Most of us who watch the food channels are aware of cooking hosts touting EVOO -- extra virgin olive oil, that is. Everywhere we turn it is recommended that it be added to almost everything we eat in order to reap the health benefits of this numero uno oil. But I hate to burst the bubble: new reports are emerging that indicate it's not so great after all.
In the most remarkable recent discovery about olive oil, Dr. Robert Vogel at the University of Maryland reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology that olive oil was found to reduce blood flow in arteries by 31 percent after consumption. This is significant in relation to blood clots and heart attacks, as well as angina. It's suggested that people be aware of any relationship between consuming olive oil and an angina attack. Also, it was found that olive oil "causes significant damage" to the endothelial cells that line the inside of arteries. This damage causes inflammation which leads to atherosclerosis.
Dr. Dean Ornish reported these findings in an article written for Reader's Digest, and now recommends canola oil as the best alternative in cooking, since it contains much higher levels of omega 3, whereas olive oil has almost none. Studies in the past have suggested that olive oil lowered cholesterol when it replaced oils higher in saturated fat. Dr. Ornish points out that it's not that olive oil is better for you, it's that olive oil is better than the higher saturated fat oils. That's because it didn't raise cholesterol as much.
The Pritikin Longevity Center agrees that olive oil "is not heart-healthy;" many other plant foods are more heart-healthy than olive oil. Dr. Vogel also reveals in his book, "The Pritikin Edge," that olive oil inhibits the release of nitric oxide into the body, but canola oil does not. Nitric oxide is the natural nitroglycerin of the body, expanding blood vessels and decreasing inflammation. The lack of nitric oxide also is correlated with a lack of penile erection.
On another note, laboratory testing done at the University of California at Davis in conjunction with the Australian sensory panel of 20 extra virgin olive oils sold at California retail stores revealed some surprising results. Sixty-nine percent of the imported olive oils and 10 percent of the California olive oils did not pass the standards of California, Australia and Germany for "extra virgin." Some were rancid, oxidized or of poor quality in general. One that passed with flying colors was Costco's Kirkland Organic brand. Some that didn't include Mazola, Pompeian and Bertolli. So even though we seek the best, there is no guarantee.
I have since begun to shy away from using olive oil as I did before. I used to add it to soups and sauces; I no longer do. I used to cook eggs with a tablespoon of olive oil; I no longer do. I used to use it in my salad dressing; I now use canola oil.
New information is constantly popping up about the foods we eat, and it's difficult to think that a food we think is healthful one day is junk the next. On the other hand, some foods, like eggs, that we once thought were bad for us, may have some health benefits. We can conclude that nothing is set in stone.
We need only to think back on what humans ate long before we began to process food, can food and before the creation of additives and preservatives. After all, olive oil is a processed food so to speak; just as fruit juice has been extracted from the whole fruit, but often contains added ingredients that make it unhealthy. We need to think about that. And so tomorrow is another day to evaluate yet another so-called wholesome food. What will be next?
One thing to consider is that olive oil is much healthier when it has not been heated, such as in a salad. Heating olive oil will create changes in the oil that render it less healthy and perhaps even harmful. This link explains more about that. http://tiny.cc/jeese
For a cooking oil, coconut oil is an excellent choice. It has multiple health benefits, and can be cooked at high heat, without jeopardizing the integrity of the oil and its benefits. To consider canola oil as a healthy alternative, I think, is a poor choice. It is genetically modified, and anything that is genetically modified is harmful to our health. If Dean Ornish is touting canola oil as healthy, I'm disappointed. I thought he knew better.
Yes, for every study, there is a study with contradicting results. That is why it is important to not believe any one study without understanding the full story.
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/559-the-great-con-ola.html
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization
canola oil means canada oil. it was called rapeseed as a natural plant oil; then canada's terrible agribusiness ministry decided that rapeseed doesnt sound pleasant. most of the PR named canola is GMO roundup ready
owner of a organic health food store said canola is not for human consumption
maharishi ayur veda recommends organic sesame oil [from raw not roasted]; again its the wealthy that can buy the best. but i've also heard olive oil mentioned by DR N. Lonsdorf
surely if universities had spent as much and more on research about food [not adulterating it in service of capitalist bosses]than they do on drugs we'd be healthier or more confused
in this article it just says it. it doesnt say how much it is. one tea spoon full or a whole litre
and what about massage olive oil is supposed to be good for maassage
aside from MAPI there isnt a organic sesame oil available. in Indian stores [east] in canada ther's a lot of peanut oil and its cheap.
once upon a time there was a movie: its a mad mad mad world
finally i actually had a useful thought organic GHEE
our food consumption choices are like going to church.
a instructive study would be comparing atheists and catholics eating olive oil, betcha catholics arteries are protected by god
or maybe the vatican is eating too much olive oil and not getting enough blood into the brain
I use coconut oil or real butter.
This seems extreme considering the small sample size, and the limited duration of the study. Further, according to PubMed, this study has been referenced only once (2004) in any further medical or nutritional research articles; seeming to indicate a lack of any serious consideration by other researchers since its publication.
Indeed, D Ornish in a seven-paragraph followup to his 2009 Reader Digest column refers to the Vogel study in passing. The Pritikin article was published online in 2006.
What exactly are you trying to say, and why considering your poor references should anyone give your "alarming" commentary any credence?