But just to make this topic more relevant, who has tried Jevity? On Amazon it states specifically “for supplemental or sole-source nutrition.” I calculated the cost and at Soylent’s current price, it’s pretty close for a month supply. Plus a convenient can to pop, might be something to do while waiting for the real thing.
Jevity 1.5: http://www.amazon.com/Jevity-High-Protein-Nutrition-8-Ounce/dp/B000ARPK9Y/
Sir, what is your beef with canola oil? It seems like a wonderful product, when not heat treated?
Solids are also mostly dextrose and not a 50% ratio HFCS of evil?
Corn oil I can get behind having far too much omega 6. The other two ingredients please clarify.
Yeah I’m not going the DIY route so I don’t know all the chemical profiles of ingredients. But if people are living for years off of it, I would hope it’s not borderline poisonous. Also Jevity is more sedentary lifestyle-based, around 1500 calories I think daily. But in the Ars Technica trial (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/ars-does-soylent-day-1-embrace-the-chalky-weird-sweetness/), the guy ended up using 60% of the 2400-calorie Soylent bag per day. That’s 1400 calories. He’s not very active though. I’m just looking for something I can use while Soylent is being perfected.
These studies all point in the same direction–that canola oil is
definitely not healthy for the cardiovascular system. Like rapeseed
oil, its predecessor, canola oil is associated with fibrotic lesions
of the heart. It also causes vitamin E deficiency, undesirable changes
in the blood platelets and shortened life-span in stroke-prone rats
when it was the only oil in the animals’ diet. Furthermore, it seems
to retard growth, which is why the FDA does not allow the use of
canola oil in infant formula.19 When saturated fats are added to the
diet, the undesirable effects of canola oil are mitigated. Most
interesting of all is the fact that many studies show that the
problems with canola oil are not related to the content of erucic
acid, but more with the high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low
levels of saturated fats.
The oil is removed by a combination of high temperature mechanical
pressing and solvent extraction. Traces of the solvent (usually
hexane) remain in the oil, even after considerable refining. Like all
modern vegetable oils, canola oil goes through the process of caustic
refining, bleaching and degumming–all of which involve high
temperatures or chemicals of questionable safety. And because canola
oil is high in omega-3 fatty acids, which easily become rancid and
foul-smelling when subjected to oxygen and high temperatures, it must
be deodorized. The standard deodorization process removes a large
portion of the omega-3 fatty acids by turning them into trans fatty
acids. Although the Canadian government lists the trans content of
canola at a minimal 0.2 percent, research at the University of Florida
at Gainesville, found trans levels as high as 4.6 percent in
commercial liquid oil.
Well I didn’t know that. Apparently corn syrup and the solids thereof aren’t so terrible, at least in theory.
sugar - 50% fructose
HFCS - 50-55% fructose (usually 55 in practice for sweetness)
solids - "Its sugar content is mostly dextrose"
So its not that syrup isn’t deadly, it’s that sugar is, too
Solids seem a bit better, but still, no one should seek to ingest them.
You left out plain corn syrup, which is what I was referring to in my previous post, and is also low(er) in fructose. It’s surprisingly difficult to find any information on its actual sugar composition, so it could have a significant amount of fructose for all I know.
A 1995 Wall Street Journal article reported that use of rapeseed oil in cooking was associated with greatly increased rates of lung cancer in the women breathing the fumes.22 Once again, a lack of saturates in the diet may explain the association, because the lungs can’t work without adequate saturated fats.
Uhm. That article has some major flaws… The writer just posited that breathing the fumes was unhealthy because it didn’t have adequate saturated fat, not that the fumes were carcinogenic. According to the reasoning of the author, the smoke you inhale would be healthy if it were, say, olive oil, instead of canola. In this instance, canola is being portrayed as somehow unusual, when in fact, the smoke (fumes) from deep frying is really bad for you, regardless of the oil being used. Deep fryer smoke is just bad, period. The points made in the article are terrible.
It starts by touting erucic acid. No harmful effects of erucic acid have ever been documented in humans. Many cultures use other sources regularly in their diets - it’s also in broccoli, kale, mustard, and brussells sprouts. It’s an omega 9, and so the healthy proportions of omegas in natural rapeseed oil suck. Canola oil, on the other hand, has a great amount of omega 3.
Some detractors of the author also say she has a mental disorder. This paragraph is inflammatory and unnecessary.
The next paragraphs are bloviation, until:
Unfortunately, it had become increasingly clear that polyunsaturated oils, particularly corn oil and soybean oil, cause numerous health problems, including and especially cancer.
Actually, polyunsaturated fatty acids have been demonstrated to have numerous potential health benefits, and the big scare was just another one of the “omg, something else will kill you!” stories promulgated by the media for ratings.
The rest of the article is a hit piece. The author doesn’t (didn’t, it’s from 2002) have a clear understanding of the role of fat in the diet. Which isn’t surprising - much of what we take for granted in nutritional knowledge has only become mainstream in the last 4 or 5 years.
In short, canola has never been demonstrated to be a source of health risks. The amount of canola, the proportion in the diet, and other factors can play off of canola’s omega profile and thus be a cause of ill health, but it’s the diet that’s the problem.
I have seen no publicly, freely available study that successfully demonstrates a clear link between canola and ill health. I’ve read a paywalled study that observed ill effects from trans fats in canola oils purchased prior to 1993, but once again, the omega 3 / 9 ratio could be the culprit. I am not at all convinced that the results are in any way relevant to modern canola oil. Nor was there any consistency in the brand - the oils studied varied from 4% trans fat (which was probably cheap crappy oil) and 1.5% , which was probably a recognizable brand name like Wesson, Crisco, or Mazola.
It’s definitely a worthwhile subject to dig into. Because of all the hyperventilating bloggers and subsequent Canola PR strike teams, getting relevant, objective information is incredibly hard. That being said, I haven’t seen anything at all that suggests canola oil is bad for you, especially in the context of Soylent.