 |
|
Reply
| | From:  rensielk (Original Message) | Sent: 12/15/2007 9:14 PM |
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/04-2291fjev1.pdf
I've been discussing this study on some other groups and I would like to see what people here thought of it. I agree with most of what "Hans" has said about the toxicity of EFA, esp EPA and DHA, and the benefits of saturated fat and Mead Acid, from "EFA Deficiency."
This study tested two diets with rats. One group got 12% fat from corn oil. The other got 60% fat from lard. Those getting the lard fared worse, as might be expected. The brain-dead (or corrupt) study authors blamed "saturated fat." I don't. The interesting thing about this study is that they kept PUFAs the same on both diets, so only the MUFAs and SFAs changed.
My interpretation of this study is that even MUFAs are bad if you get too much of them. The key issue is iodine number of the fats x total amount of fat. According to figures cited by a member of another list I'm on, Lard has an iodine number of 45-70. Corn oil has an iodine number of 115 - 130.
So, let's say corn oil has 1.6-2.9x as many double bonds as Lard. The Iodine Number is measures how much iodine 100 grams of fat absorbs, and correlates to the average number of double bonds (unsaturation) in the oil. I feel this is the key issue, because an oil with more double bonds will be more toxic, regardless of anti-oxidants or anything else.
Here is another study which supports that claim.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/51/3/441.pdf
As you can see from Table 3, the mortality and morbidity of rats fed poison was directly correlated to the iodine number of the fats. Several groups of rats were fed high-fat diets of different fats. Those eating MCTs and coconut oil had very low mortality and morbidity. In fact, those eating MCTs were totally immune to poison at the lowest dose.
As you can see from Table 3c, hydrogenated sunflower oil reduced the overall morbidity by 34% and mortality by 37%. Hydrogenated sunflower oil has an iodine number of 90 vs 131 for regular sunflower oil (31% lower). In all cases, there was a strong and direct correlation between iodine number of the oil and mortality/morbidity. They also showed that the Vitamin E content of the oil was totally irrelevant.
These studies are very important, because they show that a low-fat diet with high iodine number is better than a high-fat diet with a moderate iodine number. And if you had to make the choice between eating a hydrogenated PUFA oil or the same oil not hydrogenated, it would probably be better to go with the hydrogenated oil. Neither is very healthy, compared to coconut oil, but the hydrogenated oil is less unhealthy and toxic than the regular high-PUFA oils.
Thoughts? |
|
 First
Previous
2-12 of 12
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
It certainly makes sense, and in fact adds another point to the example of oil paint (which I often use to explain the dangers of eating "drying oils." On wikipedia.org, for instance, there is this:
QUOTE: Traditional oil paints require an oil that will gradually harden, forming a stable, impermeable film. Such oils are called siccative, or drying, oils, and are characterized by high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids. One common measure of the siccative property of oils is iodine number, the number of grams of iodine one hundred grams of oil can absorb. Oils with an iodine number greater than 130 are considered drying, those with an iodine number of 115-130 are semi-drying, and those with an iodine number of less than 115 are non-drying... UNQUOTE.
But most of our "experts" don't know this, or say things like:
"The health benefits of flax seeds and flax oil are well known. Because of the high ‘iodine number�?of the flax oil and the great benefits of including it in the diet, the whole seeds may be crushed in an inexpensive coffee grinder and added to the diet as crushed seeds, this making the nutrition in the otherwise indigestible seeds available."
Source: http://www.healthrecipes.com/seeds.htm
I'd also suggest people avoid iodized salt, but if you eat a lot of prepared food, this may be difficult to do. In those experiments you cited, all the animals probably had AA in their cells rather than Mead acid, so it would be interesting to see what happens if that factor is controlled. |
|
Reply
| |
| Also, another thing to control for is the amount of iron in the diet, especially the heme form. |
|
Reply
| |
The iodine number of coconut oil varies from <1 to 10+. So that is obviously one of the most stable oils. Butter is 25-40. Very good. Tallow is 30-45. Slightly worse. But studies try to blame "saturated fat" in things like lard which are 40% SFA.
That first study I cited looks like it was written to get funding from a vegetable oil company, because they constantly use the term "high saturated fat diet" and blame it for "obesity", "oxidative stress", and other things. But how can saturated fat cause oxidative stress? And how many people now eat "high saturated fat" (over 50%) diets? Not many.
The only meat fat that is fairly saturated is beef suet (kidney or loin fat). It's about 56% SFAs, 34% MUFAs, 3% PUFAs, and 7% other (probably trans fatty acids). Most meat is less than half saturated.
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20u6.html
BTW, I don't think iron is a major concern, because the iron in animal foods is rapidly cleared from the blood. The iron in plant foods would be more problematic, IMO. Also, there is evidence that oxysterols are not harmful to humans, or even rabbits. Leib Krut has discussed this on the THINCS forum.
http://www.thincs.org/discuss.cordainagain.htm#Leib
http://www.thincs.org/discuss.atherosclerosis.htm#Leib2
Oxidized cholesterol prevents crystallization of cholesterol in the blood. Humans have eaten oxidized cholesterol for many hundreds of thousands of years. The old studies may not be applicable to humans, or even rabbits, which are herbivores, unlike man. Many (like Gary Taubes and Walter L. Voegtlin) have argued that low-fat and high-carb diets are causing the modern chronic disease, not animal fats.
The mechanism is by the raising triglycerides. On a low-carb diet, triglycerides fall dramatically. Also, the high-carb diet is implicated in causing small dense LDL, whereas a low-carb and high-fat diet causes large fluffy LDL This effect seems to occur at around 25-30% carbs by calories. So, I don't eat a high-carb diet. I do use fresh unheated honey and eat small amounts of fruit and sprouted grain bread.
Humans ate meat and animal food for millions of years. They can't be behind the modern disease epidemics, which were correlated with lower intake of animal fat, and higher intakes of empty calories, like refined sugar and grains. The refined carbs brought increasing deficiencies and chronic diseases to man. I agree that unsaturated vegetable oils are also big problems today. I don't eat any of them.
I think you can be healthy on a highly carnivorous diet, esp if you're eating plenty of coconut oil, butter, cheese, beef suet, beef, lamb, and buffalo. The problem seems to be when you combine a high-fat and a high-carb diet, i.e. the "American" or "Western" Diet. And when the fats are highly unsaturated oils and the carbs are refined, it's even worse.
Bruce |
|
Reply
| |
| I share lot of your thinking Bruce but I hear that oxidized cholesterol (oxysterols) is not harmful to humans for the first time. Could you directly cite some papers supporting this claim? I only remember seeing something about the oxysteros being selectively taken by macrophages causing them to form the bad foam cell plaques in the arterial walls ... If it is indeed true I would be pretty safe on a cooked meat diet and would only need to reduce the consumption of white rice, bread and pasta according to the level of physical activity. So far there have been only positive reports from the low carb people what is encouraging! |
|
Reply
| |
| I took some time over the weekend to look into this, and basically the "iodine number" is a way to measure the number of double bonds, so it makes sense that the more double bonds, the less healthy the fat source is. This is consistent with a lipid peroxdation hypothesis of aging and ill health. However, this does not mean it is always the only major factor. Taka cited a study on this site not long ago which showed that Asian vegetarians who consumed more PUFAs had less oxidized LDL, for example. Of course, it's possible that the meat eaters ate more double bonds, because they may have consumed even more MUFAs. It's important to cite some very good, on point studies before suggesting that the number of double bonds is so important, to the point where one might suggest that antioxidant-rich foods are basically irrelevant (for example, one person eating a good deal of antioxidant-rich food while another person eats none). |
|
Reply
| |
Taka, here is a paper I read a while ago. It's a review of the medical literature on oxidized cholesterol, and they note that there are many inconsistencies in the findings. Some of the studies found the animals eating oxidized cholesterol were actually more healthy, than those eating none.
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/80/1/361
I think there are many hidden variables in these studies, like the sucrose and casein being fed to the animals, as well as the unsaturated vegetable oils, of course. Plus, feeding pure cholesterol powder is not really the same as eating cooked eggs, cooked meat, and so forth. There is oxysterol in aged meat, cheese, yogurt, and similar foods.
Uffe Ravnskov has also written on the Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS) forum that oxidized cholesterol was just an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away all the contradictions in the lipid theory. Similar to how they invented the omega-3 theory, to explain the alleged health of the Eskimos.
I would avoid powdered milk and powdered eggs, definitely, but I don't think we need to worry about oxidized cholesterol in natural animal foods. It may be healthy or harmless. There is by no means a scientific consensus. |
|
Reply
| |
Hans, I didn't claim that antioxidants are irrelevant. The study added Vitamin E to oils and noted the failure to produce any benefits. Coconut oil has less anti-oxidants than palm oil, but we both agree that coconut oil is better than palm oil, right? I belive the reason it's healthier is that saturated fats are anti- oxidants, while PUFAs (and MUFAs to a lesser extent) are pro-oxidants. I don't think a high-quality olive oil would ever be as good as even cheap refined coconut oil.
There's little or no on-point research (feeding real food) that show oxidized cholesterol is harmful to humans. The studies on rats and other animals are inconsistent. Some research has found that powdered eggs caused less atherosclerosis than fresh non-oxidized cholesterol. Here is a comprensive review of the literature on oxysterols. If you still think that you will be healthier eating white rice, pasta, and bread than to eat cooked (or raw) meat, eggs, fish, and animal foods, that is your choice. The data's inconsistent, even in badly flawed animal studies feeding artificial food.
http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/80/1/361
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
I'm disappointed to see I'm suddenly being moderated. This is strange, because I thought the evidence would speak for itself. I want to see the evidence that oxysterols are harmful, in HUMANS eating real food, not powdered milk, dried egg, and so forth. Many researchers (Malcolm Kendrick, Anthony Colpo, and Uffe Ravsnkov) say the belief that cholesterol of any kind causes disease in humans is nonsense.
Meat and other foods have anti-oxidants. I agree that things like lard do not. But it's not scientific to compare eating lard to eating fresh meat, raw or lightly cooked.If Hans wants to be an ovo-lacto vegetarian, that's his right. But if he tells me meat is bad, based on rat studies using fractionated food, I will ask for direct and on-point human studies. |
|
Reply
| |
I don't know what you mean by "being moderated." I always look at posts before they get posted, because that way I know what is new (which means I need to read them), not because I think you are going to post something terrible.
When I talk about the problems with cooked meat, I'm mostly thinking about the molecular-level evidence, not rat studies. Have you read the essay, "Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem." If not, do so and you will see the evidence I'm referring to. And I do eat gelatin, so technically I'm not advocating strict "lacto-ovo." |
|
Reply
| |
| I don't think in terms of "palm oil versus coconut oil," because there are other factors to consider (such as if the oil is "refined," if it is used in cooking, etc.). I found that a very high SFA/very low UFA diet, there were skin dryness issues, though nothing terrible. Since I began to eat more UFAs (palm oil in particular), I noticed that I don't have this problem any more. Biology is mostly about thresholds - once you reach the threshold, "good" or "bad" things happen. I don't see a problem with fresh, high quality olive oil, so long as it is used as is (no cooking with it) - the body can handle the "bad" effects of he UFAs, so long as the body is otherwise healthy. Because many people are not in optimal healthy, it may make sense for them to use coconut oil, at least until they "normalize" their biochemistry and physiology. |
|
Reply
| |
It seemed like my second post appeared immediately, maybe it was just a coincidence.
What do you think of macadamia oil? That has 75-85% less PUFAs than olive (~2% vs 8-13%). I'm mostly using coconut oil, but I experimented with good olive oil (Bariani) and found the Mac Nut Oil (unrefined, virgin, etc) was better.
I've read most of your articles, except the ones about germs and AIDS, because I already knew the germ theory was junk. Molecular evidence can't prove what is best to eat, because each prson has different genetics, background, and nutrient reserves. If some people ate like you, they may be hungry all the time or obese, because they can't handle carbs or dairy.
Palm oil has a lot more PUFAs (like 9-10%), although it will probably be a lot better than lard, due to anti-oxidants and a higher percentage of SFA (50% vs 40%). What if someone wants to cook with an oil? Would you say refined coconut oil is less harmful than unrefined oils with more PUFAs?
How can you explain the many benefits and testimonials for Dr. Jan Kwasniewski's diet? He emphasizes pork and lard, as well as butter, cheese, gelatin, bone broths, offal, and so forth. Couldn't it be that there is a threshold of carbs where certain problems occur in certain people? |
|
Reply
| |
Also, haven't you argued that high saturated fats, low-PUFAs will provide greater longevity? Why should we eat something like olive oil at all? I get good macadamia nut oil. It costs like 2x more than stone-pressed estate olive oil (ex: Bariani). But it has 75-85% less PUFA than olive oil.
Another thing, I think the centrifuged coconut oil might cause problems like dry skin. The traditional (fermented) oil maybe better. Centrifuged CO (like Coconut Oil Supreme) has very different fatty acid ratios than normal coconut oil. It has zero stearic acid and more or less of other fatty acids.
http://www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com/virgin_coconut_oil_centrifuged.htm
http://www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com/virgin_coconut_oil_traditional.htm
I try to maximize SFAs, and limit PUFAs, but at least do one or the other other. I don't worry about cooking. I tried the raw meat/egg/dairy diet for a year and a half and found it did not provide miraculous benefits. In fact, my health declined, but I mainly blame the raw vegetable juice and dairy.
I also found that high-quality flaxseed oil (Barlean's), caused immune suppression. I got a sore throat for over a month by cold exposure. When I stopped taking flax oil, my throat was immediately better. So, I think it's best to have a high ratio of SFA-to-PUFA, and low PUFAs overall. The anti-oxidants in oils are a secondary issue, I think. The key issue is to get as much saturated fat as possible and limit PUFAs.
Bruce |
|
|
First
Previous
2-12 of 12
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Nutrition