Gyroscopic Investing

Somewhat off the topic, but since we're touting the benefits of olive oil, people should know that claims that olive oil is actually extra virgin are only true about half the time (perhaps 40 or 60% I don't remember exactly) as there is big time fraud in the olive oil industry.  There are some articles around reviewing different brands, but basically there is no easy way unless you have a store in town that buys from known suppliers and charges correspondingly. 

Mark will like this one:

The effects of a ketogenic diet on exercise metabolism and physical performance in off-road cyclists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113752/

Also interesting:

Overfeeding polyunsaturated and saturated fat causes distinct effects on liver and visceral fat accumulation in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550191

Dietary modulation of body composition and insulin sensitivity during catch-up growth in rats: effects of oils rich in n-6 or n-3 PUFA
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 4510005659

Off topic, but also interesting:

Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490.long

A serving is 80 grams.  So no point going past a pound a day. Whew1

Just tried coconut milk tonight...

Anyone else get indigestion from it?  I haven't been able to find anything on Google about it, but I thought I'd ask.

Moda,

No, but if you have problems with it, start with small doses and work up.

MangoMan wrote: MG,
It appears that the conclusions of the 2nd and 3rd study you sighted are:

1. Less Sat fat and more PUFA = good

The study took normal weight people and gave them excess calories for 7 weeks and looked at where the fat was distributed. 

A. I'm not clear this study has any implications for people are not gaining weight/overweight.

B.  "Conversely, PUFAs caused a nearly threefold larger increase in lean tissue than SFAs."
There were (probably still are) companies selling omega 6/arachadonic acid prescursors because they said there was data showing that they were helpful to lifters/bodybuilders trying to gain muscle.    This says nothing about whether they are healthpromoting or unhealthy to the organism. 

C.  The study says nothing about what happens from consuming sat fat vs pufa long term. 
-------------------------------------------

The third study mentioned has endpoints of insulin sensitivity and body composition in a particular situation over presumably a relatively short period of time.  Assuming that omega 3/6 ratio has no effect on these endpoints, it says nothing about whether these factors do or do not influence other health parameters over longer periods of time.  But there is tons of data on that.

moda0306 wrote: Anyone else get indigestion from it?  I haven't been able to find anything on Google about it, but I thought I'd ask.

You might be reacting to the gums used to thicken it which interact with the gut micriobiota or you may simply not be producing enough lipase to digest such a relatively large amount of fat yet.

MangoMan wrote: 1. Less Sat fat and more PUFA = good
2. Omega 3/6 ratio not that relevant

Both of which are contrary to all of the talk here of eating Paleo/Ghee/Red Meat
[and support the position of CSPI which you claim to be junk science. Btw, where does the money to support CSPI come from? You made a reference to that somewhere else but never elaborated... ]

Yep, but those studies have little to do with cardiovascular disease, which is CSPI's antiquated position ala the dietary saturated fat/cholesterol lipid hypothesis.  Here's an interesting site: http://www.cspiscam.com/background.cfm

I want to reiterate that I've never advocated saturated fats are outright pro-healthy as I haven't seen strong evidence for that, but they're less harmful than trans-fats and Omega-6 vegetable oils which simply aren't a natural part of the diet that we evolved upon.  Some of the key studies that anti-dietary saturated fat proponents rely on are ones that actually conflated trans-fats with saturated fats.  And sometimes even conflation with Omega-6 like the original Ancel Keys study that "proved" dietary saturated fat caused cholesterol deposits.  It's all terribly sloppy.

Did I post this before?

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-and-disease.html wrote:In the articles located on the left, I argue that it is not lipids such as fats and cholesterol in and of themselves that cause these diseases, but the degeneration these lipids, especially the oxidation of the polyunsaturated fatty acids found in the vegetable oils that we have been told for decades are healthier for us than animal fats.

EDIT: I didn't know the head of CSPI was a vegetarian extremist!  Like the extremists at the ill-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, both organization are pushing an ideological agenda on the American Public, not science.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Anyone else get indigestion from it?  I haven't been able to find anything on Google about it, but I thought I'd ask.

You might be reacting to the gums used to thicken it which interact with the gut micriobiota or you may simply not be producing enough lipase to digest such a relatively large amount of fat yet.

How do I manage either of those variables?

Also, I can't imagine it's the latter. I Had a ribeye steak as big as my head on Saturday and it went down just fine .

moda0306 wrote: How do I manage either of those variables?

Also, I can't imagine it's the latter. I Had a ribeye steak as big as my head on Saturday and it went down just fine .

Read ingredient labels.  Its hard to find coconut milk without gum thickeners, but carrageenan is the worst as it is an intestinal toxin/carcinogen.  Guar gum may be a nasty too.  The rest of the gums seem to be benign.  Some brands also add sulfites.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: How do I manage either of those variables?

Also, I can't imagine it's the latter. I Had a ribeye steak as big as my head on Saturday and it went down just fine .

Read ingredient labels.  Its hard to find coconut milk without gum thickeners, but carrageenan is the worst as it is an intestinal toxin/carcinogen.  Guar gum may be a nasty too.  The rest of the gums seem to be benign.  Some brands also add sulfites.

So are you even a fan of Coconut milk with that garbage in it?

Moda,

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).

High saturated fat and low carbohydrate diet decreases lifespan independent of body weight in mice
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922950/

This might be that study where the lard used had a high Omega-6 composition.  I remember reading about that somewhere.  I do not know if 15% energy from carbs is unhealthy for rats, either.

Libertarian666 wrote: 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.

Benko wrote: 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.

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.

Benko wrote: 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?

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?

MachineGhost wrote:

Benko wrote: 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.

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

Time Restricted Feeding:

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

AKA IF=intermittent fasting

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?

Jan Van wrote: 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.

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.

"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.

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.