Alex Shvartsman wrote:
> I do not see any reason to use this highly saturated fat-oil (50%). In
> addition its Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio is 45.5
> as opposed to Canola oil: 2, with saturated fat :(7.1%) or Olive oil: ratio
> of 13.1, sat fat 13.5%.
>

My reason: the enormous content of vitamin E in all natural varieties
(alpha.. delta). Plus the four tocotrienols.
Where else would you get such a rich and natural source of vitamin E?

The Omega ratio is bad (no omega 3). But that doesn't matter, really.
Because the overall pufa is so low (<10%)  that even very small amounts
of a high LNA oil make up a perfect ratio (add 10% flax).

SFAts, are they really worse than MUFAs ? In one aspect (EFA depletion)
MUFAs are even worse than SFA (Erasmus mentiones the study and WPrice
too I think).

There is one bad news about palm oil. It's mostly of c-16 (palmitic).
Palmitic shouldn't get a too high percentage of the total fat
consumption. I read about a link of palmitic to insulin resistance (has
anybody the study??).

I wouldn't use it as the only fat of course.
For me (in a plant fat environment, without slaughter fats) it's a
welcome SFA source. Similar to coconut oil (which tastes extremely good
but hasn't the additional vitamins).

regards

Amadeus