The dynamics of edible oil industry got disrupted after we adopted mass production / import of refined oils at lower cost to our wallet( costing our heart health)
Why should we refrain from refined edible oils:
- Major factor of cardiovascular risk is caused by refined oils
- Study found,Even rats which were constantly fed food made out of refined oils have shown symptoms of hypertension & ischemic heart causing cardiovascular disability
The dynamics of edible oil industry got disrupted after we adopted mass production / import of refined oils at lower cost to our wallet( costing our heart health)
Age old days,Oils were extracted at home and given the complexity of extraction it was used mindfully
Oils are excellent supplement if we know how much is too much
Refined oils are gateway for
- Obesity
- Hypertension
- Abnormal cholesterol/ Lipid profile
-Ischemic heart disease
-Cardio vascular risk / disability
As health is subjective to individual so does oils were subjective to region person lived (Tropical bio diversity)
- why it has to be refined , it's for the byproducts, longer shelf-life
Edible oils refinery generates
-Soapstock
- Acid oil and fatty acid distillates (for producing biodiesel)
Your genetic lipid nutrition history may look for the tropical which your ancestors and family were using for generations
Use that type of Oils atleast it's your heart health!
More from Ayur Arogyam
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
