Kentucky Fried Chicken Forum Index Kentucky Fried Chicken

The Colonel's Kitchen!

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Cottonseed Oil
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kentucky Fried Chicken Forum Index -> Cooking Oil
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ads






Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:05 am    Post subject: Ads

Back to top
BeckinOz



Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:40 pm    Post subject: Cottonseed Oil Reply with quote

It is so dear here in oz. Do any other Aussie's know where to buy this at a reasonable price?

Would sunflower oil do the same? I picked up a 2 litre bottle from Coles for $4.99 (should have grabbed the lot).

I am not happy using Canola Oil as I think it gives it a different taste.

What is everyone else using?

Beck
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Samurai Pies



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mate, KFC Japan uses Soy Oil now and also RICE OIL.

Rice oil has no flavour or smell so you only taste what you have cooked.

See if you can find them in OZ.

I never seen in Perth but I left in 2003, they may have started selling the stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BeckinOz



Joined: 11 Nov 2008
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is rice oil the same as rice bran oil?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Samurai Pies



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry mate no idea what they call it in OZ, in Japan just called RICE OIL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
The Colonel
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 2070

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beck, before the 1980's all KFC's utilised either cottonseed oil, OR corn oil. KFC Japan was actually the last "stronghold" holding out on this issue too (at least through the 80's), as KFC USA tried to pressure them to move onto using the much "cheaper" soy based vege oils...

Anyway, I personally use corn oil, which is reasonably priced, but with an awesome taste... It is definitely different to plain old soy-vege-oil, in fact faaaaar superior in my humble opinion Wink

Give it a go... I do not believe you'll regret it. If you can't find it at your local Supermarket, then try an independent grocer instead.

_________________
The Colonel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samurai Pies



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would KEEP away from COTTONSEED OIL!


Health concerns regarding cottonseed oil

Cottonseed oil is under scrutiny by many nutritionists, who deem it too high in saturated fat and too low in monounsaturated fat. Detractors say that cottonseed oil may contain natural toxins and unacceptably high levels of pesticide residues; cotton is not classified as a food crop, and farmers use many agrichemicals when growing it. Cottonseed oil has traditionally been used in recognizably fatty foods such as potato chips and is a primary ingredient in Crisco, the shortening product. But since it is significantly less expensive than olive oil or canola oil, cottonseed has started to creep into a much wider range of processed foods, including cereals, breads and snack foods. Products that say "may contain one or more of these oils" and list cottonseed, virtually always contain it. Cottonseed oil resists rancidity and therefore offers a longer shelf life for food products in which it is an ingredient. Research shows that a diet containing cottonseed oil causes infertility in rats




I have NEVER see cottonseed oil in Japan and asked the wife to see if she could find it and she has not found it yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Samurai Pies



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BeckinOz wrote:
Is rice oil the same as rice bran oil?


I rang one of the companies selling RICE OIL and yes it is RICE BRAN OIL, make sure it is 100% as some companies say RICE OIL, but it is a mix of Rice Oil and others
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dprovo
Moderator


Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 1110

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samauri,

Cottonseed/sesame seed/grape seed is used in the pharmaceutical industry as the primary vehicle for inject-able compounds that are lipd soluable, so I doubt it's really that serious.

Remember years ago when Doctors told people to start eating margarine instead of butter, because they thought that butter was high in saturated fat and low in mono fats and showed us that it increased the risk of cardiovascular disease? They never thought what the margarine was doing, we know know the trans fatty acids are way worse than butter ever was.

Dustin

_________________
LETS CRACK THAT CODE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Samurai Pies



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cottonseed oil for cooking is ILLEGAL in Japan, I rang KFCJ and they said that they have only ever used Corn Oil because Cottonseed Oil was rejected by the Health Department as TOXIC for human consumption; they use it for other things but NOT as a cooking oil.

So for Japan to reject it there must be something wrong with it. But hey the west enjoys poisoning their citizens and charging them a **** load in medical insurance.


Quote:
The Big Fat Lies about Britain's obesity epidemic

We are all getting fatter. We know this because the Government tells us all the time, in every report, health warning and advertising campaign it issues.

For the past 30 years we've been told to eat less and exercise more, to cut back on calories and on saturated fat and, on the whole, we're doing it.
Our calorific intake between the years 1974 and 2004 decreased by 20 per cent. We are eating about 20 per cent more fruit and vegetables than in the Seventies.

We are doing approximately 25 per cent more exercise than we were in 1997.
But are our waist lines shrinking? No. In fact, a quick glance around most High Streets would suggest the opposite is happening - with even young girls displaying 'muffin tops'.

This 'spare tyre' of abdominal fat is an accurate indicator of future health problems, such as Type 2 diabetes.
So what is really behind this obesity epidemic? I'll tell you.

We're following Government advice on how and what to eat, but that advice is so wrong it is actually making us fatter.
The endless message of 'eat less, do more' has never been proven using proper clinical trials.

And we've only started to get really fat since governments started promoting the current low-fat health messages, back in the early Nineties.
I'm a lawyer by training and I became convinced that the rise in obesity must be partly due to bad guidance. So I set out to look at the research studies on which government advice is based.
What I found has shocked me.

The Government's Food Standards Agency (FSA), among others, is pumping out a template of a balanced diet that is based on flawed science that I believe is responsible for thousands of people developing health problems.

The co-defendant in the dock with the Government is starch.

While we've all been brainwashed into thinking that fat is the killer we must avoid and food manufacturers bring out more and more profitable 'low-fat' versions of foods, starch - in the shape of pasta, bread, cereals, potatoes and rice - has been quietly adding on the pounds, while we are being told that it's good for us.
The problem, I believe, is threefold.

First, we are being given dietary advice that is completely out of keeping with our current lifestyles.

In a world where we sit at computers instead of toiling in the fields, we simply don't need the sort of high-energy, starchy foods we are told to eat, and certainly not in the proportions we are advised.
The central issue is that starch is converted to glucose very quickly, which then triggers the release of the hormone insulin.

Insulin triggers the storage of excess glucose into fat, which is stored mainly around our middles.
If you constantly produce too much insulin, your body goes into a permanent fat-storage mode. This means people who are overweight get into a cycle of weight gain.
The starchy foods that we are encouraged to eat at almost every meal - such as rice, bread or pasta - also contain very few of the essential nutrients we need for a healthy, balanced diet.

Because they're nutrient poor, manufacturers have to enrich them with added vitamins and minerals.

The second problem is that the Government vendetta against fats, because of their apparent link to heart disease, is based on highly debatable studies.
And third, although exercise is undoubtedly good for us all, there is growing evidence that shows sweating away in the gym won't actually make you any slimmer.
And to add insult to injury, it's hard to get any research money to counter these arguments, because most research is funded by the very food conglomerates that stand to benefit most from these lies.
So, the first big fat lie we are fed is that we should eat less.

The FSA itself says we should not eat as much, and eat fewer calories.

But while calorie-counting tells us how much energy there is in food, it doesn't distinguish between the effect those foods will have on our insulin response - which dictates how much fat we store in the body.
The FSA tells us that we should base our meals on starchy foods, and this message is repeated by the NHS and British Diabetic Association.

The FSA says: 'Starchy foods such as bread, cereals, rice, pasta and potatoes, are a really important part of a healthy diet. Starchy foods should make up about a third of the food we eat.
'They are a good source of energy and the main source of a range of nutrients in our diet.

'Most of us should eat more starchy foods - try to include at least one starchy food with each of your main meals.

'Some people think starchy foods are fattening, but gram for gram they contain less than half the calories of fat.'

But does starch or starchy food give us a significant amount of those important nutrients, which are defined as essential? No, it does not.

Starch does not contain any significant amounts of amino-acids or fatty-acids, which are an important part of a healthy diet. And most starches, in their natural state, are low in vitamins and minerals.

So the food manufacturer (not nature) adds vitamins and minerals to the food concerned.

In fact, what the Government is actually doing with 'fortification' - that's adding vitamins - is giving the general population vitamin and mineral tablets in a different form.

The Government also states that starch is 'a good source of energy'. Starch is not just a good source, it's a very efficient source of energy.

Unlike protein, which turns to energy slowly and requires energy to break it down, starch turns to energy quickly and efficiently.

This is fantastic if you intend to run a marathon, but how many of us are doing that?

By the Government's own logic, the obesity problem is to do with an imbalance between the amount of energy that we consume and the amount of energy we expend.

It is quite illogical to want to encourage a nation that is already getting fatter due to excess energy intake to eat more starch.

Remember, the Government confirms its belief in calorie-counting: 'Some people think starchy foods are fattening, but gram for gram they contain less than half the calories of fat.'

But recent studies have shown that there are serious issues with the measurement of calories as a means of weight loss.

In fact, a higher-calorie diet that is low in starch has been shown to improve weight loss, mainly because of the impact of insulin on fat storage.
Most experts agree it's the hormone insulin which makes the body store fat. Over time, people can start to overproduce insulin, which can lead to insulin resistance and eventually Type 2 diabetes.

The foods that trigger insulin are primarily starch and sugar.

People who over-produce insulin are more than likely to gain fat, particularly around the tummy - hence the rise of the 'muffin top' in the past ten years.

Surely it must follow that overeating starch is, in part, causing the obesity crisis?

Another big fat lie we are fed is that we should eat less fat.

Low-fat yoghurts, skimmed milk and cheese, virtually fat-free desserts - the supermarket shelves are full of these 'healthy' low-fat alternatives (although many are actually high in sugar) as we all absorb the Government's message to cut back on saturated fat.
The simple message is: saturated fats are high in calories and are making us fat. Saturated fats cause heart disease.

And most people believe that the fear of saturated fat is based on robust science - why else would the Government be putting out this advice?

Let's look at the scientific evidence.

When studies have been done with high saturated fat levels combined with low levels of starch and sugar, the subjects not only lost weight faster than the low-calorie, low-fat option but - perhaps more interestingly - the cholesterol profile of the subjects on the high-fat diet was better.

Which leads us to question the link between saturated fats and heart disease.

Since the Fifties, there has been an unrelenting wave of studies trying to prove this connection.

By the Eighties, we had a consensus of opinion that the connection between saturated fats and heart disease was sufficiently compelling to start issuing dietary guidelines.

At this stage, there had not been any major clinical trials clearly pointing the finger at saturated fat. However, in 1984, the Lipid Research Clinics Study was published.

This was a study looking at cholesterol-lowering drugs and the incidence of heart attacks.

While it showed some benefits from cholesterol-lowering drugs, the assumption made by the researchers was that if you eat a diet low in cholesterol, that would have the same effect as taking cholesterol-lowering drugs.

This conclusion prompted various agencies in the U.S. to start a campaign to lower the amount of saturated fats in our diet.

At no time did this study look at the effect of saturated fats on heart attacks or heart disease.

So, on the basis of a study looking at drugs lowering cholesterol, we ended up with a message to eat less saturated fat.

This plea for sanity over the advice on fats is not a lone cry.

Several very influential experts such as Dr Laura Corr, consultant cardiologist at Guys and St Thomas' Hospital in London, and Dr Michael Oliver, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, have asked those in power to stop propagating an unproven message.

Where does the FSA find such certainty among the pile of published science which is not conclusive in its findings?

In fact, there are some statistics showing quite the contrary, especially when mixed with a low- starch and low-sugar diet.

One report looked at 27 individual studies into the link between fats and heart disease and no link could be found.

The largest study on lifestyle factors and heart disease was published in The Lancet medical journal in 2004 and it did not list saturated fat as a factor.

We really need more clinical studies looking at saturated fat in our diet with and without the effect of starch and sugar.

But, unfortunately, the world of health is now so obsessed with the fear of saturated fats it won't even let us carry out trials.

Back in 2004, I asked a well-known research body in the UK to carry out a clinical trial into saturated fats combined with a high and a low-starch diet.

But I was turned away with the explanation they would not get ethical approval and they claimed no one wanted to know more about saturated fats anyway.

And the other lie we are fed: exercise more.

There is no doubt that exercise is an excellent tool for weight maintenance and is fantastic for our general health.

But what is really misleading is the idea that exercise will significantly help you to lose weight.

I attended the European Obesity Conference in 2006, at which Sir Neville Rigby, the former director of policy on the International Obesity Taskforce, referred to several major European studies showing categorically that exercise had no significant impact on the weight of the participants.

Since the conference, one of the studies that has added fuel to the doubters' fire is the Early Bird Study in Plymouth.

This lost its Government financial backing because it showed that exercise made no difference to the weight or weight loss of children.
In a significant study carried out by the World Health Organisation into the obesity problem in the U.S., it was concluded that exercise is not a factor of any influence.

The UK Government has suggested that to stop further weight-gain and help reduce weight, people need to do about 60 to 90 minutes of light exercise a day.

The average person with children and a job will, realistically, struggle to fit in this amount of exercise every day or even every week.

A little bit here and there is not enough to make any real difference to weight loss, especially if you are on a starch-rich diet.

So the Government's advice to eat a starch-rich, low-fat diet and to exercise more is based on inconclusive science, while the evidence we see all around us is that we are getting fatter following this advice.

It's time for a wholesale review of the way in which we eat, and one that doesn't rely on the vested interests of cereal and food manufacturers to provide the funding for proper clinical trials.



Read more:
Only registered users can see links on this forum!
Register or Login on forum!





I have been following the SPARTAN DIET since 1992 and do not used any oils but Olive Oil or Sesame seed or Animal Fat, ONLY use butter. Stopped eating the crap the OZ government was saying and became healthier
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dprovo
Moderator


Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 1110

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Only registered users can see links on this forum!
Register or Login on forum!



KFCJ 'does chicken right' - for Japan's tastes

Nation's Restaurant News, Nov 14, 1988

"If we [i.e. KFC-Japan] switched to palm or soybean oil, we could save 30 percent," Ohkawara points out. But despite advice from the United States that taste would be unaffected by such a change, "we continue to stick to corn or cottonseed oil, as we have for 17 years"

So as of 1988 it was still used in Japan's KFC's. Did they give you a link to their claims that it is toxic, or deemed toxic?

Oh and Obesity is caused by having a net surplus of calories than calories burned overtime. Don't believe that hogwash about GI diets or magical foods to keep you lean, as there is no such thing.

Dustin

_________________
LETS CRACK THAT CODE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Samurai Pies



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 99

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry but that information is WRONG!, do not care what is written in English because I have READ a lot of Stuff in ENGLISH about Japan which is BULLSHYTE.



In Japanese from KFC Japan's site

Only registered users can see links on this forum!
Register or Login on forum!



KFCの「オリジナルチキン」は、品質の高い100%植物油を使用しています。
それを、一回調理するごとにフィルターでろ過し、いつもきれいな油で調理しています。また、まだ品質を保っている早い段階ではありますが、一定数のチキンを調理すると使用をやめます


100% Salad Oil before going over to Soy Oil.

Salad Oil(Corn Oil) not Cottenseed Oil.



As for too many Kcals and over weight.

I eat Raw Fruits, Vegs, Raw Meat, Nuts, now and then HOME cooked foods, NOTHING processed or canned and NOTHING from take away shop but for KFC and I lost all my body fat.

We have the same digestive system as CHIMPS and we should be eating the same diet as they do. The Spartan Diet is not a LOW GI diet, it is a diet about eating what we were eating 1000 years ago which is Raw Fruits, Vegs, Meat etc, NOT processed shyte like now days.

The human body burns 2500Kcal a day without any execise, Eating Fruit, Vegs and Meat all day long will NOT give you extra KCals, eating shyte from the SHOPS like Coke, Cakes, Burgers, Potatoe Chips, Foods Cooked in Processed Oils etc will give you the extra KCals and turn you in to a lardarse.


Anyway I will take this up in 6 weeks time, off to hospital at 0500 Monday Morning for dual hip replacement so really not in the mood to debate KFC Japan and Fat Westerns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dprovo
Moderator


Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 1110

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You will be just fine Samauri. We will discuss it then I guess.

I question whether the modern food environment is genuinely so different from those that humans evolved in as you say, and whether domesticated animals, like humans, tend to become obese in conditions where food is plentiful.

Dustin

_________________
LETS CRACK THAT CODE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lumpy
Tasted the O.R in 1960!


Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 599
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keep in mind that the Nation's Restaurant News article which Dustin linked to above is over 20 years old.

I suspect much has changed in Japan in the ensuing 2+ decades since the Japanese are staunch practitioners of Kaizen which means "continuous improvement".

Strangely, that philosophy was introduced to and embraced by the Japanese by an American named W. Edwards Deming. He was subsequently awarded Japan's highest honor and is credited with making Japan the industrial power it became after World War II.

L
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
satman



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 70

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Dustin should contact Loy Weston again and get the final answer to this INTRIGUING question. Rolling Eyes



Satman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deaddog



Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 57
Location: South FL.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sitting here laughing. Let us sit back a moment and think about what the goal of this site is....TO DUPLACATE THE COLONELS OR RECIPE. I do not think anyone can tell you this chicken is healthy and if you want to make it healthy then open a site that is for making healthy fried chicken....He ha he ha..... could be a big winner...

Stay on track . make chicken just the way the Colonel did it......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Kentucky Fried Chicken Forum Index -> Cooking Oil All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
subRed style by ktauber

Abuse - Report Abuse - TOS & Privacy.
Powered by forumup.co.uk free forum, create your free forum! Created by Hyarbor & Qooqoa
Confirmed

Page generation time: 0.154