39 replies to this topic

[gt35r]

I seem to have problems understanding this but why is it that Olive oil (only the oil) have such a high AGEs potential when it is not heated or used in combination with any cooking?

Olive oil is mostly MUFA and should have a lower oxidative potential then PUFA and yet it is often rated has having a higher impact on dietary-AGEs.

I would love to also open this up for a discussion on what type of food have a smaller impact on AGEs.

I tend to do low carb (non-ketosis) and unsaturated fats and oils are a staple of my diet.

Citation:

Will download and open PDF upon clicking.

http://www.google.co...2vFxKLd0q8p8HwQ

(shows relative amount of dietary ages (dAGEs) in food.

[niner]

The short table in the text gives dAGE levels for 100 ml of olive oil, which is more than a reasonable serving. The longer table at the end of the paper has a listing for dAGE/serving, and it doesn't look quite as bad there. (5ml/serving, which is probably a quarter of what I use...) Peanut oil is worse than EVOO, but corn and safflower are a lot better, so it's not strictly a function of PUFAs. I suspect that if more samples were tested, you'd see a lot of spread in oils that are ostensibly the same. It's probably a function of different manufacturing methods, ultimately. Heat and time are the enemies here. More of either means more dAGEs.

[gt35r]

So what do you think the best oil would be? My diet is high on fats/oils.

[gt35r]

My best guess would be safflower oil. Low amounts of PUFA but a low AGEs/serving compared to other oils. The lowest from the list is corn oil but it has a high PUFA factor.

[Sillewater]

I suspect its due to the low specificity of the method used to detect AGEs. Because using other methods to test butter yields a low AGE result.

[niner]

There is tons of evidence that olive oil is the best oil for your health and longevity. The PUFA-laden industrial seed oils, on the other hand, have a growing body of evidence that says they are not exactly your friends. I'd go with a good, fresh, high-poly olive oil. I find some of the AGE level variations between relatively similar oils to be puzzling, and would like to see analyses on more samples, and possibly with different methodology, before making a final decision on any oil. Meanwhile, we have epidemiological and prospective human data that tell us a lot about the health consequences of various oils. There's more to the decision than dAGEs alone.

[blood]

Colavita olive oil (the one they tested in that paper) has a bad reputation. In this article, it was described as a stale, dirty tasting oil which rated very poorly despite being one of the most expensive. It appears to be a poor quality oil that is deceptively marketed in non-European countries as a high quality oil. Is it possible it has been exposed to higher heat and therefore has more AGEs than a genuinely high quality cold pressed extra virgin oil?

http://www.choice.co...ults-table.aspx

Edited by blood, 09 December 2013 - 04:52 AM.

[JohnD60]

I find the high concentration of AGEs in Olive Oil very curious. As I understand it, AGEs are generated only one of two ways, 1. a chemical reaction between Proteins and Carbs, 2. proteins exposed to high heat. Olive Oil does not contain Protein or Carbs in anymore than trace amounts. Whole Olives do contain Proteins and Carbs in fair amounts. So the AGEs would have to have been generated sometime prior to processing and storage of the oil. It makes no sense to me that the AGEs formed while the oil sat on the shelf. It appears the OIl, or a component of the oil, acts as a kind of solvent for AGEs. Perhaps the Olive Oil forms an adduct with AGEs in the same way Olive Oil forms an adduct with C60. The logical extension of that line of thought is that Olive Oil also forms an adduct with AGEs in the human and acts as a carrier to remove them from the human body. An extreme extension of that line of thought is that when C60 is combined with Olive Oil, C60 in some way enhances that solvent effect.

Edited by JohnD60, 10 December 2013 - 04:23 AM.

[timar]

My best guess would be safflower oil. Low amounts of PUFA but a low AGEs/serving compared to other oils. The lowest from the list is corn oil but it has a high PUFA factor.

Beware of this advice! While there is some high-oleic safflower oil available, conventional safflower oil actually has the highest linoleic acid content of any seed oil, as much as 75%(!), and zero omega-3. See the USDA database for a comparison.

Personally, I use extra virgin olive oil, unrefined canola oil and pastured butter in about equal amounts. Now and then I add a bit of flaxseed oil, hemp oil, pumpkin seed oil, sesame oil, red palm oil or coconut oil. All of them are delicious and provide some potent and distinctive phytochemicals or fatty acids. Combined with the fatty foods I eat (mostly fish, cheese, avocado, olives, some seeds and plenty of nuts) I once calculated to obtain a total fatty acid ratio of roughly 3:5:2:1 (saturated to monounsaturated to omega-6 to omega-3), which is pretty good.

When it comes to the issue of AGEs in olive oil (not only olive oil but all oils and fats are high in AGEs) I subscribe to what niner wrote.

Edited by timar, 11 December 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[Brett Black]

There is tons of evidence that olive oil is the best oil for your health and longevity. The PUFA-laden industrial seed oils, on the other hand, have a growing body of evidence that says they are not exactly your friends.

Niner, what specific problem(s) do you think this "growing body of evidence" suggests for PUFA and/or seed oils?

[ihatesnow]

watch out for fake oil ..............fake oil is very common
http://www.businessi...oil-2012-1?op=1

http://www.lagazzett...sauce-no675553/

http://naturalsociet...ality-and-fake/
http://en.wikipedia....nd_adulteration

Edited by ihatesnow, 13 December 2013 - 04:45 PM.

[niner]

There is tons of evidence that olive oil is the best oil for your health and longevity. The PUFA-laden industrial seed oils, on the other hand, have a growing body of evidence that says they are not exactly your friends.

Niner, what specific problem(s) do you think this "growing body of evidence" suggests for PUFA and/or seed oils?

Here's a paper that suggests that a specific problem for linoleic acid is "dying". (at a higher rate; HR= 1.62) Usually the studies that look at CVD argue in favor of replacing SAFA with PUFA, but this particular analysis finds worse CVD outcomes as well.

BMJ. 2013 Feb 4;346:e8707. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8707.
Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis.
Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Leelarthaepin B, Majchrzak-Hong SF, Faurot KR, Suchindran CM, Ringel A, Davis JM, Hibbeln JR.

Laboratory of Membrane Biophysics and Biochemistry, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Chris.Ramsden@nih.gov

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the effectiveness of replacing dietary saturated fat with omega 6 linoleic acid, for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death.
DESIGN:

Evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study, a single blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial conducted in 1966-73; and an updated meta-analysis including these previously missing data.
SETTING:

Ambulatory, coronary care clinic in Sydney, Australia.
PARTICIPANTS:

458 men aged 30-59 years with a recent coronary event.
INTERVENTIONS:

Replacement of dietary saturated fats (from animal fats, common margarines, and shortenings) with omega 6 linoleic acid (from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine). Controls received no specific dietary instruction or study foods. All non-dietary aspects were designed to be equivalent in both groups.
OUTCOME MEASURES:

All cause mortality (primary outcome), cardiovascular mortality, and mortality from coronary heart disease (secondary outcomes). We used an intention to treat, survival analysis approach to compare mortality outcomes by group.
RESULTS:

The intervention group (n=221) had higher rates of death than controls (n=237) (all cause 17.6% v 11.8%, hazard ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.64), P=0.05; cardiovascular disease 17.2% v 11.0%, 1.70 (1.03 to 2.80), P=0.04; coronary heart disease 16.3% v 10.1%, 1.74 (1.04 to 2.92), P=0.04). Inclusion of these recovered data in an updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed non-significant trends toward increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07).
CONCLUSIONS:

Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats.

PMID: 23386268

The problems with PUFAs stem from their propensity toward oxidation, which increases exponentially with each added double bond. They also tend to be found in poor nutritional contexts like processed foods, fried foods, and in partially hydrogenated states, which can result in trans fats being a co-existing toxin.

Some PUFAs are essential fatty acids, and nothing that I say about the negative consequences of PUFAs should be construed as disregarding this. As EFAs, there needs to be a small amount of various PUFAs in the diet. I'm pointing out that they shouldn't be a large part of the diet, and that a lot of deeply entrenched societal attitudes about which kinds of fats are "healthy" are not correct.

[Brett Black]

There is tons of evidence that olive oil is the best oil for your health and longevity. The PUFA-laden industrial seed oils, on the other hand, have a growing body of evidence that says they are not exactly your friends.

Niner, what specific problem(s) do you think this "growing body of evidence" suggests for PUFA and/or seed oils?

Here's a paper that suggests that a specific problem for linoleic acid is "dying". (at a higher rate; HR= 1.62) Usually the studies that look at CVD argue in favor of replacing SAFA with PUFA, but this particjular analysis finds worse CVD outcomes as well.

Ok, that's one study. What else is there? I really want to educate myself on this if there is something important I have missed in this area.

I have seen (and I'm sure you are aware of) large meta-analysis that report replacing saturated fats and/or carbs with polyunsaturated fat results in more favourable outcomes than replacing them with monounsaturated fat.[2]

Also, an "industrial seed oil"(canola oil-based margarine) played a pivotal role in the Lyon heart study.[4]

There is also the Rudel study in non-human primates showing monounsaturated fat feeding(but not polyunsaturated fat) resulted in atherosclerosis[3], which concerns me.

The problems with PUFAs stem from their propensity toward oxidation, which increases exponentially with each added double bond.

That's just mechanistic speculation though isn't it? I'm more interested in actual evidence of negative health outcomes. (Note: A study in mice investigating the PUFA oxidation/peroxidation idea, by supplementing with dietary PUFA, found no difference in lifespan [1])

I've perceived, but haven't formally quantified, an apparent trend of many studies correlating the N3s(which are even more oxidation prone than the N6) with a variety of benefits, from lower CVD, reduced cancer rates, to better insulin sensitivity.

They also tend to be found in poor nutritional contexts like processed foods, fried foods, and in partially hydrogenated states, which can result in trans fats being a co-existing toxin.

These issues are not inherent to PUFA though. I get the feeling you are clutching at straws by bringing these into your argument.

Some PUFAs are essential fatty acids, and nothing that I say about the negative consequences of PUFAs should be construed as disregarding this. As EFAs, there needs to be a small amount of various PUFAs in the diet. I'm pointing out that they shouldn't be a large part of the diet, and that a lot of deeply entrenched societal attitudes about which kinds of fats are "healthy" are not correct.

But this is not just the attitudes of the nutritionally ignorant masses, meta-analysis and opinion from some of the most respected experts specializing in the field of dietary fats give support to polyunsaturated fats.[5]

My impression is that a fixation and bias against polyunsaturated fats has developed on this forum, particularly N6, which may have been fostered by mechanistic speculation based on their oxidation tendency(with a sprinkling of Paleo naturalistic fallacy), but the evidence doesnt appear to support this bias(as far as I currently know.)

At the moment I'm split between monounsaturated and polyunsaturated(n6), and am open to any good arguments or evidence for or against why I should or shouldn't favour one or the other.


REFERENCES

1. J Comp Physiol B. 2011 Feb;181(2):289-98. doi: 10.1007/s00360-010-0520-8. Epub 2010 Oct 28.
Feeding into old age: long-term effects of dietary fatty acid supplementation on tissue composition and life span in mice.
Valencak TG, Ruf T.
Source
Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Savoyenstrasse 1, 1160, Vienna, Austria.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20981551

2. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 May;89(5):1425-32. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.27124. Epub 2009 Feb 11.
Major types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a pooled analysis of 11 cohort studies.
Jakobsen MU, O'Reilly EJ, Heitmann BL, Pereira MA, Bälter K, Fraser GE, Goldbourt U, Hallmans G, Knekt P, Liu S, Pietinen P, Spiegelman D, Stevens J, Virtamo J, Willett WC, Ascherio A.
Source
Research Unit for Dietary Studies at the Institute of Preventive Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Centre for Health and Society, Copenhagen, Denmark.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19211817

3. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995 Dec;15(12):2101-10.
Compared with dietary monounsaturated and saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat protects African green monkeys from coronary artery atherosclerosis.
Rudel LL, Parks JS, Sawyer JK.
Source
Department of Comparative Medicine, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1040, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7489230

4. Lancet. 1994 Jun 11;343(8911):1454-9.
Mediterranean alpha-linolenic acid-rich diet in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.
de Lorgeril M, Renaud S, Mamelle N, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjaud I, Guidollet J, Touboul P, Delaye J.
Source
INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale), Units 63, Bron, France.
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7911176

5. Public Health Nutr. 2006 Feb;9(1A):105-10.
The Mediterranean diet: science and practice.
Willett WC.
Source
Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16512956

Edited by Brett Black, 14 December 2013 - 02:47 AM.

[niner]

There is tons of evidence that olive oil is the best oil for your health and longevity. The PUFA-laden industrial seed oils, on the other hand, have a growing body of evidence that says they are not exactly your friends.

Niner, what specific problem(s) do you think this "growing body of evidence" suggests for PUFA and/or seed oils?

Here's a paper that suggests that a specific problem for linoleic acid is "dying". (at a higher rate; HR= 1.62) Usually the studies that look at CVD argue in favor of replacing SAFA with PUFA, but this particjular analysis finds worse CVD outcomes as well.

Ok, that's one study. What else is there? I really want to educate myself on this if there is something important I have missed in this area.

Here is a meta-analysis that considers both n-6 and mixed n-3/n-6 interventions. In a nutshell, n-6 PUFA are bad in isolation, resulting in worse outcomes across the board, while the mixed interventions show improved outcomes. This suggests that the fact that n-6 and n-3 FAs are precursors to pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators, respectively, may be the root of the problem.

Also, an "industrial seed oil"(canola oil-based margarine) played a pivotal role in the Lyon heart study.[4]

The term "industrial seed oil", since you seem to take issue with it, refers to those seed oils that were not a major part of our diet until they could be industrially processed, comining online largely in the 20th century. They are characterized by high concentrations of n-6 linoleic acid, and low or negligible n-3 content. Canola/rapeseed oil is the best of the high volume oils, having an n-6/n-3 ratio of about 4:1. (If it makes it any less annoying to you, I didn't coin the term "industrial seed oil".)

The problems with PUFAs stem from their propensity toward oxidation, which increases exponentially with each added double bond.

That's just mechanistic speculation though isn't it? I'm more interested in actual evidence of negative health outcomes. (Note: A study in mice investigating the PUFA oxidation/peroxidation idea, by supplementing with dietary PUFA, found no difference in lifespan [1])

It's certainly not speculation that the oxidation potential rises non-linearly with increasing double bond count. Where speculation enters the picture is the hypothesis that higher levels of membrane unsaturation result in shorter lifespan. The membrane pacemaker hypothesis arose from the observation that short lived species have higher unsaturation levels than long lived species. The feeding experiment you cite used linoleic acid, a diene, and linolenic acid, a triene, and found no difference in lifespan among C57Bl/6 mice. This suggests that the (relatively small) difference in oxidation potential between dienoic and trienoic acids is not significant, at least in this species of mouse. The oxidation potential of penta-enes and hexa-enes (EPA, and DHA, respectively, for example) are substantially higher, and may be a different story. Some lipid researchers use the term HUFA, Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acid, for this class of FAs to underscore the difference. I think this is good to keep in mind, and shudder to think that some people consume massive amounts of HUFAs.

They also tend to be found in poor nutritional contexts like processed foods, fried foods, and in partially hydrogenated states, which can result in trans fats being a co-existing toxin.

These issues are not inherent to PUFA though. I get the feeling you are clutching at straws by bringing these into your argument.

Not really straw-clutching; it was an acknowledgement that there are numerous confounders that can make n-6 seed oils look even worse than they are.

My impression is that a fixation and bias against polyunsaturated fats has developed on this forum, particularly N6, which may have been fostered by mechanistic speculation based on their oxidation tendency(with a sprinkling of Paleo naturalistic fallacy), but the evidence doesnt appear to support this bias(as far as I currently know.)

At the moment I'm split between monounsaturated and polyunsaturated(n6), and am open to any good arguments or evidence for or against why I should or shouldn't favour one or the other.

I'm not sure what you mean by Paleo naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy refers to the idea that anything that's "natural", i.e. occurs in nature, is good for us, while anything that isn't natural is bad, which I agree is fallacious. Paleo nutritional thinking is rooted in evolutionary theory. The food that's available to a species is a large part of the environment that they must evolutionarily adapt to. These adaptations are not necesarrily rapid, particularly for those foods that don't represent a large evolutionary pressure, i.e., are not overtly toxic or required for survival. Since most of the modern diet has only been around for a handful of generations, we've not had adequate time to evolve to it. This doesn't mean that the modern diet is going to kill us instantly, nor does it mean that the paleo diet will extend our lifespan by decades; it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat.

Given a choice between MUFA and n-6 PUFA, I'd go with MUFA. If n-6 PUFA is appropriately balanced with n-3 PUFA, then it's probably fine in moderation.

[Brett Black]

Here is a meta-analysis that considers both n-6 and mixed n-3/n-6 interventions. In a nutshell, n-6 PUFA are bad in isolation, resulting in worse outcomes across the board, while the mixed interventions show improved outcomes. This suggests that the fact that n-6 and n-3 FAs are precursors to pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators, respectively, may be the root of the problem.

Thanks for that Niner. An interesting re-analysis there, attempting to tease out n-3 from n-6.
Unfortunately, it seems the experts aren't in good agreement on this issue yet, as some of the letters to the editor regarding that meta-analysis show:

"The total body of evidence continues to support the view that higher consumption of n-6 PUFA lowers the risk of CHD. Based on these findings, and together with emerging evidence on cardiovascular benefits of ALA(8), it would be reasonable to recommend (as the American Heart Association has done(4,9)) increased consumption of both forms of PUFA – n-6 and n-3 both plant- and fish-derived."
http://journals.camb...00711451100105X

The feeding experiment you cite used linoleic acid, a diene, and linolenic acid, a triene, and found no difference in lifespan among C57Bl/6 mice. This suggests that the (relatively small) difference in oxidation potential between dienoic and trienoic acids is not significant, at least in this species of mouse.

The authors of that experiment say:

"The dietary fatty acid supplementation might not have been strong enough to bring about an increase in lipid peroxidation and ROS production. However, this possibility is very unlikely because a 20% difference in n-3 PUFA content in heart phospholipids, as observed in our study, should have affected lipid peroxidation and ROS production......Among small mammals, a 20% difference in n-3 PUFA content was reported in muscle phospholipids from a mole (Talpa europaea) and a hedgehog (Erinacaeus europaeus) with their maximum life span differing by 10 years..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3022160/

The oxidation potential of penta-enes and hexa-enes (EPA, and DHA, respectively, for example) are substantially higher, and may be a different story. Some lipid researchers use the term HUFA, Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acid, for this class of FAs to underscore the difference. I think this is good to keep in mind, and shudder to think that some people consume massive amounts of HUFAs.

I should make it clear that my current concern is with MUFA versus n-6 ( I don't intend to have n-3 much beyond simple RDA levels, and only ALA at that.)

I'm not sure what you mean by Paleo naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy refers to the idea that anything that's "natural", i.e. occurs in nature, is good for us, while anything that isn't natural is bad, which I agree is fallacious. Paleo nutritional thinking is rooted in evolutionary theory. The food that's available to a species is a large part of the environment that they must evolutionarily adapt to. These adaptations are not necesarrily rapid, particularly for those foods that don't represent a large evolutionary pressure, i.e., are not overtly toxic or required for survival. Since most of the modern diet has only been around for a handful of generations, we've not had adequate time to evolve to it. This doesn't mean that the modern diet is going to kill us instantly, nor does it mean that the paleo diet will extend our lifespan by decades; it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat.

Weird, it looks to me like you correctly identified the naturalistic fallacy at the start of the paragraph, then only to blatantly engage in the fallacy at the end with "it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat."

Given a choice between MUFA and n-6 PUFA, I'd go with MUFA. If n-6 PUFA is appropriately balanced with n-3 PUFA, then it's probably fine in moderation.

Too bad the experts can't seem to agree on this issue yet, I think I'll keep hedging my bets with a mixture of MUFA and n-6...

[Hebbeh]

I think I'll keep hedging my bets with a mixture of MUFA and n-6...

Weird, that sounds just like olive oil.....

[Brett Black]

I think I'll keep hedging my bets with a mixture of MUFA and n-6...

Weird, that sounds just like olive oil.....

I mean, I won't be focusing on getting a high MUFA to n-6 ratio (that's my preliminary decision anyway...)

Edited by Brett Black, 16 December 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[niner]

I'm not sure what you mean by Paleo naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy refers to the idea that anything that's "natural", i.e. occurs in nature, is good for us, while anything that isn't natural is bad, which I agree is fallacious. Paleo nutritional thinking is rooted in evolutionary theory. The food that's available to a species is a large part of the environment that they must evolutionarily adapt to. These adaptations are not necesarrily rapid, particularly for those foods that don't represent a large evolutionary pressure, i.e., are not overtly toxic or required for survival. Since most of the modern diet has only been around for a handful of generations, we've not had adequate time to evolve to it. This doesn't mean that the modern diet is going to kill us instantly, nor does it mean that the paleo diet will extend our lifespan by decades; it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat.

Weird, it looks to me like you correctly identified the naturalistic fallacy at the start of the paragraph, then only to blatantly engage in the fallacy at the end with "it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat."

It's only a fallacy if you don't believe in evolution... Carnivores are adapted to meat eating, ruminants to eating grass. Those are evolutionary adaptations. Does it seem unlikely that there is a diet that we are most adapted to? Or that there might be foods that we are not as well adapted to? Not to me, but we might need to agree to disagree on this.

[Brett Black]

I'm not sure what you mean by Paleo naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy refers to the idea that anything that's "natural", i.e. occurs in nature, is good for us, while anything that isn't natural is bad, which I agree is fallacious. Paleo nutritional thinking is rooted in evolutionary theory. The food that's available to a species is a large part of the environment that they must evolutionarily adapt to. These adaptations are not necesarrily rapid, particularly for those foods that don't represent a large evolutionary pressure, i.e., are not overtly toxic or required for survival. Since most of the modern diet has only been around for a handful of generations, we've not had adequate time to evolve to it. This doesn't mean that the modern diet is going to kill us instantly, nor does it mean that the paleo diet will extend our lifespan by decades; it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat.

Weird, it looks to me like you correctly identified the naturalistic fallacy at the start of the paragraph, then only to blatantly engage in the fallacy at the end with "it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat."

It's only a fallacy if you don't believe in evolution... Carnivores are adapted to meat eating, ruminants to eating grass. Those are evolutionary adaptations. Does it seem unlikely that there is a diet that we are most adapted to? Or that there might be foods that we are not as well adapted to? Not to me, but we might need to agree to disagree on this.

You seem to be making a very elementary error about the ramifications of evolutionary adaption. Having adaptions to a particular diet doesn't mean that that diet is better or ideal for the organism. Such a diet is only "better" in the very narrow sense that it provided some degree of reproductive advantage within the time, place and circumstances that the adaptions evolved.

Edited by Brett Black, 16 December 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[niner]

Weird, it looks to me like you correctly identified the naturalistic fallacy at the start of the paragraph, then only to blatantly engage in the fallacy at the end with "it just means that we are likely to be healthier eating a diet that we are evolved to eat."

It's only a fallacy if you don't believe in evolution... Carnivores are adapted to meat eating, ruminants to eating grass. Those are evolutionary adaptations. Does it seem unlikely that there is a diet that we are most adapted to? Or that there might be foods that we are not as well adapted to? Not to me, but we might need to agree to disagree on this.

You seem to be making a very elementary error about the ramifications of evolutionary adaption. Having adaptions to a particular diet doesn't mean that that diet is better or ideal for the organism. Such a diet is only "better" in the very narrow sense that it provided some degree of reproductive advantage within the time, place and circumstances that the adaptions evolved.

For humans, reproductive advantage entails remaining healthy enough to raise your children to self-sufficiency, at the very least. To a lesser extent, it probably includes remaining alive and healthy enough to help the next generation with the difficult task of birthing and raising human children as well. Does that mean the diet is "ideal"? Probably not. Is it "better"? That depends on what you're comparing it to. To the HFCS n' PUFA SAD diet? Umm, the diet we're adapted to is probably better. I'd prefer to see the latest creation from the food lab be tested in other people for a long time before I admit it to my diet. That's just the precautionary principle.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm using the term "paleo" to mean a diet that doesn't contain foods that have originated in the past two centuries, since that's when our diet dramatically changed. That would remove that various laboratory marvels of the 20th century, as well as significant amounts of refined sugar and feedlot-fattened animals. Technically, we should also exclude foods that arose in the past ten thousand years or so, like grains. Depending on the type (e.g. gluten vs non-gluten) and the degree of refinement, I think some grains are a very reasonable addition to one's diet, so I wouldn't religiously exclude all grains. Paleo is popularly confused with hyperlipid or hyperprotein diets, but I don't think they really qualify as evolutionarily-adapted human diets.

[AstralStorm]

Around here, industrial oil is not made out of canola, but sunflower, specifically low grade hot pressed sunflower which is quite terrible in my opinion, is that assessment correct?

(Canola seems to have decent w-3/w-6 and MUFA content, not as good as olive but still decent.)

[timar]

Around here, industrial oil is not made out of canola, but sunflower, specifically low grade hot pressed sunflower which is quite terrible in my opinion, is that assessment correct?

(Canola seems to have decent w-3/w-6 and MUFA content, not as good as olive but still decent.)

I think canola and olive oil make a very good tandem as staple oils. Canola oil has an excellent omega-6/3 ratio of 2:1, the best of any available plant oil except flaxseed oil (which is very prone to oxidation and can't be used for cooking). It is dirt-cheap as well: in Germany, refined canola oil is now cheaper than any other oil, even sunflower. Because of this economic advantage (combined with the longer shelf life compared to sunflower oil) it has largely substituted other seed oils in the German food system. Which is a fortune really, because this little exchange most poeple won't even notice will substantially decrease the omega-6/3 ratio in the population and probably save billions of health-insurance costs in the long run. Even organic, expeller-pressed canola oil is much less expensive than high quality olive oil but comes with a nice nutty flavor and its own host of phytochemicals (e.g. glucosinolates). Moreover, it is very rich in gamma-tocopherol, whereas oilve oil has almost exclusively alpha-tocopherol.

It is striking to see though how many poeple - particularly in the US - seem to have irrational reservations about what is clearly the healthiest of all seed oils and a close match to olive oil. Probably it is because it is, a) a novel food, which always evokes some neophobia, and b) it is a GMO crop in North America while there are no GMO cultivars approved in Europe. Oh, and because we don't have a Dr. Mercola here spreading FUD...

Edited by timar, 16 December 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[Brett Black]

You seem to be making a very elementary error about the ramifications of evolutionary adaption. Having adaptions to a particular diet doesn't mean that that diet is better or ideal for the organism. Such a diet is only "better" in the very narrow sense that it provided some degree of reproductive advantage within the time, place and circumstances that the adaptions evolved.

For humans, reproductive advantage entails remaining healthy enough to raise your children to self-sufficiency, at the very least. To a lesser extent, it probably includes remaining alive and healthy enough to help the next generation with the difficult task of birthing and raising human children as well.

A male could successfully reproduce by surviving just long enough to impregnate a female. A female could reproduce by surviving just long enough to give birth (at which point the tribe could keep the child alive.) A child might be essentially self-sufficient at 5 years of age(in a tribe in which the jobs and spoils of hunting and gathering are communal.)

Further consider that evolution involves a larger scale than the individual. The great majority of individuals may have died at a young age, before reproductive maturity, but so long as a small number survived and reproduced to merely prevent the species from going extinct, then dietary adaptions that helped result in this "successful" outcome would be selected for.

The modern Western diet fulfills the qualifications you gave anyway: people eating the modern Western diet are surviving long enough to reproduce, to raise those children and even to be grandparents too. We are obviously suitably evolutionarily adapted for the modern Western diet then, right?

At its most fundamental, an evolutionarily successful diet(and thus one that adaptions may have developed for) is one that is merely sufficient to prevent the species from going extinct. That is a ridiculously low bar to set for a diet in the modern age.

Does that mean the diet is "ideal"? Probably not. Is it "better"? That depends on what you're comparing it to. To the HFCS n' PUFA SAD diet? Umm, the diet we're adapted to is probably better. I'd prefer to see the latest creation from the food lab be tested in other people for a long time before I admit it to my diet. That's just the precautionary principle.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm using the term "paleo" to mean a diet that doesn't contain foods that have originated in the past two centuries, since that's when our diet dramatically changed. That would remove that various laboratory marvels of the 20th century, as well as significant amounts of refined sugar and feedlot-fattened animals.

Show me good evidence of populations with an average lifespan of greater than 80 years who have lived on a paleolithic diet, because I have not seen them. We have indisputable evidence that the modern Western diet supports this type of lifespan. Not only that, but the Western lifespan continues to increase and the diet is eaten within the context of an environment much more similar to yours than the environment of populations eating a paleolithic diet. Given all this, surely the precautionary principle would calculate that the modern Western diet is more proven and less risky.

Edited by Brett Black, 17 December 2013 - 02:54 AM.

[Hebbeh]

We have indisputable evidence that the modern Western diet supports this type of lifespan. Not only that, but the Western lifespan continues to increase and the diet is eaten within the context of an environment much more similar to yours than the environment of populations eating a paleolithic diet. Given all this, surely the precautionary principle would calculate that the modern Western diet is more proven and less risky.

That's certainly not true without serious medical intervention and serious drugs to counter the negative sides of the SAD and the obesity that has come with it.

Drugs and medical intervention are keeping people alive not because of the SAD but in spite of it.

You have become totally ridiculous now and lost all credibility with your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Go have another cheeseburger and fries and top it off with a donut or two and perhaps you will find immortality if what you claim about the SAD is true.

[Brett Black]

We have indisputable evidence that the modern Western diet supports this type of lifespan. Not only that, but the Western lifespan continues to increase and the diet is eaten within the context of an environment much more similar to yours than the environment of populations eating a paleolithic diet. Given all this, surely the precautionary principle would calculate that the modern Western diet is more proven and less risky.

That's certainly not true without serious medical intervention and serious drugs to counter the negative sides of the SAD and the obesity that has come with it.

There is no scientific consensus on what has caused the rise in obesity.

Drugs and medical intervention are keeping people alive not because of the SAD but in spite of it.

Clean water, antibiotics, sanitation, refridgeration and a gazillion other advancements of the modern Western world are keeping people alive too. I'm not claiming that the modern Western diet is the absolute ideal for health, but the modern Western diet in the context of the modern Western environment(which includes clean water, antibiotics, sanitation and medicine) is proven beyond doubt to allow an average lifespan of about 80 years; which is far better than any paleolithic population I am aware of.

You have become totally ridiculous now and lost all credibility with your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Go have another cheeseburger and fries and top it off with a donut or two and perhaps you will find immortality if what you claim about the SAD is true.

What I have said about the modern Western diet is all true, your bluster and empty rhetoric above is no argument and doesn't change that truth one bit (though it might ease your mind of it.)

Edited by Brett Black, 17 December 2013 - 03:32 AM.

[Hebbeh]

There is no scientific consensus on what has caused the rise in obesity.

There is plenty of scientific evidence and studies that the major factor is diet backed by anecdotal evidence that every country that has adapted the SAD diet has suffered the same fate for only those members that choose to adapt to the SAD.

Clean water, antibiotics, sanitation, refridgeration and a gazillion other advancements of the modern Western world are keeping people alive too.

That is true for the past 100 years but during the past 30-40 years during the time frame of the adaption of the SAD diet, those advances were already well implemented and the true improvement in lifespan during the 30-40 year time span since the adaption of the SAD is due strictly to medical advancements to keep sick people alive.

I'm not claiming that the modern Western diet is the absolute ideal for health, but the modern Western diet in the context of the modern Western environment(which includes, clean water, antibiotics, sanitation and medicine) is proven beyond doubt to allow an average lifespan of about 80 years; which is far better than any paleolithic population I am aware if.

As previously stated, the lifespan increases are due not to the SAD diet but to huge medical improvements which paleolithic man had no access to. Perhaps you could be a test case whereby you live your lifespan on the SAD diet with no medical care and then you will have worthwhile data.

What I have said about the modern Western diet is all true, your bluster and empty rhetoric is no argument and doesn't change that truth one bit (though it might ease your mind of it.)

Well I'm the healthiest totally unmedicated 56 year old I honestly know. Virtually all my health markers from the health clinics at work come back better than practically all the kids half my age that are eating the SAD diet and already becoming medicated because of it. So yes, my mind is at ease and I'm looking at a very long and enjoyable retirement.

Edited by Hebbeh, 17 December 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Hebbeh]

If you're still young and still planning on having kids, you should at least be concerned about this:

http://www.scienceda...31210113315.htm

You Are What Your Father Eats: Father's Diet Before Conception Plays Crucial Role in Offspring's Health, Study Suggests

Dec. 10, 2013 — Mothers get all the attention. But a study led by McGill researcher Sarah Kimmins suggests that the father's diet before conception may play an equally important role in the health of their offspring. It also raises concerns about the long-term effects of current Western diets and of food insecurity.

The research focused on vitamin B9, also called folate, which is found in a range of green leafy vegetables, cereals, fruit and meats. It is well known that in order to prevent miscarriages and birth defects mothers need to get adequate amounts of folate in their diet. But the way that a father's diet can influence the health and development of their offspring has received almost no attention. Now research from the Kimmins group shows for the first time that the father's folate levels may be just as important to the development and health of their offspring as are those of the mother. Indeed, the study suggests that fathers should pay as much attention to their lifestyle and diet before they set out to conceive a child as mothers do.

"Despite the fact that folic acid is now added to a variety of foods, fathers who are eating high-fat, fast food diets or who are obese may not be able to use or metabolize folate in the same way as those with adequate levels of the vitamin," says Kimmins. "People who live in the Canadian North or in other parts of the world where there is food insecurity may also be particularly at risk for folate deficiency. And we now know that this information will be passed on from the father to the embryo with consequences that may be quite serious."

The researchers arrived at this conclusion by working with mice, and comparing the offspring of fathers with insufficient folate in their diets with the offspring of fathers whose diets contained sufficient levels of the vitamin. They found that paternal folate deficiency was associated with an increase in birth defects of various kinds in the offspring, compared to the offspring of mice whose fathers were fed a diet with sufficient folate.

"We were very surprised to see that there was an almost 30 per cent increase in birth defects in the litters sired by fathers whose levels of folates were insufficient," said Dr. Romain Lambrot, of McGill's Dept. of Animal Science, one of the researchers who worked on the study. "We saw some pretty severe skeletal abnormalities that included both cranio-facial and spinal deformities."

The research from the Kimmins' group shows that there are regions of the sperm epigenome that are sensitive to life experience and particularly to diet. And that this information is in turn transferred to a so-called epigenomic map that influences development and may also influence metabolism and disease in the offspring in the long-term. (The epigenome is like a switch, which is affected by environmental cues, and is involved in many diseases including cancer and diabetes. The epigenome influences the way that genes are turned on or off, and hence how heritable information gets passed along).

Although it has been known for some time that there is a massive erasure and re-establishment that takes place in the epigenome as the sperm develops, this study now shows that along with the developmental map, the sperm also carries a memory of the father's environment and possibly even of his diet and lifestyle choices.

"Our research suggests that fathers need to think about what they put in their mouths, what they smoke and what they drink and remember they are caretakers of generations to come," said Kimmins. "If all goes as we hope, our next step will be to work with collaborators at a fertility clinic so that we can start assessing the links in men between diet, being overweight and how this information relates to the health of their children."

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by McGill University.

Journal Reference:
1.R. Lambrot, C. Xu, S. Saint-Phar, G. Chountalos, T. Cohen, M. Paquet, M. Suderman, M. Hallett, S. Kimmins. Low paternal dietary folate alters the mouse sperm epigenome and is associated with negative pregnancy outcomes. Nature Communications, 2013; 4 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms3889

[timar]

I think this whole debate about the importance of diet, which now seems to pervade most recent topics here is kind of silly. Brett Black is building one sophisticated straw man after another, probably without even noticing it, while niner and others are rightfully plucking them apart.

When it comes to Bratt's mindset I've summed it all up here.

Of course many advocates of the paleo diet commit the naturalistic fallacy (or shall we call it the paleo fallacy?). Brett commits the exact opposite kind of fallacy though. It is to miss the forest for the trees. Of course, if you only look at single studies you can always come up with an objection, especially in nutritional science, where we have to deal with very different categories of evidence which have to be combined in order to draw meaningful conclusions. But if you want to do that, you have to stop nitpicking, take a step back and look at the whole picture. And that picture quite overwhelmingly shows the utmost importance of nutrition for health and longevity. Moreover, there is a clear continuum from diet to pharmacological interventions in aging. Many promising anti-aging compounds poeple supplement can be obtained in meaningful amounts through diet alone. In fact in most cases, we would probably never have taken notice of them, if they weren't part of what we know to be a healthy diet.

[Brett Black]

I think this whole debate about the importance of diet, which now seems to pervade most recent topics here is kind of silly. Brett Black is building one sophisticated straw man after another, probably without even noticing it,

I think there may be some misunderstanding of my points/arguments, but I don't think I have been buildind straw men, can you point out what you think these straw men are; because I really don't know what you're referring to.

Edited by Brett Black, 18 December 2013 - 02:24 AM.

[Brett Black]

There is no scientific consensus on what has caused the rise in obesity.

There is plenty of scientific evidence and studies that the major factor is diet backed by anecdotal evidence that every country that has adapted the SAD diet has suffered the same fate for only those members that choose to adapt to the SAD.

I repeat: there is no scientific concensus on what has caused the rise in obesity.

Experts in the relevant scientific fields have studied these issues for years and there is no consensus. Diet as a cause is one hypothesis, but there are many others.

Numerous simultaneous large scale changes have occured in America and other countries at the same time that the Standard American Diet(SAD) became the common diet. Jobs, travel and entertainment all became more sedentary with the industrial and IT advancements(cars, televisions, computers), hygiene increased, childhood vaccination became widespread, residential heating and cooling systems became the norm, nocturnal bright lighting became the norm, sleep duration may have decreased. All these changes and more have been offered as hypothesis for the rise in obesity, with no consensus reached. The experts don't support your claims.

Clean water, antibiotics, sanitation, refridgeration and a gazillion other advancements of the modern Western world are keeping people alive too.

That is true for the past 100 years but during the past 30-40 years during the time frame of the adaption of the SAD diet, those advances were already well implemented and the true improvement in lifespan during the 30-40 year time span since the adaption of the SAD is due strictly to medical advancements to keep sick people alive.

Have you read peer reviewed studies on these subjects or are you making this up as you go? Why have rates of many of the most common late-life chronic diseases been dropping over recent decades? From what I have read, the causes are generally unclear, and again there is a lack of expert consensus. Such lack of scientific certainty doesn't give support to your argument for medical advancements being the cause.

I'm not claiming that the modern Western diet is the absolute ideal for health, but the modern Western diet in the context of the modern Western environment(which includes, clean water, antibiotics, sanitation and medicine) is proven beyond doubt to allow an average lifespan of about 80 years; which is far better than any paleolithic population I am aware if.

As previously stated, the lifespan increases are due not to the SAD diet but to huge medical improvements which paleolithic man had no access to.

Read what I wrote above more carefully. I wrote that the modern Western diets "allows" an average lifespan of about 80 years, I didn't say the modern Western diet *causes* this.

Edited by Brett Black, 18 December 2013 - 03:15 AM.