Re: There's Good Fat And Bad



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).
 
> 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.


Did you read the full article (in the journal) or do you just judge by what
some people wrote up on this website about it (I guess not because the
articles are not yet available on pubmed)? Did you ask these authors
specifically about their survey forms?

What exactly did you study (you mentioned you are a "fellow scholar").. I
would imagine authors would not send material to someone they don't know or
someone who does not work in the field.

> 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."


That why people read full text articles.
It does not make sense writing all that detail in a general report.

> 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.


I agree; but diets high in polyunsaturated fatty acids usually DO have a
higher ammount of antioxidants. That you should not FRY with pufa-rich fats
is well know and to my knowledge has been preached for years (at least in
europe) by pretty much everyone.

> 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.


Well.. how would you imagine can anyone calculate the ammount of
polyunsaturated fats in the food if not by asking "what did you eat?" with a
survey?

> 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.


This is an argument for everything then?
"You think this is good? Well, they said that some other thing is good a few
years ago and found out its not.."

You push the french paradoxon, but what about mediterranian diet? (ie.
monunsaturates).

>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.


Well eskimos eat nothing pretty much nothing BUT fish.. I don't think that
is much of a healthy diet there anyways; also.. the climate they live in
can't really be compared to central america.. I hope you agree there at
least.
 
Most of the olive oil consumed in the US is the low grade, which is
usedx in lipid peroxidation experiments - that's how bad it is. Read
my other posts, do a search for montygram. I can't keep posting the
same stuff over and over again. When my new book is published, I'll
post a chapter here, and people who want a copy can email me directly.
The book will explain exactly what is going on in science today, in the
diet/health context.