Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home

From:	Jeff Novick, MS, RD, LD, LN (novick.vegsource.com)
Subject:	Re: Oil in salad dressing: Necessary?
Date:	August 31, 2007 at 6:03 am PST

In Reply to: Oil in salad dressing: Necessary? posted by Steve on August 30, 2007 at 1:44 pm:

Hey Steve

Extracted Oils are not "necessary" in salad dressings, nor are they ?
a necessary component in a diet. Oils are highly refined, highly ?
concentrated, high calorie dense, low (overall) nutrient dense ?
foods.

It’s no surprise that when oil was added to some foods, the ?
absorption rate of the lipid soluble component of the food (i.e., ?
carotanoids) increased. But, this doesn’t automatically mean that ?
the oil is necessary of the increased absorption rate is better.

However, if you had just added more of the original food, in the ?
same calorie value as the added oil/fats, you would have ended up ?
with even more TOTAL caratonoids. What I mean is that in one of
the studies they used tomatoes and oil. They compared the
absorbed amount from tomatoes without oil and from tomatoes
with oil. But it wasnt a fair comparison. What they needed to do
was to equal out the calories in both examples. If you compare a
tomatoes (lets say 22 calories) to a tomato (22 calories) with a TB
of oil (120 calories), it’s not fair, because you added 120 calories
to the second one. So, to even it out, they should compare what ?
happens if you add 120 calories of more tomatoes to the first ?
tomatoes vs. adding 120 calories of oil to the second tomato.

1 tomato (22 calories, 3165 mcg lycopene, 552 mcg beta carotene)

I TB Olive Oil (120 calories, 0 mcg lycopene, 0 mcg beta carotene)

Now, they say, add the oil to the tomato and the relative ?
absorption of the lycopene and beta-carotene go up, Maybe so.

But, what if you just added 120 calories of more tomatoes? Eat ?
about 5 more tomatoes. Not only would you get about 17406 ?
mcg of lycopene, and 3037 more mcg of beta carotene, you would ?
also get 8 more grams of fiber, 6 more grams of protein, 68 mgs ?
of Calcium, 1,8 mgs of Iron, 74 mgs of magnesium, 162 mg of ?
phosphorus, 1603 mgs of potassium, 86 mg of vit c, etc etc
Even though the "relative" absorption may be slightly less, you still ?
win on Total absorption of the carotenoids and of EVERYTHING ?
else. Plus you get more food, higher satiety and you dont get
hungry. Which fills you up more, 1 TB oil or 5 more tomatoes? :)

Besides, All plants including vegetables contain fat. Maybe not as ?
much as some high fat foods, but they range from around 5-15% ?
of calories.

>>What is your opinion about the necessity of eating vegetables ?
with a fat source?

If you mean the naturally occurring fats that are already in the ?
vegetables, I am all for it. If you mean the addition of extracted ?
refined oils and fats, I am not for it.

>>Is it necessary or is it optimal?

Certainly not necessary or optimal.

>>If it is either do reduced fat sauces (i.e. 30 calories per serving ?
instead of 80 calories) provide enough fat?

I am curious what you mean by a "reduced fat" sauce. If I make (or ?
buy) a sauce from whole tomatoes and vegetables and the percent ?
fat is around 5-12%, is this a "reduced fat" sauce or a "natural ?
occurring" fat sauce? If I add oil to the sauce is this an "increased ?
fat" sauce or a "naturally occurring" fat sauce. If i take the sauce
made with the oil and then remove the oil, is this now a "reduced
fat" sauce.

I think we have our perspectives in this world backwards. ;)

A natural unrefined unprocessed whole foods plant based diet, ?
provides enough fat.

In health?
Jeff

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home