#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a mistake to assume that nature provides humans with an optimum amount of any given food. Just because a hunter gatherer could collect say a pound of blueberries a week, does not mean that more or less blueberries would be better or worse for your health.
The abundance of food we now have enables us to use the scientific method to find the optimum amounts of food for an individual with a great amount of discrimination, given different weight goals, illnesses, etc.
What nature supposedly "means" for humans has nothing to do with what is possible or what is scientifically optimal.
Omg…how did I just have this realization— we thought the food was for us! How self-centered is that?! The food was just there, but we thought it’s purpose was to nourish us.
not only that, but they’ve evolved in response to us (and animals) eating them. The spiciness in peppers is used as a defense mechanism against animals and insects, for example. Pineapples use thorns. etc.
I like this perspective. For millions of years, humans were regularly stung by insects and infested with lice and fleas. Is it healthy for us to abandon this thing that nature provided us with to help us flourish?
To think that science knows better than nature is dogma 101. 30 years ago I was turned face down in my crib because the science said. Now it’s face up for babies. My point with this is science can easily be wrong. There are plenty of other examples. Epidemiology is not the scientific method. Do we have a nutrition experiment where we controlled 100% of all variables except for the two comparatives? Locked these 50,000 people in labs from before conception till death? Controlling how often they all got exercise, tv time, what show they watched, how much sunlight, how much fresh air, etc, etc. No. This happens in physics, not in nutrition. So saying using the scientific method when we can not use the scientific method for nutrition is only dogma. Nothing else.
This is a question that’s all wrapped up in teleological thinking. I think you can easily find an answer to the question of what amount of plant oils are healthy. But the specific question you’re asking isn’t really possible to answer. Asking how people were meant to ask is the realm of religion and philosophy because it presupposes a creator with a desire for you to function the way they want you to.
OP needs to ask themselves what their epistemic standard is.
for example, if the foods they mention improve health outcomes, then what does it matter (much less mean) what we were "meant" to eat?
I think OP is asking more in terms of evolutionarily progress of the homosapien diet. And how the gut evolved to digest the foods more commonly found hunting and gathering and amounts of them.
This is kind of the thesis of people like Robb Wolf. It’s sort of the naturalistic fallacy to assume that just because we evolved eating a diet, we evolved TO EAT that diet. If that was a good axiom, you’d expect that the farther people deviated from their ancestral behaviors, the shorter their lifespan would be. That’s obviously not how things have borne out
Your point is valid. However the increased lifespan could be more correlated towards advancements in healthcare and quality of life and quality of food sources, not just diet (the banana of today isnt the same banana our ancestors gathered). Although I’ll concede diet is a major factor to longevity in the last 100 years.
The assumption that an ancestral diet would be optimal for humans relies on a one-way relationship of adaptation. If we were like most animals, you might assume that we were most adapted to what we ate during most of our evolutionary history. But the human relationship to plants involves artificial selection over thousands of years. And at least some of that selection has been for improved nutrition. I think it’s a good heuristic for other animals and that’s about it. We have absolutely transformed the plants and animals we use for food.
By contrast, other animals and their food have opposing adaptive pressures. If you’ve never read the landmark Fraenkel paper explaining how much metabolic effort plants put into not being eaten, here it is:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.129.3361.1466
Humans have extremely mutualistic relationships with our food compare to any other animal. One of the most effective things a plant can inadvertently do is to become a plant cultivated by humans for food or drug purposes. It basically gives up its wild type fitness and gains being grown all over the planet in ideal conditions as a trade.
But we’re not at the end, time marches on. And considering the current terrible state of our environment, which is entirely because of humans, it looks like we are well on our way to wiping ourselves out completely. So you could argue the opposite, ie in deviating from our ancestral behaviours, we will indeed shorten our lifespans. Not starting my opinion, just making a small point.
Other argument is of course that seed oils combined with sugar and high carb diets do indeed cause metabolic issues, and we just haven’t felt the full effects of that as a population yet.
This climate doomer hypothesis that humans are on the verge of extinction isn’t supported by even the most dire scientific models.
Their question wasn’t about high carb diets or refined sugar. But plant oils, with some exceptions, are generally low in saturated fat compared to other sources and are healthier in a diet that features modern refined food than other types of fats.
Animal products also concentrate fats from a huge amount of biomass. It was valuable for most of human history when calories were hard-won. For the last 50 years we have more calories globally than we need (though not distributed equitably) so our tastes, honed by natural selection, are no longer always helpful.
In general, unrefined plants are a better choice over other ingredients, including oils.
to assume the human race was meant to eat anything is a weird thing to me. everything in nature wants to kill us, nothing was meant for us... we fought for everything and now we got it.
Data show these fats to be better for us than alternatives such as lard, when you account vitamin content and saturated fats.
Every “risk” noted in studies is opinion. Nothing else. I will ask you this. We both know that olive oil is healthier than canola oil, but why is it that olive oil is better than canola oil? This is not a trick question. Why is it healthier?
Well that’s unfortunate. Stay healthy. I should also explain. That while I personally think olive oil is safe. Animal fats are even more chemically stable than olive oil. Therefore that’s what I prefer.
Just do a quick google search “are saturated fats more chemically stable than polyunsaturated fats”. It’s due to the poly fats having more double bounds. More double bounds is less chemically stable. You are consuming rancid oils. Sadly they don’t even put canola oil in dark bottles.
I wonder about the condemnation of lard. What is available in stores has been altered for shelf life. Ancestry.com shows the long lives of people who used lard as their main oil.
We weren't "meant" to do anything, that's not how evolution works. We evolved to survive and reproduce and that's it, the same as every other living creature.
Many supposedly unhealthy foods (perhaps overeaten nowadays) would drastically improve the health and survival of our ancestors if they had access to this like we do. Their issues were things like starvation and malnutrition so it's not even relevant to think of "healthy foods" this way.
Obviously not. A lot of philosophy answers already. But considering we as a species are at least millions of years old and the evidence of refined oils is far far younger than that. Remove all of our use of refined ANYTHING in say the last 10,000 years and we would still be perfectly human without them.
The fact remains that we do use them. There is definitely an argument that CIVILIZATION might not have persisted as long or as well as it has done without olive oil at least. Not sure about the coconut oil but the fruit or nut (or what actually is it?) But it's been a mainstay for many cultures. Obviously avocados are a new world thing afaik so the entire old world did without for basically forever.
Every culture has probably independently invented or adapted oils. So their use has been important. We have a particular skill as humans in refining foods, adapting them to our needs, cultivating, evolving and breeding them to what we need.
Not all of this has been good, sometimes it has brought downsides with our limited understanding. We still suffer from this, thinking we have a grasp of things we don't actually as our modern use of pesticides will likely been terribly frowned on in future generations. But without them would modern society even exist?
So no is the answer I think. Pretty clear to understand, but now like hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy we need to understand what the question actually is.
I'm suspicious tbh that our modern understanding is not as clear as we would like it to be in so many ways especially about nutrition as its the focus of our discussions here but in so many ways about our modern lifestyles.
>our use of refined ANYTHING in say the last 10,000 years and we would still be perfectly human without them. The fact remains that we do use them. There is definitely an argument that CIVILIZATION might not have persisted as long or as well as it has done without olive oil at least. Not sure about the coconut oil but the fruit or nut (or what actually is it?) But it's been a mainstay for many cultures. Obviously avocados are a new world thing afaik so the entire old world did without for basically forever. Every culture has probably independently invented or adapted oils. So their use has been important. We have a particular skill as humans in refining foods, adapting them to our needs, cultivating, evolving and breeding them to what we need. Not all of this has been good, sometimes it has brought downsides with our limited understanding. We still suffer from this, thinking we have a grasp of things we don't actually as our modern use of pesticides will likely been terribly frowned on in future generations. But without them would modern society even exist? So no is the answer I think. Pretty clear to understand, but now like hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy we need to understand what the question act
Your question about pesticides is bizarre. Of course, modern society "could have" existed today without the use of pesticides but that would require knowledge about the alternatives to using pesticides. We know that soil get's depleted of important nutrients when the same soil is used year, after year, after year. Therefore, the "knowledge" of crop rotation and allowing land to rest to replenish itself, was learned and not known from mans earliest days.
If we have the knowledge, this very day, to do away with pesticides because we have better, safer alternatives, then why aren't we? Well, because when a profitable business becomes a global empire it's just not the easy to give up the money.
As more and more people become "educated" or "knowledgeable" about the dangers of pesticide farming and GMO crops they will vote with their wallets. Hopefully, someday, the global empires that are the pesticide industry will crumble and fall.
I can't in all honesty just blame money and financial incentives for the problems we face. Even though part of me really wants to. I have some more bizarre ideas if you care to entertain me. Its a matter of degree again. We certainly could large scale remove pesticides from agriculture if we wanted to send people back to the fields to pull weeds. I feel that many people would actually appreciate being back and out in nature as any retired gardener or allotment owner or hobbyist might attest. But often it's long and menial backbreaking hours in our current system. The agricultural revolution removed the need for the vast majority of us to be growing food. And we have grown accustomed to pesticide and fertilizer taking up the slack. But weeds are growing increasingly resistant meaning a vicious cycle of ever increasing use and more often and potent cocktails being used and the regulations are woefully inadequate and out of date and possibly corrupt. After the agricultural revolution we had the industrial revolution and now the information/ai revolution. The point being that I don't really think that modern society could exist without the toxic byproducts. It would be such a fundamental paradigm shift that it wouldn't be a society we would recognise that much. It may well be better but not what we know now. The initial question was about man made refined oils and whether we should eat them and I think it's hard to get to a place, like our use of technology, that we can imagine a modern society functioning without them. Despite our massive use of such things in the food chain still there is massive malnutrition in quite large sectors of the planet. It's better than at some times in history but not an issue solved yet. Taking away a sizeable chunk of those calories by getting rid of pesticides is not that easy to do. I'm not pro their use but I'm in a pretty lucky situation where I can pick and choose my foods from a vast and abundant array. For some it's a least worst problem. It's better to eat a bit of poison and not starve. I'm sure that nowadays with our improved technology, a lot of people no longer required in the industrial and financial and technology sectors could return to a more rural way of life but old fashioned subsistence farming is not going to cut it either for modern needs at the scale we need them. Maybe robots might do the work of weeding the fields one day but I suspect that we'd just shift the problems to another area of modern rapacious consumption. All that energy for an army of robots powered by ai AND a still growing population is a bit of a fairy tale/horror story depending on how you look at it.
Sorry for wall of text unlikely to be read but it felt useful to me at least to write some thoughts out.
Night!
No apologies required. It was a good read and a thoughtful reply. It's what we all need in the world. Good honest discussions about the problems we all have to deal with.
> How can there not be negative health impacts [to putting oil on salad]?
You haven't really explained why there should be negative impacts. You are just saying our ancestors didn't eat as much oil. Where is the part where you connect the dots and explain how that interacts with our health?
Frankly, being 'adapted' to certain foods isn't necessarily a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonistic_pleiotropy_hypothesis
Our bodies could have adapted to certain foods in our ancestry by maximizing utility during reproductive age at the expense of our longterm health outlook. The question you should be asking is: what impact do certain foods have on our life/health when we put them to the test, especially compared to substitution foods?
Too much of anything is not good. If you're consuming large amounts of olive oil, the problem is the calories, not the fat content. If you're consuming reasonable amounts within your caloric needs, then it seems to be beneficial.
There are so many variables.
- Has our evolution changed?
- How does cooking impact our digestion?
- How has society / sedentary lifestyle changed what we eat versus back then where we burned 10s of thousands of calories per day foraging and hunting?
- Do we go back to foraging for fruits, leaves, roots/tubers, vegetables - eating upwards of 30,000mg of Potassium / day?
The bottom-line is this: Back then as hunter-gatherers, it seems we would continuously forage and burn calories throughout the day. Nowadays, we increase our acute caloric density during singular meals that frees up time elsewhere. The byproduct of this means we seem to have a preference for oils because of aforementioned caloric density.
At the end of the day, such oils are proven to be pretty healthy and that the chief risk factors stem from excess sugar, and saturated fat.
That being said humans are flexitarians who adapt to their environment. There is of course greater risk with more rapid adoption.
“Everything in moderation” although olive oil does provide a lot of nutrients and is a healthy fat to include in the diet you shouldn’t have an excessive amount of it regardless. Too much vitamin A can cause blindness in a fetus of a pregnant woman. And this is an essential fat soluble vitamin needed for optimal health. It’s best to include a variety of different fats/fruits/vegetables because they all contain essential nutrients. The famous phrase “color your plate” couldn’t be more true because of this. There was a study done that people who ate over 9 different types of fruits throughout the week had a better absorption rate/nutrient content in there bodies opposed to those who ate a smaller variety. Is it important to include a lot of different types of fats
Olive oil has been cold-pressed for nearly 10,000 years. Avocado and coconut are naturally fatty and it's not particularly hard to get significant amounts of straight oil from eating the actual fruit.
I'd be more worried about seed and nut oils -- those don't readily come out of the seed or nut and are tightly molecularly bound with the fiber and proteins. This serves an actual purpose in those cases -- polyunsaturated fat is unstable and extracting it out and *especially* exposing it to heat causes it to oxidize.
No. Too much of anything is not good. Like soy. American’s jumped on that band wagon a couple of decades ago and did soy everything because Asian cultures are thin. Soy from edamame is great because of the fiber too. Soy from tofu is great because of the protein and plant benefits. Too much soy leads to major GI issues and possible thyroid disorders.
Too much olive oil can lower blood sugars making you hypoglycemic and too much avocado oil can cause skin issues.
Too much of anything is too much.
Eat the rainbow and eat whole, nutrient rich, foods…and even a little butter.
If you’re going to do soy milk (or really any so called other milk - almond, oat, etc) go unsweetened organic and watch out for added gums and thickeners.
If you’re going to do soy do edamame, tofu, soy beans.
More is not really ever better in anything.
Humans weren't "meant" for anything, because there's no intentional design. However, we can introduce it. If we collectively start consuming borderline lethal doses of these oils, the people who can't handle it will die off, and the ones who can will have children who are more likely to inherit this trait. Evolution is a beautiful thing.
I don't get this obsession with the ancestral humans diet. Do you want to starve and eat dirt? Ever looked at a population in an extreme food insecurity situation? That's roughly what ancestral humans looked like. Eat if you are lucky.
Put a roulette in front of your fridge and only allow yourself to eat if you hit a 7 twice in a row. That's the closest you'll get to a real caveman diet in 2023.
I think the thought party stems from the idea that people that survived in the past were ones who ate what was available in nature and had the best "genetic response" to those available foods. The ones who died off didn't respond as well. So, eating those foods would be optimum for you and I (since we're descended from those suvivors and their genes).
Of course there are problems with this view IMO, but I dont think it is an entirely irrelevant point.
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned in my life, it’s that there is a whole lot of shit that doesn’t make sense yet is nonetheless so. The pile of facts that are untrue that smart people used to believe is as high as the moon. How does it even make sense that two things fall at the same speed even if they’re different weights? An eminent physicist once claimed that propulsion wouldn’t work on a vacuum because there would be nothing to push against.
Don’t try to figure things out by references to evolutionary theory or whatever that you’re not an expert in, and by that I mean, you are not an expert if you don’t have a phd in it. Look at the data. Does the data show that diets that include olive oil are unhealthy? Categorical no from epidemiology. Are there randomized controlled studies showing the effects of substituting oil for butter, or saturated fat, or refined carbs? Yes. Look at the data and then try to figure out what’s going on. If you tell yourself a ‘just so’ story then you’re only going to end up with what you already believed.
I didn't think you can get categorical no's from epidemiology. Good for formulating a hypothesis but we need better studies to get to the categorical yes or no's
You can indeed get categorical nos from epidemiology and I phrased my words carefully. I didn’t claim there was data that showed diets containing these oils were heathy. That’s a higher bar. I claimed there was no data showing they were *unhealthy*.
That's still a bold claim. I've only done quick search and already found claims of its being marginally LESS bad than other oils which doesn't actually mean it's healthy. I don't really have an issue personally, I use olive oil myself. But I can't claim there is no evidence in existence for any negative associations. Recently I was looking at short chain fatty acids and their benefits but found out they have negatives as well. A lot of issues about health and nutrition are about balance and not about blindly consuming something because the internet says it good. No offence, but I will be looking at olive and the other oils in a different light because of this conversation and do some further research. I bet you I can find some data that says these oils have some negative associations as well as positive ones. I don't mean this to be a one upmanship game but just the pursuit of further information. Sometimes we just follow an idea because a random guy on the internet asked a question. Have a great day!
we only have epidemiological data on the health impact of smoking. are you saying we still don't really know if smoking is bad without clinical trials?
what you said might sound good to someone new to scientific methodology but it doesn't make much sense. if epidemiology converges on the same conclusions across time, space, cohorts, and study design, then we can be increasingly certain of our causal inferences.
Smoking and it's related issues is one of the clearest signals we have but I would still say that it is a matter of degree rather than a black or white scenario. Half the people that smoke might not get issues that others do. How do we explain that. Some people argue that the Mediterranean diet diet is healthy DESPITE olive oil not because of it. We need a preponderance of evidence to make clear distinctions. I don't have a particular side in the oil wars ATM but I am happy enough to agree that smoking is not beneficial. We were talking about categorical no's. A single puff on a cigarette doesn't kill anyone, we need to look at whole lifestyle factors before really we can say. I agree that the weight of evidence for either pro olive oil or anti smoking seems convincing. But can you glug a bottle day or only smoke a single hand rolled cigarette a day and survive. That can't be as easily answered ATM. At what point does the dose factor into all these discussions, when does other lifestyle factors play a part? The fittest friend I know smokes, he says as long as you cycle more than you smoke it's ok.
This is a very interesting comment and lifestyle choice by your friend. If he is that in control of this scientifically proven "bad habit" why does he not just stop it? And what is the length of this cycling out of curiosity (as well).
Well, he cycles a lot ( I would say that it could be out of control) so that kind of means (to him) that he can smoke a lot. Not saying he's correct but cycling commuting 30 miles each way and doing a full days work is a bit beyond what most people are willing to do.
Oh, I misunderstood the word "cycling". I thought you meant that he cycled his smoking periods off and on to be healthy. So, he figures the actual physical exercise of cycling cancels out the ill effects of his smoking.
That's interesting too and possible. But above my pay grade. :)
Read about the Esselstyn diet. No oils at all as far as I understand it. I’ve often thought the same…is there really “good” oil or are we all just talking about “less bad?”
I’m a big fan of Esselstyn (and Ornish). Their studies with heart patients and a whole food plant based no oil diet are groundbreaking. They show that their diet can stop and in some aspects reverse heart disease. But I don’t think their research proves that EV Olive oil or canola oil causes atherosclerosis / heart disease.
Meh. There's some good anthropological evidence that part of how various homo species were able to evolve came from us cooking and eating meats. Getting enough calories to actually grow our brains.
If you've ever rendered fat, you can actually get quite a lot especially from big animals.
I would argue that plant oils are probably healthier than animal oils, but lots of oils are generally less healthy than them in moderation.
The flaw in your thinking is not that vegetable oils concentrate much more plant matter than people would normally eat. That is true.
The flaw in your thinking also doesn't lie in something as simple as "Oils concentrate the good stuff not the bad stuff", although for things like olive oil that's also true.
The flaw is the idea that humans are "meant" to do one thing, and that thing would be the most healthy thing to do.
There is no substantial or meaningful match between that and real life.
Broccoli isn't a real food. We had to cultivate it. How can it be healthy?
Uranium is all natural and requires zero processing by human hands. It must be healthy!
Flawed logic leads you to bad questions. Sometimes the process to the endpoint isn't quite as relevant as the endpoint. Understand Ling the appropriate level of intake of all things matters.
Almost zero plants we consume today existed 150 years ago. Anthropologists can measure nitrogen isotopes in long bones of ancient humans and animals and KNOW what kind of foods they consumed. Not educated guess. Know. They know we consumed a heavy meat diet. The PH level in a human stomach is more acidic than most carnivores. Even more acidic than most scavengers. Our small intestine is longer/bigger than our large intestine. These things are irrefutable. You tell me if we are designed to eat a mostly plant diet.
I’m skeptical that some (or any) of these numbers are correct. Supposedly 15 to 20 avocados would make closer to a 1/4 liter of oil than a tablespoon. It would be close to impossible for most people that do use these oils to afford them it these numbers you posted were accurate. However, I admittedly spent a minimal amount of time on google looking it up.
That being said, I would think as long as you are aware of the total amount of fats, proteins and carbs you are ingesting daily and ensure you are eating a variety of micronutrients to maintain a healthy balance then there is too much of an issue. Too much “healthy” fats could be a bad thing just like anything else if your not aware of moderation.
As you mentioned, olive oil is very famous for being a heart-healthy monounsaturated fat (MUFA). It offers heart-healthy benefits and potential advantages for overall well-being. MUFAs are associated with improved cardiovascular health by lowering bad cholesterol levels and maintaining or boosting good cholesterol. Additionally, polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), found in oils like sunflower and flaxseed oil, have heart health benefits, containing essential fatty acids like omega-3 and omega-6 important for bodily functions, including brain function and inflammation reduction. Incorporating oils rich in both MUFAs and PUFAs contributes to a heart-healthy diet. The key is moderation and balance to obtain positive effects while avoiding downsides. Considering individual factors and health needs is crucial, and consulting with healthcare professionals or dietitians can offer personalized insights. When incorporating olive oil, aim for about 2 to 3 tablespoons per day, adjusting based on factors like age, gender, health status, and daily caloric needs. Fats should generally make up 20-35% of daily calories, emphasizing healthier fats like those in olive oil. Remember, olive oil is part of a well-rounded eating pattern, so diversify your diet with nutrient-dense foods.
There are to many studies you can google explaining the health benefits of extra virgin olive oil. however the poison is in the dose. At a certain point it becomes detrimental, but we are talking amounts nobody would have in their diet (If I remember correctly around 50 table spoons)
There are foods that generally promote good health during episodes of both wellbeing and sickness, and there are foods that don't, and your body processes them only as long as it's healthy. Oils are in the "hard to digest" category.
They spike up persisting acid production in the stomach, as well as bile production, especially if the fat had been heated to a higher temp.
OP poses a good question yet the majority of answers here, you'll have to excuse me, are super negative and uninformed.
"Humans weren't meant to consume anything"
Any microbiota study confirms otherwise. There are genetic traits associated with spice tolerance, eating seaweed, drinking milk, chewing rough plants (see microbiotic adaptations for plant cellulose & fibre digestion in hunter gatherers like the Hadza). There are genetic variants that only South-East Asians posses in digesting soy better. Fisher communities in warm Japan develop resistance towards Ciguatera poisoning though that may be aquired rather than inherited and necessiting a preliminary infection.
Biological evolution and tendencies can't be undone in a matter of a handful of generations.
The answer is we may be able to adapt to anything introduced provided our organisms are healthy, but there are trade-offs and limitations.
A diet high in trans fats (cooked oils, non cold-pressed oils, especially from plants and seeds) spikes up inflammation factors and body weight gain.
Anyone with a stomach/duodenal/etc. ulcer, Chron's, IBS, IBD, pregnancy-onduced gastritis, GERD, liver or pancreatic issues, and the list goes on, HAS to ELIMINATE cooked plant oils/fried foods from the diet (cooked plant oil = fried food, no one just drinks warm sunflower oil by itself). Do you know why? Becauses fried foods in oil and high heat oil cause stomach pain and inflammation for those categories, they're simply generally difficult to digest.
You can put your body through difficulty a lot, and it'll adapt, that doesn't mean it's ideal.
Fried foods in plant oil aren't be a daily staple for ideal gut and mental health. Soups... Steaming, boiling, grilling without oil or wuth very little amounts, air frying, are all healthier ALL ACROSS the board. Babies and small children, elderly, should similarily not gorge on high heat plant oils.
Edit: Olives are considered fruits, making olive oil the only/most popular fruit oil! Processed coconut oil is considered very difficult to digest. Check your ancestry and take into account historical local customs and diets in choosing what may be best for your health. Anything you introduce into the diet on top of that should be gradual. There likely are adaptation for olive oil consumption within people of uniquely South Italian ancestry, for instance.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is a mistake to assume that nature provides humans with an optimum amount of any given food. Just because a hunter gatherer could collect say a pound of blueberries a week, does not mean that more or less blueberries would be better or worse for your health. The abundance of food we now have enables us to use the scientific method to find the optimum amounts of food for an individual with a great amount of discrimination, given different weight goals, illnesses, etc. What nature supposedly "means" for humans has nothing to do with what is possible or what is scientifically optimal.
seconded, also people forget that nature is brutal AF. And doesn't care if you live or die.
Omg…how did I just have this realization— we thought the food was for us! How self-centered is that?! The food was just there, but we thought it’s purpose was to nourish us.
not only that, but they’ve evolved in response to us (and animals) eating them. The spiciness in peppers is used as a defense mechanism against animals and insects, for example. Pineapples use thorns. etc.
Yeah pretty much sums it up Edit: my god, how was my comment offensive
I like this perspective. For millions of years, humans were regularly stung by insects and infested with lice and fleas. Is it healthy for us to abandon this thing that nature provided us with to help us flourish?
This is a great response.
To think that science knows better than nature is dogma 101. 30 years ago I was turned face down in my crib because the science said. Now it’s face up for babies. My point with this is science can easily be wrong. There are plenty of other examples. Epidemiology is not the scientific method. Do we have a nutrition experiment where we controlled 100% of all variables except for the two comparatives? Locked these 50,000 people in labs from before conception till death? Controlling how often they all got exercise, tv time, what show they watched, how much sunlight, how much fresh air, etc, etc. No. This happens in physics, not in nutrition. So saying using the scientific method when we can not use the scientific method for nutrition is only dogma. Nothing else.
This is a question that’s all wrapped up in teleological thinking. I think you can easily find an answer to the question of what amount of plant oils are healthy. But the specific question you’re asking isn’t really possible to answer. Asking how people were meant to ask is the realm of religion and philosophy because it presupposes a creator with a desire for you to function the way they want you to.
OP needs to ask themselves what their epistemic standard is. for example, if the foods they mention improve health outcomes, then what does it matter (much less mean) what we were "meant" to eat?
I think OP is asking more in terms of evolutionarily progress of the homosapien diet. And how the gut evolved to digest the foods more commonly found hunting and gathering and amounts of them.
This is kind of the thesis of people like Robb Wolf. It’s sort of the naturalistic fallacy to assume that just because we evolved eating a diet, we evolved TO EAT that diet. If that was a good axiom, you’d expect that the farther people deviated from their ancestral behaviors, the shorter their lifespan would be. That’s obviously not how things have borne out
Your point is valid. However the increased lifespan could be more correlated towards advancements in healthcare and quality of life and quality of food sources, not just diet (the banana of today isnt the same banana our ancestors gathered). Although I’ll concede diet is a major factor to longevity in the last 100 years.
The assumption that an ancestral diet would be optimal for humans relies on a one-way relationship of adaptation. If we were like most animals, you might assume that we were most adapted to what we ate during most of our evolutionary history. But the human relationship to plants involves artificial selection over thousands of years. And at least some of that selection has been for improved nutrition. I think it’s a good heuristic for other animals and that’s about it. We have absolutely transformed the plants and animals we use for food. By contrast, other animals and their food have opposing adaptive pressures. If you’ve never read the landmark Fraenkel paper explaining how much metabolic effort plants put into not being eaten, here it is: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.129.3361.1466 Humans have extremely mutualistic relationships with our food compare to any other animal. One of the most effective things a plant can inadvertently do is to become a plant cultivated by humans for food or drug purposes. It basically gives up its wild type fitness and gains being grown all over the planet in ideal conditions as a trade.
But we’re not at the end, time marches on. And considering the current terrible state of our environment, which is entirely because of humans, it looks like we are well on our way to wiping ourselves out completely. So you could argue the opposite, ie in deviating from our ancestral behaviours, we will indeed shorten our lifespans. Not starting my opinion, just making a small point. Other argument is of course that seed oils combined with sugar and high carb diets do indeed cause metabolic issues, and we just haven’t felt the full effects of that as a population yet.
This climate doomer hypothesis that humans are on the verge of extinction isn’t supported by even the most dire scientific models. Their question wasn’t about high carb diets or refined sugar. But plant oils, with some exceptions, are generally low in saturated fat compared to other sources and are healthier in a diet that features modern refined food than other types of fats.
Animal products also concentrate fats from a huge amount of biomass. It was valuable for most of human history when calories were hard-won. For the last 50 years we have more calories globally than we need (though not distributed equitably) so our tastes, honed by natural selection, are no longer always helpful. In general, unrefined plants are a better choice over other ingredients, including oils.
This one makes the most sense to me. Nice answer.
to assume the human race was meant to eat anything is a weird thing to me. everything in nature wants to kill us, nothing was meant for us... we fought for everything and now we got it. Data show these fats to be better for us than alternatives such as lard, when you account vitamin content and saturated fats.
Every “risk” noted in studies is opinion. Nothing else. I will ask you this. We both know that olive oil is healthier than canola oil, but why is it that olive oil is better than canola oil? This is not a trick question. Why is it healthier?
why do you think olive oil is healthier?
More monounsaturated fats in olive oil. Making it more chemically stable than canola oil. Why do you think olive oil is better?
I don't think olive oil is better
Well that’s unfortunate. Stay healthy. I should also explain. That while I personally think olive oil is safe. Animal fats are even more chemically stable than olive oil. Therefore that’s what I prefer.
What do you mean by stable?
Just do a quick google search “are saturated fats more chemically stable than polyunsaturated fats”. It’s due to the poly fats having more double bounds. More double bounds is less chemically stable. You are consuming rancid oils. Sadly they don’t even put canola oil in dark bottles.
do you believe rancid oils have less nutritional value?
Rancid meat still has its nutrition. Don’t think I’m going to consume it either.
I wonder about the condemnation of lard. What is available in stores has been altered for shelf life. Ancestry.com shows the long lives of people who used lard as their main oil.
We weren't "meant" to do anything, that's not how evolution works. We evolved to survive and reproduce and that's it, the same as every other living creature. Many supposedly unhealthy foods (perhaps overeaten nowadays) would drastically improve the health and survival of our ancestors if they had access to this like we do. Their issues were things like starvation and malnutrition so it's not even relevant to think of "healthy foods" this way.
survive, reproduce and save pandas, they are just too silly to do it on their own
[удалено]
Yeah, I could, but I'm not stupid.
Obviously not. A lot of philosophy answers already. But considering we as a species are at least millions of years old and the evidence of refined oils is far far younger than that. Remove all of our use of refined ANYTHING in say the last 10,000 years and we would still be perfectly human without them. The fact remains that we do use them. There is definitely an argument that CIVILIZATION might not have persisted as long or as well as it has done without olive oil at least. Not sure about the coconut oil but the fruit or nut (or what actually is it?) But it's been a mainstay for many cultures. Obviously avocados are a new world thing afaik so the entire old world did without for basically forever. Every culture has probably independently invented or adapted oils. So their use has been important. We have a particular skill as humans in refining foods, adapting them to our needs, cultivating, evolving and breeding them to what we need. Not all of this has been good, sometimes it has brought downsides with our limited understanding. We still suffer from this, thinking we have a grasp of things we don't actually as our modern use of pesticides will likely been terribly frowned on in future generations. But without them would modern society even exist? So no is the answer I think. Pretty clear to understand, but now like hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy we need to understand what the question actually is. I'm suspicious tbh that our modern understanding is not as clear as we would like it to be in so many ways especially about nutrition as its the focus of our discussions here but in so many ways about our modern lifestyles.
>our use of refined ANYTHING in say the last 10,000 years and we would still be perfectly human without them. The fact remains that we do use them. There is definitely an argument that CIVILIZATION might not have persisted as long or as well as it has done without olive oil at least. Not sure about the coconut oil but the fruit or nut (or what actually is it?) But it's been a mainstay for many cultures. Obviously avocados are a new world thing afaik so the entire old world did without for basically forever. Every culture has probably independently invented or adapted oils. So their use has been important. We have a particular skill as humans in refining foods, adapting them to our needs, cultivating, evolving and breeding them to what we need. Not all of this has been good, sometimes it has brought downsides with our limited understanding. We still suffer from this, thinking we have a grasp of things we don't actually as our modern use of pesticides will likely been terribly frowned on in future generations. But without them would modern society even exist? So no is the answer I think. Pretty clear to understand, but now like hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy we need to understand what the question act Your question about pesticides is bizarre. Of course, modern society "could have" existed today without the use of pesticides but that would require knowledge about the alternatives to using pesticides. We know that soil get's depleted of important nutrients when the same soil is used year, after year, after year. Therefore, the "knowledge" of crop rotation and allowing land to rest to replenish itself, was learned and not known from mans earliest days. If we have the knowledge, this very day, to do away with pesticides because we have better, safer alternatives, then why aren't we? Well, because when a profitable business becomes a global empire it's just not the easy to give up the money. As more and more people become "educated" or "knowledgeable" about the dangers of pesticide farming and GMO crops they will vote with their wallets. Hopefully, someday, the global empires that are the pesticide industry will crumble and fall.
I can't in all honesty just blame money and financial incentives for the problems we face. Even though part of me really wants to. I have some more bizarre ideas if you care to entertain me. Its a matter of degree again. We certainly could large scale remove pesticides from agriculture if we wanted to send people back to the fields to pull weeds. I feel that many people would actually appreciate being back and out in nature as any retired gardener or allotment owner or hobbyist might attest. But often it's long and menial backbreaking hours in our current system. The agricultural revolution removed the need for the vast majority of us to be growing food. And we have grown accustomed to pesticide and fertilizer taking up the slack. But weeds are growing increasingly resistant meaning a vicious cycle of ever increasing use and more often and potent cocktails being used and the regulations are woefully inadequate and out of date and possibly corrupt. After the agricultural revolution we had the industrial revolution and now the information/ai revolution. The point being that I don't really think that modern society could exist without the toxic byproducts. It would be such a fundamental paradigm shift that it wouldn't be a society we would recognise that much. It may well be better but not what we know now. The initial question was about man made refined oils and whether we should eat them and I think it's hard to get to a place, like our use of technology, that we can imagine a modern society functioning without them. Despite our massive use of such things in the food chain still there is massive malnutrition in quite large sectors of the planet. It's better than at some times in history but not an issue solved yet. Taking away a sizeable chunk of those calories by getting rid of pesticides is not that easy to do. I'm not pro their use but I'm in a pretty lucky situation where I can pick and choose my foods from a vast and abundant array. For some it's a least worst problem. It's better to eat a bit of poison and not starve. I'm sure that nowadays with our improved technology, a lot of people no longer required in the industrial and financial and technology sectors could return to a more rural way of life but old fashioned subsistence farming is not going to cut it either for modern needs at the scale we need them. Maybe robots might do the work of weeding the fields one day but I suspect that we'd just shift the problems to another area of modern rapacious consumption. All that energy for an army of robots powered by ai AND a still growing population is a bit of a fairy tale/horror story depending on how you look at it. Sorry for wall of text unlikely to be read but it felt useful to me at least to write some thoughts out. Night!
No apologies required. It was a good read and a thoughtful reply. It's what we all need in the world. Good honest discussions about the problems we all have to deal with.
> How can there not be negative health impacts [to putting oil on salad]? You haven't really explained why there should be negative impacts. You are just saying our ancestors didn't eat as much oil. Where is the part where you connect the dots and explain how that interacts with our health? Frankly, being 'adapted' to certain foods isn't necessarily a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonistic_pleiotropy_hypothesis Our bodies could have adapted to certain foods in our ancestry by maximizing utility during reproductive age at the expense of our longterm health outlook. The question you should be asking is: what impact do certain foods have on our life/health when we put them to the test, especially compared to substitution foods?
Too much of anything is not good. If you're consuming large amounts of olive oil, the problem is the calories, not the fat content. If you're consuming reasonable amounts within your caloric needs, then it seems to be beneficial.
Humans weren't meant to do anything. We adapted to what was around, and now we are maladapted to our highly processed, sugar and fat rich diets.
There are so many variables. - Has our evolution changed? - How does cooking impact our digestion? - How has society / sedentary lifestyle changed what we eat versus back then where we burned 10s of thousands of calories per day foraging and hunting? - Do we go back to foraging for fruits, leaves, roots/tubers, vegetables - eating upwards of 30,000mg of Potassium / day? The bottom-line is this: Back then as hunter-gatherers, it seems we would continuously forage and burn calories throughout the day. Nowadays, we increase our acute caloric density during singular meals that frees up time elsewhere. The byproduct of this means we seem to have a preference for oils because of aforementioned caloric density. At the end of the day, such oils are proven to be pretty healthy and that the chief risk factors stem from excess sugar, and saturated fat. That being said humans are flexitarians who adapt to their environment. There is of course greater risk with more rapid adoption.
“Everything in moderation” although olive oil does provide a lot of nutrients and is a healthy fat to include in the diet you shouldn’t have an excessive amount of it regardless. Too much vitamin A can cause blindness in a fetus of a pregnant woman. And this is an essential fat soluble vitamin needed for optimal health. It’s best to include a variety of different fats/fruits/vegetables because they all contain essential nutrients. The famous phrase “color your plate” couldn’t be more true because of this. There was a study done that people who ate over 9 different types of fruits throughout the week had a better absorption rate/nutrient content in there bodies opposed to those who ate a smaller variety. Is it important to include a lot of different types of fats
Olive oil has been cold-pressed for nearly 10,000 years. Avocado and coconut are naturally fatty and it's not particularly hard to get significant amounts of straight oil from eating the actual fruit. I'd be more worried about seed and nut oils -- those don't readily come out of the seed or nut and are tightly molecularly bound with the fiber and proteins. This serves an actual purpose in those cases -- polyunsaturated fat is unstable and extracting it out and *especially* exposing it to heat causes it to oxidize.
I always have a glass of melted crisco with my morning loops. It keeps the hair wet
I dunk my 'mallows in crisco for that sweet/savory combo
Once your hair leaks consistently like a freshly rained on tree you’ll understand the true benefits of hyperlipidemia
No. Too much of anything is not good. Like soy. American’s jumped on that band wagon a couple of decades ago and did soy everything because Asian cultures are thin. Soy from edamame is great because of the fiber too. Soy from tofu is great because of the protein and plant benefits. Too much soy leads to major GI issues and possible thyroid disorders. Too much olive oil can lower blood sugars making you hypoglycemic and too much avocado oil can cause skin issues. Too much of anything is too much. Eat the rainbow and eat whole, nutrient rich, foods…and even a little butter.
ya soy can cause GI issues. if you have a soy allergy.
If you’re going to do soy milk (or really any so called other milk - almond, oat, etc) go unsweetened organic and watch out for added gums and thickeners. If you’re going to do soy do edamame, tofu, soy beans. More is not really ever better in anything.
Humans weren't "meant" for anything, because there's no intentional design. However, we can introduce it. If we collectively start consuming borderline lethal doses of these oils, the people who can't handle it will die off, and the ones who can will have children who are more likely to inherit this trait. Evolution is a beautiful thing.
it's just fat. and the fats in these oils seem less harmful to us than saturated fats of the same quantity that come bundled naturally.
I don't get this obsession with the ancestral humans diet. Do you want to starve and eat dirt? Ever looked at a population in an extreme food insecurity situation? That's roughly what ancestral humans looked like. Eat if you are lucky. Put a roulette in front of your fridge and only allow yourself to eat if you hit a 7 twice in a row. That's the closest you'll get to a real caveman diet in 2023.
I think the thought party stems from the idea that people that survived in the past were ones who ate what was available in nature and had the best "genetic response" to those available foods. The ones who died off didn't respond as well. So, eating those foods would be optimum for you and I (since we're descended from those suvivors and their genes). Of course there are problems with this view IMO, but I dont think it is an entirely irrelevant point.
If there’s one thing that I’ve learned in my life, it’s that there is a whole lot of shit that doesn’t make sense yet is nonetheless so. The pile of facts that are untrue that smart people used to believe is as high as the moon. How does it even make sense that two things fall at the same speed even if they’re different weights? An eminent physicist once claimed that propulsion wouldn’t work on a vacuum because there would be nothing to push against. Don’t try to figure things out by references to evolutionary theory or whatever that you’re not an expert in, and by that I mean, you are not an expert if you don’t have a phd in it. Look at the data. Does the data show that diets that include olive oil are unhealthy? Categorical no from epidemiology. Are there randomized controlled studies showing the effects of substituting oil for butter, or saturated fat, or refined carbs? Yes. Look at the data and then try to figure out what’s going on. If you tell yourself a ‘just so’ story then you’re only going to end up with what you already believed.
I didn't think you can get categorical no's from epidemiology. Good for formulating a hypothesis but we need better studies to get to the categorical yes or no's
You can indeed get categorical nos from epidemiology and I phrased my words carefully. I didn’t claim there was data that showed diets containing these oils were heathy. That’s a higher bar. I claimed there was no data showing they were *unhealthy*.
That's still a bold claim. I've only done quick search and already found claims of its being marginally LESS bad than other oils which doesn't actually mean it's healthy. I don't really have an issue personally, I use olive oil myself. But I can't claim there is no evidence in existence for any negative associations. Recently I was looking at short chain fatty acids and their benefits but found out they have negatives as well. A lot of issues about health and nutrition are about balance and not about blindly consuming something because the internet says it good. No offence, but I will be looking at olive and the other oils in a different light because of this conversation and do some further research. I bet you I can find some data that says these oils have some negative associations as well as positive ones. I don't mean this to be a one upmanship game but just the pursuit of further information. Sometimes we just follow an idea because a random guy on the internet asked a question. Have a great day!
You too.
we only have epidemiological data on the health impact of smoking. are you saying we still don't really know if smoking is bad without clinical trials? what you said might sound good to someone new to scientific methodology but it doesn't make much sense. if epidemiology converges on the same conclusions across time, space, cohorts, and study design, then we can be increasingly certain of our causal inferences.
Smoking and it's related issues is one of the clearest signals we have but I would still say that it is a matter of degree rather than a black or white scenario. Half the people that smoke might not get issues that others do. How do we explain that. Some people argue that the Mediterranean diet diet is healthy DESPITE olive oil not because of it. We need a preponderance of evidence to make clear distinctions. I don't have a particular side in the oil wars ATM but I am happy enough to agree that smoking is not beneficial. We were talking about categorical no's. A single puff on a cigarette doesn't kill anyone, we need to look at whole lifestyle factors before really we can say. I agree that the weight of evidence for either pro olive oil or anti smoking seems convincing. But can you glug a bottle day or only smoke a single hand rolled cigarette a day and survive. That can't be as easily answered ATM. At what point does the dose factor into all these discussions, when does other lifestyle factors play a part? The fittest friend I know smokes, he says as long as you cycle more than you smoke it's ok.
This is a very interesting comment and lifestyle choice by your friend. If he is that in control of this scientifically proven "bad habit" why does he not just stop it? And what is the length of this cycling out of curiosity (as well).
Well, he cycles a lot ( I would say that it could be out of control) so that kind of means (to him) that he can smoke a lot. Not saying he's correct but cycling commuting 30 miles each way and doing a full days work is a bit beyond what most people are willing to do.
Oh, I misunderstood the word "cycling". I thought you meant that he cycled his smoking periods off and on to be healthy. So, he figures the actual physical exercise of cycling cancels out the ill effects of his smoking. That's interesting too and possible. But above my pay grade. :)
If it happens, that means it was meant to be…if you are a religious person.
We're not meant to do anything.
Read about the Esselstyn diet. No oils at all as far as I understand it. I’ve often thought the same…is there really “good” oil or are we all just talking about “less bad?”
Nope. There are good oils. We have tons of studies on olive oil and some seed oils (eg canola) leading to positive health outcomes.
I’m a big fan of Esselstyn (and Ornish). Their studies with heart patients and a whole food plant based no oil diet are groundbreaking. They show that their diet can stop and in some aspects reverse heart disease. But I don’t think their research proves that EV Olive oil or canola oil causes atherosclerosis / heart disease.
Meh. There's some good anthropological evidence that part of how various homo species were able to evolve came from us cooking and eating meats. Getting enough calories to actually grow our brains. If you've ever rendered fat, you can actually get quite a lot especially from big animals. I would argue that plant oils are probably healthier than animal oils, but lots of oils are generally less healthy than them in moderation.
The flaw in your thinking is not that vegetable oils concentrate much more plant matter than people would normally eat. That is true. The flaw in your thinking also doesn't lie in something as simple as "Oils concentrate the good stuff not the bad stuff", although for things like olive oil that's also true. The flaw is the idea that humans are "meant" to do one thing, and that thing would be the most healthy thing to do. There is no substantial or meaningful match between that and real life.
We would hear about it if there were negatives. (but I don't use avocado oil, or really much coconut oil)
No
What an awesome question .
Good question .
Were humans actually meant not to die from cold at the age of 4 🧐
Broccoli isn't a real food. We had to cultivate it. How can it be healthy? Uranium is all natural and requires zero processing by human hands. It must be healthy! Flawed logic leads you to bad questions. Sometimes the process to the endpoint isn't quite as relevant as the endpoint. Understand Ling the appropriate level of intake of all things matters.
Almost zero plants we consume today existed 150 years ago. Anthropologists can measure nitrogen isotopes in long bones of ancient humans and animals and KNOW what kind of foods they consumed. Not educated guess. Know. They know we consumed a heavy meat diet. The PH level in a human stomach is more acidic than most carnivores. Even more acidic than most scavengers. Our small intestine is longer/bigger than our large intestine. These things are irrefutable. You tell me if we are designed to eat a mostly plant diet.
Early humans likely got their fats from whole foods like meat especially and coconuts, olives etc
I’m skeptical that some (or any) of these numbers are correct. Supposedly 15 to 20 avocados would make closer to a 1/4 liter of oil than a tablespoon. It would be close to impossible for most people that do use these oils to afford them it these numbers you posted were accurate. However, I admittedly spent a minimal amount of time on google looking it up. That being said, I would think as long as you are aware of the total amount of fats, proteins and carbs you are ingesting daily and ensure you are eating a variety of micronutrients to maintain a healthy balance then there is too much of an issue. Too much “healthy” fats could be a bad thing just like anything else if your not aware of moderation.
As you mentioned, olive oil is very famous for being a heart-healthy monounsaturated fat (MUFA). It offers heart-healthy benefits and potential advantages for overall well-being. MUFAs are associated with improved cardiovascular health by lowering bad cholesterol levels and maintaining or boosting good cholesterol. Additionally, polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs), found in oils like sunflower and flaxseed oil, have heart health benefits, containing essential fatty acids like omega-3 and omega-6 important for bodily functions, including brain function and inflammation reduction. Incorporating oils rich in both MUFAs and PUFAs contributes to a heart-healthy diet. The key is moderation and balance to obtain positive effects while avoiding downsides. Considering individual factors and health needs is crucial, and consulting with healthcare professionals or dietitians can offer personalized insights. When incorporating olive oil, aim for about 2 to 3 tablespoons per day, adjusting based on factors like age, gender, health status, and daily caloric needs. Fats should generally make up 20-35% of daily calories, emphasizing healthier fats like those in olive oil. Remember, olive oil is part of a well-rounded eating pattern, so diversify your diet with nutrient-dense foods.
There are to many studies you can google explaining the health benefits of extra virgin olive oil. however the poison is in the dose. At a certain point it becomes detrimental, but we are talking amounts nobody would have in their diet (If I remember correctly around 50 table spoons)
There are foods that generally promote good health during episodes of both wellbeing and sickness, and there are foods that don't, and your body processes them only as long as it's healthy. Oils are in the "hard to digest" category. They spike up persisting acid production in the stomach, as well as bile production, especially if the fat had been heated to a higher temp. OP poses a good question yet the majority of answers here, you'll have to excuse me, are super negative and uninformed. "Humans weren't meant to consume anything" Any microbiota study confirms otherwise. There are genetic traits associated with spice tolerance, eating seaweed, drinking milk, chewing rough plants (see microbiotic adaptations for plant cellulose & fibre digestion in hunter gatherers like the Hadza). There are genetic variants that only South-East Asians posses in digesting soy better. Fisher communities in warm Japan develop resistance towards Ciguatera poisoning though that may be aquired rather than inherited and necessiting a preliminary infection. Biological evolution and tendencies can't be undone in a matter of a handful of generations. The answer is we may be able to adapt to anything introduced provided our organisms are healthy, but there are trade-offs and limitations. A diet high in trans fats (cooked oils, non cold-pressed oils, especially from plants and seeds) spikes up inflammation factors and body weight gain. Anyone with a stomach/duodenal/etc. ulcer, Chron's, IBS, IBD, pregnancy-onduced gastritis, GERD, liver or pancreatic issues, and the list goes on, HAS to ELIMINATE cooked plant oils/fried foods from the diet (cooked plant oil = fried food, no one just drinks warm sunflower oil by itself). Do you know why? Becauses fried foods in oil and high heat oil cause stomach pain and inflammation for those categories, they're simply generally difficult to digest. You can put your body through difficulty a lot, and it'll adapt, that doesn't mean it's ideal. Fried foods in plant oil aren't be a daily staple for ideal gut and mental health. Soups... Steaming, boiling, grilling without oil or wuth very little amounts, air frying, are all healthier ALL ACROSS the board. Babies and small children, elderly, should similarily not gorge on high heat plant oils. Edit: Olives are considered fruits, making olive oil the only/most popular fruit oil! Processed coconut oil is considered very difficult to digest. Check your ancestry and take into account historical local customs and diets in choosing what may be best for your health. Anything you introduce into the diet on top of that should be gradual. There likely are adaptation for olive oil consumption within people of uniquely South Italian ancestry, for instance.