M
montygram
Guest
The first study is either doctored or flawed. I've contacted
researchers who have written up such nonsense, and they won't even
supply a fellow scholar such as myself the survey forms they use.
There is no way to know exactly what happened here, if anything of
note. We don't know if they were all eating the same amount of
calories. We don't know if the researchers are classifying lard as
"saturated fat" when in fact it is 39% or less saturated. We do know
that polyunsaturated fatty acids are highly susceptible to lipid
peroxidation, which directly causes oxidation of cholesterol, and that
in turn causes the inflammatory process that leads to "heart disease."
The biochemical mechanism is known, and has been known for a decade or
so, at the very least. If someone eats a diet high in polyunsaturated
fatty acids, but also eats plenty of antioxidants, and does not eat too
many calories, this is not nearly as dangerous as the typical American
diet, which is high in polyunsaturates, low in antioxidants, and very
high in calories. But the first study really is not science, unless or
until the raw data is available. And if that is done, it is likely
that the key cofactors were not documents, such as the caloric loads,
the exact foods consumed, the antioxidant contents of the foods
consumed by the two groups, etc.
Ask yourself this question, if people should be eating large amounts of
polyunsaturates, why are governments such as the US no longer
recommeding them after a couple of decades of doing so? Now all we
hear about is the how great monounsaturates are, but that was what they
used to say about polyunsaturates in the 1970s and 80s. What changed?
They realized how dangerous polyunsaturates are but they couldn't come
out and say it because they'd be making themselves look really stupid.
Now they're telling people to eat fish, which isn't as bad because most
people won't eat too much fish (due to taste), whereas a primary fat
source is needed and would be dangerous if it was high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids. Notice that they say not to fry it, and
that's because doing so makes it more susceptible to lipid
peroxidation. Isn't it interesting, though, that they don't tell you
that the Eskimos, who ate plenty of fish but didn't fry it, rarely
lived beyond their mid 40s. Why? Because omega 3 PUFAs and omeg 6
PUFAs are like two sides of a coin bearing a contagious disease. Omega
3s are vasodilative, and over time your arteries basically
disintegrate, whereas the omega 6s do the opposite, and you get plaques
and clots. The two counteract each other, so that's why there seems to
be a "health benefit" to people on a high omega 6 diet who eat some
omega 3s (as opposed to those who eat nearly none), but both can be
highly susceptible to lipid peroxidation. Unless you keep calories
down and eat plenty of antioxidants, you are setting yourself up for
disaster, though you might get the extra few months or so of life the
epidemiological studies predict. However, if the omega 6s get stored
up in your body as arachidonic acid, you're in for big trouble. Do a
pubmed.com search for arachidonic and you'll see what I mean. Better
to avoid unsaturated fatty acids, except for tiny amounts, such as in
organic olives and high-quality tahini sauce (I use .5 teaspoon of
tahini to flavor a Sweet & Sour Asian dish). Butter, coconut oil, raw
cheeses, dark chocolate, shellfish, and eggs are okay fat/protein
sources, but don't cook while exposed to air. I warm up these foods in
a saucepan on a low setting. Using tomato sauce or red wine (and other
antioxidant rich liquids) in the saucepan further helps to prevent
lipid peroxidation during this mild cooking process. This seems to be
the reason for the so-called French Paradox, so plenty of full-fat,
organic, non-homogenized dairy or shellfish (make sure it doesn't have
carrageenan in it) is fine at low temperature cooking, but avoid meat
and scrambled eggs (boiling eggs is okay). Good quality meat is
supposedly okay in small amounts if you boil it or eat it raw (after
more than 2 weeks in the freezer, but I don't really care for the taste
anyway).
researchers who have written up such nonsense, and they won't even
supply a fellow scholar such as myself the survey forms they use.
There is no way to know exactly what happened here, if anything of
note. We don't know if they were all eating the same amount of
calories. We don't know if the researchers are classifying lard as
"saturated fat" when in fact it is 39% or less saturated. We do know
that polyunsaturated fatty acids are highly susceptible to lipid
peroxidation, which directly causes oxidation of cholesterol, and that
in turn causes the inflammatory process that leads to "heart disease."
The biochemical mechanism is known, and has been known for a decade or
so, at the very least. If someone eats a diet high in polyunsaturated
fatty acids, but also eats plenty of antioxidants, and does not eat too
many calories, this is not nearly as dangerous as the typical American
diet, which is high in polyunsaturates, low in antioxidants, and very
high in calories. But the first study really is not science, unless or
until the raw data is available. And if that is done, it is likely
that the key cofactors were not documents, such as the caloric loads,
the exact foods consumed, the antioxidant contents of the foods
consumed by the two groups, etc.
Ask yourself this question, if people should be eating large amounts of
polyunsaturates, why are governments such as the US no longer
recommeding them after a couple of decades of doing so? Now all we
hear about is the how great monounsaturates are, but that was what they
used to say about polyunsaturates in the 1970s and 80s. What changed?
They realized how dangerous polyunsaturates are but they couldn't come
out and say it because they'd be making themselves look really stupid.
Now they're telling people to eat fish, which isn't as bad because most
people won't eat too much fish (due to taste), whereas a primary fat
source is needed and would be dangerous if it was high in
polyunsaturated fatty acids. Notice that they say not to fry it, and
that's because doing so makes it more susceptible to lipid
peroxidation. Isn't it interesting, though, that they don't tell you
that the Eskimos, who ate plenty of fish but didn't fry it, rarely
lived beyond their mid 40s. Why? Because omega 3 PUFAs and omeg 6
PUFAs are like two sides of a coin bearing a contagious disease. Omega
3s are vasodilative, and over time your arteries basically
disintegrate, whereas the omega 6s do the opposite, and you get plaques
and clots. The two counteract each other, so that's why there seems to
be a "health benefit" to people on a high omega 6 diet who eat some
omega 3s (as opposed to those who eat nearly none), but both can be
highly susceptible to lipid peroxidation. Unless you keep calories
down and eat plenty of antioxidants, you are setting yourself up for
disaster, though you might get the extra few months or so of life the
epidemiological studies predict. However, if the omega 6s get stored
up in your body as arachidonic acid, you're in for big trouble. Do a
pubmed.com search for arachidonic and you'll see what I mean. Better
to avoid unsaturated fatty acids, except for tiny amounts, such as in
organic olives and high-quality tahini sauce (I use .5 teaspoon of
tahini to flavor a Sweet & Sour Asian dish). Butter, coconut oil, raw
cheeses, dark chocolate, shellfish, and eggs are okay fat/protein
sources, but don't cook while exposed to air. I warm up these foods in
a saucepan on a low setting. Using tomato sauce or red wine (and other
antioxidant rich liquids) in the saucepan further helps to prevent
lipid peroxidation during this mild cooking process. This seems to be
the reason for the so-called French Paradox, so plenty of full-fat,
organic, non-homogenized dairy or shellfish (make sure it doesn't have
carrageenan in it) is fine at low temperature cooking, but avoid meat
and scrambled eggs (boiling eggs is okay). Good quality meat is
supposedly okay in small amounts if you boil it or eat it raw (after
more than 2 weeks in the freezer, but I don't really care for the taste
anyway).