Talk:Canola oil

2 pictures of canola-field necessary ?
i would say the saskatchewan field is nice and good enough. isnt it better to have an offline version of wikipedia fitting on the mobile phone storage capacity ?--Konfressor (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Abstain from removing content cited in respectable scientific journals
Do not remove pubmed-sourced and Nature-sourced information (in the section "Possible adverse effects") from the article on the grounds that the sources seem "predatory" to you (whatever that could mean). Take it to the discussion page first where you should have good reasons to lay out explaining what you meant by "predatory" and why these articles should be removed.

The bias from people with undisclosed harmful intentions here in this article is extreme and that needs to stop immediately. The current version reads like an all-positive fairytale with all valid criticism simply removed for reasons not even ever discussed. Should also be noted is the fact, that the standing for "absolute harmlessness" is very unscientific in its essence.

I am calling out User:Zefr and User:Psychologist Guy for the conflict of interest edits they have been pushing to this article. You should explain why citing two articles published in well-respected scientific journals is vandalism and removal of those articles is neutral and right. I am going to notify third-party administrators to intervene, via the Administrators Noticeboard -- 178.121.2.8 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have added a dispute resolution noticeboard section here: Dispute resolution noticeboard. Let's see if it works out, people out here deleting any discussions fast like lightning. -- 178.121.2.8 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about this material it is not suitable for Wikipedia. We do not cite  primary studies for biomedical content, especially not studies on mice. Firstly, see WP:MEDRS which says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." You should look for  systematic reviews in reliable medical journals or a decent medical textbook if you want to add good content to the article.


 * As for vitro studies. Zefr has cited the policy on this in their edit summary. I will quote you the policy on this: In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings, found at WP:MEDANIMAL. The stuff you were adding on mice has no relevance to this article. You also added a predatory journal, run by MDPI called Nutrients. Your edits are bad I am afraid, breaking multiple Wikipedia policies so were correctly reverted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My man, thanks for your input. I guess you are right and I am not, I stand corrected and I agree with you and with User:Zefr as well -- 178.121.2.8 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect you have admitted to being wrong about adding weak sources. You can entirely disagree with me but I believe it is easy to be mislead on this topic with the amount of nutritional misinformation out there, especially about processed foods including the refining process. In the low-carb/paleo/carnivore and even in the vegan community there is a lot of misinformation about this topic by online celebrity "nutritionists", these people are not real research scientists. They say seed oils cause inflammation and heart disease. There is no scientific evidence for this view, just weak isolated vitro studies that have no relevance to humans. The link between PUFAs and inflammation has never been demonstrated in any human trial. Here is a good recent review on the topic "The reason that the omega-6 to omega-3 PUFA ratio seems unimportant in predicting cardiometabolic disease or inflammation is probably because concerns about this ratio are partly formed on the basis of a number of incorrect and simplified assumptions—for example, that omega-6 PUFAs overall are proinflammatory, that omega-6 PUFAs (and linoleic acid in particular) have adverse effects on cardiovascular disease risk (although in fact omega-6 and omega-3 PUFAs are related to lower risk), and that reducing linoleic acid intake will lower arachidonic acid concentrations (by contrast, linoleic acid supplements do not increase arachidonic acid concentrations in plasma or adipose tissue).” . Abby Langer also has a good post on it . Dietary linoleic acid does not increase inflammation.
 * I know it is trendy online amongst self-taught nutritionists to say that canola oil and other seed oils cause inflammation and heart disease but when you look at the scientific data there is no evidence that shows this and Wikipedia has a high-bar set when it comes to evidence-based medicine so we will not cite fringe stuff on here. There is a lot of misinformation and unnecessary scare-mongering about this subject sadly. If you go straight to the fatty acids, there is no evidence that oleic acid is harmful to humans, the opposite is true. Canola oil is 61% oleic acid and olive oil is roughly 71%. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)