Fats and Health

[MachineGhost]

IIRC, at least one of those articles said that the only "extra virgin" that was labeled correctly 100% of the time was the Kirkland (Costco) brand.

That's correct but that was several years ago and is no longer true.  There's an association in CA that does annual testing of EVOO's.  Basically, stick to small business local or "Made in USA" and avoid the commercially imported oils unless you are directly buying from a small grower in Greece (where the best olives are grown).  Bariani is always a safe standby although the taste is rather grassy since they don't age it in the bottle.  Trader Joe's California Estate and Napa Valley Naturals are others that pass muster.

Here's the recent study denouncing the mainstream "reduce saturated fat" hypothesis:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articlei ... ufferf0af7

It's entertaining to read the Published Letters in response.  The one from the Harvard nutritional professor is especially ironical as I believe Harvard also came to the same conclusion as the study!  Not sure what is going on.  Probably turf wars.

BTW, Ancel Keys died at 100 and remained intellectually active throughout his 97th year.  He ate a Mediterranean Diet presumably with 35% of caloreis from fat.

[MachineGhost]

If you google e.g. Kresser on carrageenan  you'll find it is far from clear that carrageenan is as bad as MG presents.  If you have gut problems as MG does carrageenan may be worth avoiding, or certainly avoiding on a daily basis.  I have mild gut problems and used to take large amounts of guar gum daily and didn't notice any problems.  Kressers answer is to make your own but I think there are some brands without (you may have to mail order though).

Kresser's a hack that steals his ideas from everyone else.  How's this for n=1:

Three GI drs, 2 colonoscopies, 2 CTs, and an ultrasound, before my 3rd GI figured out I was extremely sensitive to unknown food additives. Carrageenan is the absolute WORST, triggering extreme inflammation that hurts worse than post-op pain (if only a little carrageenan was eaten, the pain isn't as bad as post-op pain, but it took me a long time to narrow down my additives, so lots of pain until then).

FWIW, caregeenan gives me insomina; my tell-tale sign for toxicity.  I discovered it from drinking Almond Breeze.

[Benko]

MG,

I greatly respect your knowledge.  Having said that, anyone reading your posts over time runs across e.g. you can only "tolerate" some small amount of a flora cap, or other significant reactions you have to many different things.  Assuming that you have thoroughly double checked these associations and they are real for you, says nothing about how 99+% of the population will react (to many/most of these). 

As I'm pretty sure I told you in private, you have other things going on i.e. "stress" that can not be fixed by any supplement pill you take.  You probably are not the only person to react to e.g. caraggean and as I said:

"If you have gut problems as MG does carrageen may be worth avoiding, or certainly avoiding on a daily basis"

OTOH i am skeptical that many people without gut problems are going to have significant problems from carrageen unless they really over do it.

[MachineGhost]

OTOH i am skeptical that many people without gut problems are going to have significant problems from carrageen unless they really over do it.

Well, I don't believe I have any "gut problems" even though I'm currently operating under the assumption that I do.  Since I seem to be oversensitive to allergens and toxins and most people are not conscious about delayed food reactions which are very tricky to determine, I think my n=1 has a bit added weight in this case.  But if you want to gamble your gut on carageenan, no one is going to stop you.  Your implication here is that if you have no gut problems, eat away.  But what if eating this gum crap CAUSES gut problems?  And we know that these gums do affect the gut microbiota.

Here's an old study: 

On the other hand, wheat bran, pectin, guar gum, and degraded carageenan all stimulate large bowel cell proliferation, the greatest growth response tending to occur in the cecum or proximal colon.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3587900739

OTOH we have this which is recent:

Dietary CGN has been shown to lack carcinogenic, tumor promoter, genotoxic, developmental, and reproductive effects in animal studies. CGN in infant formula has been shown to be safe in infant baboons and in an epidemiology study on human infants at current use levels.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 013.861798

Moda, so what do you think you were reacting to?

[MachineGhost]

Here's another interesting, non-favorable study:

In conclusion, these data suggest that elevated SFA intake is related to worse late-life cognitive trajectory, and increased MUFA intake is related to better cognitive aging. Thus, decreasing SFA and increasing MUFA merit further consideration in promoting healthy cognitive aging, and dietary patterns that incorporate higher intake of “good”? fats (e.g., Mediterranean) should be further addressed in cognitive aging research. Findings from this large-scale prospective study help to address the identified need for an expanded, stronger evidence base on dietary factors and cognitive decline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405188/

I haven't read the full study yet, but I wonder if there are confounding variables for those that eat large amounts of saturated fat?

[moda0306]

OTOH i am skeptical that many people without gut problems are going to have significant problems from carrageen unless they really over do it.

Well, I don't believe I have any "gut problems" even though I'm currently operating under the assumption that I do.  Since I seem to be oversensitive to allergens and toxins and most people are not conscious about delayed food reactions which are very tricky to determine, I think my n=1 has a bit added weight in this case.  But if you want to gamble your gut on carageenan, no one is going to stop you.  Your implication here is that if you have no gut problems, eat away.  But what if eating this gum crap CAUSES gut problems?  And we know that these gums do affect the gut microbiota.

Here's an old study: 

On the other hand, wheat bran, pectin, guar gum, and degraded carageenan all stimulate large bowel cell proliferation, the greatest growth response tending to occur in the cecum or proximal colon.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3587900739

OTOH we have this which is recent:

Dietary CGN has been shown to lack carcinogenic, tumor promoter, genotoxic, developmental, and reproductive effects in animal studies. CGN in infant formula has been shown to be safe in infant baboons and in an epidemiology study on human infants at current use levels.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 013.861798

Moda, so what do you think you were reacting to?

I really have no idea. I'm much better with it now. Perhaps it was just a coincidence.

[MachineGhost]

Time-Restricted Feeding Is a Preventative and Therapeutic Intervention against Diverse Nutritional Challenges
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abs ... %2900498-7

[Benko]

Time Restricted Feeding:

•Time-restricted feeding (TRF) confines food access to 9–12 hr during the active phase

AKA IF=intermittent fasting

[Jan Van]

Not quite fats, but we were watching this on PBS last night:

Wheat Belly Total Health with William David, MD

Dr. Davis presents his startling conclusion that eliminating wheat and grains is the key to eliminating the symptoms and causes of many of our most common and chronic health issues.

Anybody ever looked into that or actually eliminated wheat intake? Is it bogus?

[MachineGhost]

Anybody ever looked into that or actually eliminated wheat intake? Is it bogus?

I completely eliminated it about two years ago since I started specifically noticing intolerances (brain fog, blurry vision) above and beyond the built-in rancidity of whole wheat.  I'm not overweight so can't help you with that.  But I think it depends on your gut microbiota composition.  We don't exactly have "Star Trek" style diagnostic devices to get down to the level of precise detail to see if gluten or other anti-nutrient toxins in grains are compromising your gut and trigging systemic autoimmune reactions.  But if you have any kid of health issues then it is just prudent to eliminate any possible causative factors.  Grains are sooo overrated to begin with; they're largely marketing fiction for an industrial waste byproduct and anti-sex mystics.

[MachineGhost]

I'm not convinced 12 hours is optimal vs the 8 shown in other studies.  Isn't that what people normally eat as?  i.e. Breakfast at 6am, lunch at 12pm and dinner at 6pm.  What the hell are people doing now, eating constantly every waking moment???  Jeeze, at this point you'd think I'd ceased to be surprised by anything anymore, but I still am.  What was it that Einstein said was in unlimited supply?  Truly bottomless.

[Benko]

"Anybody ever looked into that or actually eliminated wheat intake? Is it bogus?"
Bogus for who, for what purpose?  There are few panaceas in life.  Would everyone be better off avoiding wheat?  I dunno.  Would 10-30+ % of the population be better off?  Probably. 


1.  I heard Davis interviewed on the radio about this topic and he comes across as very reasonable, and far from a fanatic and he admits that there is not hard data on it (or perhaps not lots of hard data) but he is suspicious and had a number of patients improve from avoiding wheat .

A.  The wheat today is far from the wheat of 100 or more years ago.  Someone sent some "ancestral wheat" in to I don't remember if it was Davis, Kresser, or who, but the ancestral wheat produced less of a blood sugar rise and produced less symptoms in that person.

B.  There was some recent information that people with "gut issues" did better on the GAPS diet (reducing specific carbohyrates) than on a gluten free diet.

C.  Even within grains, I suspect that wheat is "worse" for people/many people than other grains. 

If one has a totally healthy gut, it may not matter if you eat grains, though I agree that there is vast overconsumption of grains by many people.  I still eat steel cut oats regularly and best I can tell, oats are not harmful for my body.  My body also seems OK with barley (which I think has gluten). 

D.  I have mild gut problems, but wheat is not healthy for me.  How do I know?  I have mild SIBO and when I eat wheat (and some other foods), I get reproducibly constipated.  In addition I get nail pitting i.e. small indented dots in my fingernails.  An alternative physician who I consulted looked at my nails and said whoa, your body really doesn't like wheat does it.

[moda0306]

Report:

Had a big glass of coconut milk today with only a little food to go with it.  No indigestion.

A big leap from pouring it in my coffee to ease my stomach into it.


Thanks, Benko.

[MachineGhost]

#19 seems best.  #15 is good for junkin' low glycemic.

23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets – Time to Retire The Fad
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studie ... fat-diets/

[MachineGhost]

[quote=http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-04-s ... heart.html]Olive oil is universally considered a much healthier alternative to meat fat. Plant-derived oils (such as olive oil, canola oil, and vegetable oil) largely consist of unsaturated fatty acids, whereas animal fat is richer in the saturated ones. After a typical meal, carbohydrates are the primary source of energy production by the heart. Under fasting conditions, however, free fatty acids become the major energy producer. Saturated fat in a diet is known to be detrimental to heart health, but its impact on the cardiac muscle has been studied only recently.

Interestingly, while saturated fatty acids are toxic to cells, unsaturated fatty acids are not only harmless but also provide protection against the damage done by saturated fatty acids. Studies conducted on many cell lines have indicated that saturated fatty acids can cause cell death involving the "endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress)", a cellular process known to be involved in the development of many diseases. A new paper, "Saturated fatty acids induce endoplasmic reticulum stress in primary cardiomyocytes", just published in open access in Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress in Diseases by De Gruyter Open shows that there are striking differences in the accumulation of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids in cardiac muscle cells, and that saturated fatty acids induce the death of these cells through the ER stress. In stalking contrast, unsaturated fatty acids protect the same cells from such damage.

A research group from the Montreal Heart Institute in Canada, led by Dr. Nicolas Bousette, evaluated the impact of palmitate and oleate on cellular fatty acid absorption, triglyceride synthesis, intracellular lipid distribution, ER stress, and cell death in primary cardiomyocytes. This is the first time that such phenomena were observed in cells directly derived from the heart, validating a critical role for saturated fatty acids in the development of heart diseases. Given a primary role for lipid metabolism in the development of type II diabetes, the current finding might suggest a probable role for saturated fatty acids in the development of heart conditions among diabetic patients. The current results and future research in this direction might improve our understanding on the possible connection between intracardiomyocyte lipid accumulation and the development of diabetic cardiomyopathy.[/quote]

[moda0306]

I'm interested to know what pro-sat-fat paleo folks around here think of this.

[Benko]

1.  If you pull the paper in question:

"Saturated fatty acids induce endoplasmic reticulum stress in primary cardiomyocytes"
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ersc.20 ... 4.pdf  [full paper]

the conclusion is:

Conclusion: Palmitate causes ER stress and apoptotic cell death in primary cardiomyocytes and this is associated
with apparent differences in BODIPY staining compared to oleate treated cardiomyocytes. Importantly, the
lipotoxic effects of palmitate are abolished with the co-administration of oleate

i.e. palmitate [most common fatty acid (saturated) found in animals] stresses and results in cell deaith of heart cells, but this can be prevented by taking oleate  at the same time.

Oleate:  found in olive oil, pecan oil, canola oil,[4] peanut oil, macadamia oil,  sunflower oil (the latter in the high oleic variant), grape seed oil, sea buckthorn oil, and sesame oil,[2] and 14% of poppyseed oil.[7] It is abundantly present in many animal fats, constituting 37 to 56% of chicken and turkey fat[8] and 44 to 47% of lard.

So many animal fats contain "good fats" which counteract the fats that are implied to be bad here.  In addition:

2. "mouse and rat neonatal cardiomyocytes"

Study was performed on newborn mouse and rat ISOLATED HEARTS.  Organs taken out of the body and studied are not always representative of their behavior as part of a system. And human bodies don't always behave the same as mice and rat bodies.

Bottom line is nothing to be worried about.  Well unless you are one of the uncommon blood profiles for which sat fats are actually bad (forget details.  See heart scan blog forum). 

[Mark Leavy]

I'm interested to know what pro-sat-fat paleo folks around here think of this.

I'm not paleo (too many plants) but I am a big fan of getting most of my energy from saturated fat, alcohol and a wide variety of animal parts.

I generally look at the mechanism the human body uses to store excess energy for future use.  It stores it as saturated fat.

I also look at any diet that is a "weight loss" diet.  That diet is high in saturated (human) fat.

I'm a simple man.

[Benko]

I'm interested to know what pro-sat-fat paleo folks around here think of this.

I'm not paleo (too many plants) but I am a big fan of getting most of my energy from saturated fat, alcohol and a wide variety of animal parts.

I generally look at the mechanism the human body uses to store excess energy for future use.  It stores it as saturated fat.

I also look at any diet that is a "weight loss" diet.  That diet is high in saturated (human) fat.

I'm a simple man.

Mark,

Very helpful way of looking at things.

Would you care to say more about: "(too many plants)"?  Unless you mean the nightshade thing which perhaps is an issue for some, but not many others.

Thanks.

[Mark Leavy]

Would you care to say more about: "(too many plants)"?  Unless you mean the nightshade thing which perhaps is an issue for some, but not many others.

In all honesty, I think Paleo is a pretty reasonable way to eat.  No complaints from me.

My personal preference is to not eat (too many) plants for energy.  I love coffee and spices and tomatoes and pickles - but just for the flavor or the bite or the drug or the poison.  Plants with zero (or almost zero) calories (like lettuce or tomatoes or berries) are a no-op.  If you like them, eat them.  Not good or bad.

In general, I will eat plants with calories if they have been fermented in some fashion (i.e. the bacteria or yeast has converted the carbohydrates into animals and animal piss).

Also, there are some fatty plants that have a decent fat profile - some even better than animal fats.  Coconuts, Cacao, Macadamia Nuts, Olives (maybe...), Avocados (maybe...), Palm Oil.  In general, plants that have had to produce fats in hot weather.  It seems that evolution has driven fat development to produce the largest chains it can for the temperature (and still stay viscous).  Mammals and tropical plants have long chain (saturated) fats.  As the average body (or climate) temperature goes up - so does the proportion of saturated fat.

The truth, though, is that I prefer animal fats.  I'll definitely eat some guacamole or drink a "pain killer" loaded with coconut milk - but it is hard to beat brisket or bacon.

Okay - that is enough of a thread derailment.  Standard disclaimer - don't take advice from random internet posters

[dragoncar]

It's been 7 pages, did you guys agree on anything yet?  Saturated fat bad?

[Benko]

It's been 7 pages, did you guys agree on anything yet?  Saturated fat bad?

Yes (most or best I can tell, almost all here agree).

Nope.

[MachineGhost]

I generally look at the mechanism the human body uses to store excess energy for future use.  It stores it as saturated fat.

Really?  All that blubbering spillover folds of fat on Ghostbusters-style Stay Puft obese people is saturated fat?

[Mark Leavy]

Really?  All that blubbering spillover folds of fat on Ghostbusters-style Stay Puft obese people is saturated fat?

At 98.6 degrees its not as hard as the lard in the refrigerator case, but pork lard is nearly identical in composition to human lard.

[l82start]

Really?  All that blubbering spillover folds of fat on Ghostbusters-style Stay Puft obese people is saturated fat?

At 98.6 degrees its not as hard as the lard in the refrigerator case, but pork lard is nearly identical in composition to human lard.

i don't think it matters one bit what human fat is made of or the nature of its composition.. it matters what triggers its growth, the best explanation i have heard recently (i will do my best to recreate it) is that if you had to go out in the wild almost anywhere on the planet and collect/hunt food for your survival for a few weeks, and you counted the source of the calories you acquired and ate, they would end up being approximately 70 - 75% fat and around 20% protein, the few remaining percentage would be carbs. if the percentage of carbs goes up it is sign that there is an abundance and that your body should use that abundance to store those extra calories (from carbs) as fat (to see you through future famine)..  this is the food reality that humanity evolved with for millions of years , having flour sugar and easy fast carbs in abundance for the last 100 or 1000 years hasn't changed how our body reacts to them.

(eat fat you burn fat ....  eat carbs you store the extra as fat - to burn as fat later)