard. (I guess there's no accounting
for tastes, but it sounds dreadful to me.)
I just visited my sushi chef a few days ago, but didn't ask him about
this. Maybe next time. He has a rare license to prepare sushi for the
Japanese Diet (parliament), and is probably quite exigent about tempura,
too.
I think it was my Japanese teacher, a brilliant samurai lady
accomplished in all the traditional arts (and who made several Japanese
dishes to further our education) who explained the details, but actually
I forget now.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
> On May 7, 1:21 pm, Marshall Price <d0213...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>> RF wrote:
>>> MattLB wrote:
>>>> On Apr 28, 3:11 am, monty1...@lycos . com wrote:
>>>>> I agree, and I created a web site to help people with their
>>>>> "slogging."
>>>> If you agree, then you've misunderstood the point being made because
>>>> your site is the very epitome of one that requires slogging through
>>>> masses of unorganised links to rambling articles.
>>>> MattLB
>>> As I vaguely recall, Proctor and Gamble tried to
>>> shoot oils like coconut to shreds to
>>> boost their poisonous trans fats.
>>> DrWeil says that coconut oil is one of the best
>>> for cooking. Apparently high temperatures don't
>>> make it toxic and, if I remember correctly, the
>>> molecular
>>> chains become shortened and more edible. Anyone
>>> agree with this nonsense? ;-)
>> I think the more saturated a fat is, the less it penetrates the food
>> when frying. That's why lard is still considered the best for tempura.
>
> * w w w .bigoven . com /29812-Tempura,-Japanese-Way-recipe.html
> indicates that peanut oil is preferred with sesame oil being the
> original oil for tempura.
I'm very surprised at both of those things. Peanut oil has a high
smoke point, but isn't a traditional Japanese ingredient. Sesame oil
would behave very differently from lard. (I guess there's no accounting
for tastes, but it sounds dreadful to me.)
I just visited my sushi chef a few days ago, but didn't ask him about
this. Maybe next time. He has a rare license to prepare sushi for the
Japanese Diet (parliament), and is probably quite exigent about tempura,
too.
I think it was my Japanese teacher, a brilliant samurai lady
accomplished in all the traditional arts (and who made several Japanese
dishes to further our education) who explained the details, but actually
I forget now.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
