The taste isn't the same, just as it's not the same the taste of a good olive oil from a normal one.
Pig fat has been on decline for a long time, but it's still used for some things. Butter is not that cheap, margarine isn't either, and it's not as good (in either taste or "health" reasons).
Olive oil is a staple in our kitchens, and things should change a lot before we stop using it. It's like telling Asian people to change and not use soya when it becomes expensive.
Traditional Mediterranean cooking uses olive oil for everything, and at high temperatures, to be honest, I think it is a waste as you don't get its characteristic taste. We once did a fondue with extra virgin olive oil (we usually use cheaper oil for that, but that's the only thing we had left), and we got essentially none of the taste.
This is incorrect. The majority of olive oil is used in foods that are cooked in the oven, or on the stove top (or pressure cooker)
source: decades lived in (around?) the Mediterranean
e.g Walnut oil can be used a salad dressing , heating it is bad.
The level of impact of such things is definitely still actively studied, but some fats do generally seem worse for you to consume than others.
Now, anyone arguing eating a bottle of olive oil a week will cure your cancer is obviously full of it, but choosing different oils because of ratios of saturated fats and what not isn't entirely new-agey fluff.
[1] https://www.drfabio.com/healthblog/cooking-oil-comparisons
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504498/
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095528630...
I am somewhat shocked though to see such strong opinions about the health benefits of olive oil or the lack thereof. Here I thought it was just a tasty oil.
Someone saying they are suspicious of "the claim" isn't required to back their suspicions.
You are welcome to fact-check the entire narrative: which would boil down to fact-checking the original olive oil diet health claim.
If someone shouts "1+1=2 is propaganda!", the burden of proof should be on them even though almost everyone they meet will not have gone through the mathematical proof that 1+1=2 themselves (a 360 page proof, not an easy task). We're all just taking someone else's word for it + using our own common sense. We can find many other examples, but the gist is if something is well established in society, not just from cultural institutions but from educational and scientific ones as well, a claim that society is lying to us for whatever reason has the much stronger burden of proof.
OK.
> The claim that it's all propaganda requires a stronger burden of proof IMO.
Why? If it's so well known, then it should be trivial for you to prove!
The burden of proof is on the claimant, because that's the person who has proof to begin with!
---
> If someone shouts "1+1=2 is propaganda!", the burden of proof should be on them even though almost everyone they meet will not have gone through the mathematical proof that 1+1=2 themselves
The words "is propaganda" are carrying your entire point. The tricky bit is that there are two distinct things begging for evidence in your example:
1. The claim that 1+1=2
2. The claim that claim #1 is propaganda.
Each claim has (or lacks) a separate body of evidence. The burden of proof for each claim is whoever made that claim.
Importantly, propaganda itself does not require falsehood. Both the claim that 1+1=2 and the claim that mathematics are propaganda could be correct regardless of the other.
Because of that, any evidence that MeImCounting would be able to provide that "[olive oil diet] 'health reasons' are mostly propaganda" would fail to answer the pertinent question, "Are there valid health reasons for an olive oil diet?"