Since the Crete diet was:
* higher in canola oil
* higher in olive oil
* higher in fat (and possibly lower in "bad" carbohydrates as an extension)
* lower in red and deli meats
* higher in fish
* higher in grains
* higher in fruits and vegetables

how can Simopoulos and Robinson say that canola oil  alone *caused* the
reduction in deaths?

A more credible study would have changed a single variable.

Rob
----------------------
For example, as reported by Simopoulos and
Robinson: "In a carefully designed study known as the Lyon Diet Heart Study,
Benaud and de Lorgeril assigned 302 heart attack survivors to a traditional
heart diet, the 'prudent' heart diet recommended by the American Heart
Association (AHA).  A similar group was assigned to a slightly modified
version of the Crete diet.  This new diet was based on CANOLA OIL and olive
oil, and it had a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids of 4 to 1, much
lower than the AHA diet and the traditional Western diet.  The diet was also
lower in red meat and deli meats, but higher in fish, grains, fruits, and
vegetables.  Overall, it contained 35% fat, whereas the AHA diet is 30%.
The results of this study made medical history.  Just 4 months into the
clinical trial, the researchers discovered there had been significantly
fewer deaths in the group on the modified Crete diet than on the AHA
diet.[snip]

Simopoulos and Robinson go on to
interpret the key to the findings of this study as being the increased LNA
because of the consumption of CANOLA oil.