Trans Fats Associated with Systemic Inflammation in Patients with Heart Disease.



R

Roman Bystrianyk

Guest
http://www.healthsentinel.com/org_news.php?event=org_news_print_list_item&id=18

Roman Bystrianyk, "Trans Fats Associated with Systemic Inflammation in
Patients with Heart Disease.", Health Sentinel, January 22, 2005,

Trans fatty acids (TFAs) are fats found in foods such as snack foods,
fried foods, crackers, candies, baked goods, cookies, vegetable
shortening, some margarines, salad dressings, and many processed foods.
Recent studies have shown that TFA intake in generally healthy people
increases systemic inflammation, and because systemic inflammation is
an independent risk factor for heart disease, these findings show how
TFAs negatively affect the cardiovascular system in healthy people.

In the December, 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, the authors examine the affect of TFAs in inflammation in
people with established heart disease. If TFAs do aggravate already
high systemic inflammation in patients with heart disease, it would be
important for prevention efforts as people with heart disease and high
inflammation have poor results.

The authors examined 86 patients with heart disease measuring trans
fatty acid of their blood and established markers of inflammation such
as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist
(IL-1). After adjusting for a variety of factors that might influence
systemic inflammation, the authors found that, "among patients with
chronic heart failure, TFA intake was strongly positively associated
with several markers of systemic inflammation." In fact, the authors
found some remarkable associations. "The magnitudes of several
associations are striking, including 2-fold to 4-fold higher
concentrations for IL-1, IL-6, TNF receptor 2, and TNF-a for each 1%
of [cell] membrane fatty acids from TFAs."

The study authors also note that, "proinflammatory effects of TFA
intake might also explain other experimentally observed effects of
TFAs. For example, TFAs increase insulin resistance, impair endothelial
cell function, and increase lipid peroxidation."

The authors conclude that, "our results suggest that TFA are strongly
associated with systemic inflammation in patients with chronic heart
failure. This finding suggests a novel potential mechanism whereby TFA
intake may affect the health of patients with established heart
disease."
SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2004
 
"Trans fat" is a semantic creation. They don't even define their
terms, and yet they want to be considered "scientists." When oleic is
converted to a palmitic, there is no difference between the "natural"
fatty acid and the "sythetic" one, and yet this occurs in the making of
"trans fats." As biochemicst Ray Peat has pointed out (and there is a
large literature on the subject) the nickel used in the hydrogenation
process is quite toxic. Then there's the lack of antioxidants in most
foods that have high "trans fat" contents, as well as the unsaturated
bonds that have not been converted, and they go rancid in your body or
in the cooking process (lipid peroxidant - very nasty to biological
entities).

The CLA that is being promoted as "healthy" is trans fat too. I have
no problem eating plenty of trans fat, but only if there is no nickel,
only trace amounts of unsaturated bonds, and no other possibly
dangerous substances present. Just as with "saturated fat," the wrong
molecule is getting blamed for the damage. This is also true of
cholesterol, which is healthy for you, whereas oxysterols are
dangerous. When you get a cholesterol test, there is no distinction
made between oxysterols and cholesterol. In a recent Scandinavian
study, it was found that those men with high iron levels had the
highest oxysterol levels, and were the most prone to death.

The people who come up with the garbage you quoted here are more like
religious leaders than scientists.
 
I wonder how much nickel we get out of stainless steel
cookware?

"montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Trans fat" is a semantic creation. They don't even define their
> terms, and yet they want to be considered "scientists." When oleic is
> converted to a palmitic, there is no difference between the "natural"
> fatty acid and the "sythetic" one, and yet this occurs in the making of
> "trans fats." As biochemicst Ray Peat has pointed out (and there is a
> large literature on the subject) the nickel used in the hydrogenation
> process is quite toxic. Then there's the lack of antioxidants in most
> foods that have high "trans fat" contents, as well as the unsaturated
> bonds that have not been converted, and they go rancid in your body or
> in the cooking process (lipid peroxidant - very nasty to biological
> entities).
>
> The CLA that is being promoted as "healthy" is trans fat too. I have
> no problem eating plenty of trans fat, but only if there is no nickel,
> only trace amounts of unsaturated bonds, and no other possibly
> dangerous substances present. Just as with "saturated fat," the wrong
> molecule is getting blamed for the damage. This is also true of
> cholesterol, which is healthy for you, whereas oxysterols are
> dangerous. When you get a cholesterol test, there is no distinction
> made between oxysterols and cholesterol. In a recent Scandinavian
> study, it was found that those men with high iron levels had the
> highest oxysterol levels, and were the most prone to death.
>
> The people who come up with the garbage you quoted here are more like
> religious leaders than scientists.
>
 
montygram wrote:

> "Trans fat" is a semantic creation. They don't even define their
> terms, and yet they want to be considered "scientists."

The term "trans fatty acids" (which is what they use) is almost
self-explanatory: fatty acids containing a trans double bond. You've
shown before you don't understand this, but to a biochemist it's clear.

> When oleic is
> converted to a palmitic, there is no difference between the "natural"
> fatty acid and the "sythetic" one, and yet this occurs in the making of
> "trans fats."

You don't get trans oleic acid naturally in food, but it may be created
in hydrogenation. There's no such thing as trans palmitic, so no
distinction between natural and artificial palmitic.

> As biochemicst Ray Peat has pointed out (and there is a
> large literature on the subject) the nickel used in the hydrogenation
> process is quite toxic. Then there's the lack of antioxidants in most
> foods that have high "trans fat" contents, as well as the unsaturated
> bonds that have not been converted,

Here you go again. The trans fats ARE unsaturated bonds that have not
been converted.

> and they go rancid in your body or
> in the cooking process (lipid peroxidant - very nasty to biological
> entities).
>
> The CLA that is being promoted as "healthy" is trans fat too.

It's only healthy in same way aspirin is healthy i.e. it inhibits
enzymes that can have negative effects. In itself it's not healthy.

> I have
> no problem eating plenty of trans fat, but only if there is no nickel,
> only trace amounts of unsaturated bonds, and no other possibly
> dangerous substances present. Just as with "saturated fat," the wrong
> molecule is getting blamed for the damage.

I'll say it again: trans fats ARE unsaturated and therefore just as bad
as any other unsaturated for lipid peroxidation, but worse than other
types because your body can't break them down properly, so they
accumulate.

MattLB
 
Is there a difference between the CLA made from safflower oil and CLA from
animal tissue?


"montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Trans fat" is a semantic creation. They don't even define their
> terms, and yet they want to be considered "scientists." When oleic is
> converted to a palmitic, there is no difference between the "natural"
> fatty acid and the "sythetic" one, and yet this occurs in the making of
> "trans fats." As biochemicst Ray Peat has pointed out (and there is a
> large literature on the subject) the nickel used in the hydrogenation
> process is quite toxic. Then there's the lack of antioxidants in most
> foods that have high "trans fat" contents, as well as the unsaturated
> bonds that have not been converted, and they go rancid in your body or
> in the cooking process (lipid peroxidant - very nasty to biological
> entities).
>
> The CLA that is being promoted as "healthy" is trans fat too. I have
> no problem eating plenty of trans fat, but only if there is no nickel,
> only trace amounts of unsaturated bonds, and no other possibly
> dangerous substances present. Just as with "saturated fat," the wrong
> molecule is getting blamed for the damage. This is also true of
> cholesterol, which is healthy for you, whereas oxysterols are
> dangerous. When you get a cholesterol test, there is no distinction
> made between oxysterols and cholesterol. In a recent Scandinavian
> study, it was found that those men with high iron levels had the
> highest oxysterol levels, and were the most prone to death.
>
> The people who come up with the garbage you quoted here are more like
> religious leaders than scientists.
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back