Talk:Cooking oil

message: What is the purpose of the Mayo Clinic sentence? "Mayo Clinic has highlighted oils that are high in saturated fats, including coconut, palm oil and palm kernel oil." I am having a hard time parsing  this sentence. Highlighted oils? What does that mean, highlighted because they are good, highlighted because they are bad? No reference either. I propose this is removed or otherwise altered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.111.213 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mayo Clinic

message: Historicaly speaking; is cooking with oil a product of the industrial revolution, & what has it traditionally been used for? Does margarine/shortning mean an alternative?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.117.78 (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ghee First?

message: Macadamia Oil doesn't have it's saturated fat percentage.
Charon77 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macadamia Oil problem? 

message: The section 'Types of oils and their characteristics', especially the Smoke points, some of them differs from Here
Which one is true?
Charon77 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of oils and their characteristics wrong? 

message: This seems like a pretty important page, but it's still kind of struggling on quality. It would be great if we could somehow encourage oil scientists, technicians or production managers to add their technical expertise. Doing my own research I've found a ton of great information, but it'd be really nice to get expert input too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppetiteDynamo (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In concur about the inconsistencies and lack of quality information.  For example, unlike Omega-3, which reduces systemic inflammation, Omega-6 actually increases it.  The Wikipedia entry for olive oil, for example, correctly lists it's Omega-6 content as 9.8 g.  The chart on this cooking oil page indicates olive oil has no Omega-6, when, in fact, it contains quite a lot.  Clearly, these information on the cooking oil page needs a lot of work, and possibly protection against those who market olive and other oils from fudging the information.Clepsydrae (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the fatty acid template be useful if it was added to the bottom of the article?  From the fatty acid chart you can see olive oil's linoleic acid content is either 9.8 or 12.2%. Gzuufy (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention from an expert 

message: In the "Cooking with Oil" section, Corn oil appears in the 2nd paragraph in a list of those polyinsaturated oils which "degrade easily to toxic compounds when heated", and then, in the 3rd paragraph, in a list of those oils which are desirable for frying "because of their high smoke point".
Well, at least there a "citation needed" marked in the latter. Jergas (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corn Oil inconsistency in "Cooking with oil" section. 

message: You might want to include argan oil. It seems to have high heat tolerance and can be used for skin care and cooking.
71.139.164.10 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argan Oil 

message: This source was cited in replacing much of the page.  It appears to be a blog (and does not cite its sources), and thus is not reliable.  The most recent addition was opinion and therefore, not encyclopedic.  If there is data conflict and reliable sources can be cited, it should be discussed here first.E8 (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not capture all of the changes made by IP 173.206.31.227, for example.  The spectrum organics urls were not in the chart at the restore point given by IP 178.95.233.15, and those appear to be sales oriented and thus also unreliable. The difficulty appears to be with NDtodd84's changes. The page right now is still messed up. Gzuufy (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per comments, reverted to an earlier point.  I'll have to go through the edits carefully later and keep what's useful.  The Spectrum source is permissible if there are no better sources available (this appears to be an issue).--E8 (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory database is more reliable, if they have an entry for the oil type.  The 100 g column reported there is particularly useful for percentages (calculator not needed).  Nutritional labels do not seem to have the same precision.  Gzuufy (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Conscious Life source 

message: Quite by accident, I found a wonderful chart detailing the various fatty-acid compositions of some oils, as PDF.  It appears to be an excerpt from Robert S. Igoe's Dictionary of Food Ingredients.  The chart on the wikipedia article page as of today mentions linoleic under some of the oils, and is clearly a vast oversimplification versus Table 8 of the PDF.  I'm placing this here in case anyone else wants to volunteer to add the information to the article.  I'm guessing more columns would need to be added.  I'm busy with other projects right now, and don't have much free wikipedia editing time. Gzuufy (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  linoleic vs oleic vs palmitic vs stearic 

message: no molecular structure models. evcerything else has a list of molecule images.. i gues cooking oil has isomers but theres no model of a poly unsaturated fat molecule daturated, saturated etc,,,, i just wanted to know the percentage of glycerin. is it a quid pro quoa to protect the inductry?? it's not even listed oin thge store on the retail food proiduct. just says "corn oiul" or "conola oil" or "olive oil" or some comnbination of those..
what the  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.67.119 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  no molecular structure models. evcerything else has a list of molecule images.. i gues cooking oil has isomers but theres no model of a poly unsaturated fat molecule daturated, saturated etc,,,, i just wanted to know the percentage of glycerin. is it a ss 

message: The link for source [25] :  Orna Izakson. "Oil right: choose wisely for heart-healthy cooking - Eating Right". E: the Environmental Magazine., currently links to "search.com/search." I have been unable to find this article on my own.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.89.146 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link in sources 

message: ... in "Types of Oils and Their Characteristics." For example, a descending sort on "Omega-3" is placing flaxseed oil at No. 3 for me.
108.69.74.140 (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ascending/descending table sort seems to be broken 

message: Salad oil is oil for salad dressing. Its chemistry easily changes with heating. However the oil manufacturers are happy for consumers to use the oil for cooking. The fact that salad oil links to cooking oil as a synonymous entry indicates either there needs to be more consideration given to what the cooking oil article is about - and whether much of the information should be under edible oils - or the link is incorrectly placed. To add to the confusion many Japanese cook with salad oil and the health problems with cooking with it are not understood to the extent that salad oil in the Japanese wiki and cooking oil in the English wiki link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JtoE-translator (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Japanese page salad oil links to this page 

message: There are two smoke point charts on wikipedia. The cooking oil page and the smoke point page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
Both pages list smokepoints mostly with no citations. The sources that are used are not primary sources. (http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/)
What can be done to improve the smoke points and what should be done about the fact that the smoke point page duplicates/conflicts with the information on the cooking oil page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmOPt (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering if there should be three separate charts:  One for smoke points, one for saturated versus unsaturated fats, one for omega fractions. Then the chart on the smoke point page could either be referred to, or copied into this article. Gzuufy (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoke points 

message: Chart 1 appears to be multipurpose showing saturated fat versus mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated, which is covered in Chart 2 as well.  Chart 1 also shows omega-3 and -6, as well as smoke points, but misses omega-9. There seems a level of redundancy that could be simplified or arranged differently: One chart for saturated versus mono and poly, one chart for omega fractions, one chart for smoke points, or smoke points could be included in one of the two.  What is the rationale for the current redundant presentation? Gzuufy (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is redundancy, with Chart 2 seeming to be the one slightly off topic by the way it goes into fat comparisons among oils and many foods. Chart 2 is instructive by its colors, but being off the point of the article suggests to me Chart 1 is better for the article and its cells could be revised to accommodate more information. Actually, Chart 2 could be deleted with nothing lost to this article, imo. Why don't you take a shot at revising Chart 1? --Zefr (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I'm perceiving with one chart only is the list of oils becomes very long when all the permutations are covered. Chart 1 barely fits on my screen without horizontal scrolling. My inclination here is to go slower and think about it for a while. Gzuufy (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Your proposal to break the chart into 2 or 3 is reasonable. --Zefr (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two charts with redundant info? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cooking oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://suckhoesacdep365.com/nhung-buoc-cham-soc-da-ban-ngay-va-ban-dem/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617023123/http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub32.pdf to http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub32.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a s reason olive oil is separated from the other oils in the list? At first glance, to someone that "might" know it should be in the list, it is missing and then shows up separated. I really cannot see a reason for this. I would have moved it but there may be some reason I just do not see, so thought I would inquire.  --  Otr500 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olive oil Comment 

message: :I removed a  "Refimprove section" tag from the "Types and characteristics" section. I didn't look at the history but there appears to be ample sources. There are at least two types of oil excluded:
* Pecan oil
* Watermelon seed oil  --  Otr500 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types and characteristics Comment Comment 

message: this is said in this wikipedia page: 'The following oils are suitable for high-temperature frying due to their high smoke point:' but in the wikipedia page for smoke point it is said: '[...]smoke point a poor indicator of the capacity of a fat or oil to withstand heat.' JonathanSchubert (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  smoke point is not a good indikator for a high heat oil