89 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

Hysterical vegans who are on diets that, unless they are properly supplementing creatine, cobalamin (not cyano), beta alanine, taurine, omega 3s (ALA alone doesn't cut it) etc ironically make them likelier to be depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning, because sustained low levels of any of those have been demonstrated to cause these kinds of psychological and intellectual issues.

There is a small amount of very preliminary evidence, that could be used as a basis upon which to speculate that vegans might benefit from supplementing some of the things you list.

B12(cyanocobalamin-inclusive) is the only thing in that list considered an essential nutrient. Vegans should definitely supplement B12. I'm unaware of any consensus that supplemental non-cyano cobalamin shows any particular benefit over cyanocobalamin. I've never heard of beta-alanine being supplemented for cognitive benefits, it's usually considered an athletic supplement.

Keyword 'essential', I wasn't talking of cognitive benefits only, and it doesn't matter how a supplement is marketed, I'm almost surprised you think that was a valid point to make. A substance will be most heavily marketed wherever the biggest money is to be made. Taurine, creatine, beta alanine, these are not really athletic or bodybuilding supplements. That's like saying tyrosine or arginine are athletic supplements because they're most popular with bodybuilders, this is what the chemicals are most associated with. Sheesh, illogic abounds already, I'm not sure if I have the patience for it tonight. I probably don't. There's a whole couple of pages of arguments to be made about the nutritional inferiority of vegan diets compared to those like Paleo, but not here and not today.

Make another thread about all this if you want, I won't derail this thread which is about Paleo, and I may come and embarrass all the vegans that dare to show up with their hilariously bad arguments, simple-minded intuitive reasoning, and creative interpretations of studies - if that includes you, then so be it. I do recall the last time I soundly trounced a vegan on this forum, I was banned from posting for one week, clearly some people's feelings were hurt. So it could get ugly because people tend to take this topic as personally as religion... hell, one's dietary/lifestyle philosophies can sometimes be indistinguishable from one's religious beliefs.

[Duchykins]

A healthy dose of skepticism regarding the results and the current state of nutritional research definitely seems warranted. Professor John P A Ioannidis has recently become known for highlighting the systemic problems and issues found in this field, and he presents a nice overview of the challenges that the nutritional sciences face in the following editorial:

Implausible results in human nutrition research

John P A Ioannidis, professor of medicine, health research and policy, and statistics
Author affiliations
jioannid@stanford.edu

Definitive solutions wont come from another million observational papers or small randomized trials

Research into human nutrition has been criticized on numerous occasions. Critics have focused on the poor track record of observational claims when tested in subsequent randomized trials (0/52 success rate in one review) and perpetuated fallacies.1 2 3 In contrast to major nutritional deficiencies and extreme cases, the effects of modest differences in nutrient intake have been difficult to study reliably at the population level. Nonetheless, some results, even of randomized trials, have been extremely promising.4 5 However, to establish a less controversial legacy for this important field, we should avoid past traps and be explicit about reasonable expectations. Implausible results that are too good to be true still threaten nutritional research on many fronts, including survey measurements, observational associations, treatment effects in randomized trials, and estimates of the impact on populations....[continued]
http://www.bmj.com/c...t/347/bmj.f6698

That's all true.

[Brett Black]

A healthy dose of skepticism regarding the results and the current state of nutritional research definitely seems warranted. Professor John P A Ioannidis has recently become known for highlighting the systemic problems and issues found in this field, and he presents a nice overview of the challenges that the nutritional sciences face in the following editorial:

Implausible results in human nutrition research

John P A Ioannidis, professor of medicine, health research and policy, and statistics
Author affiliations
jioannid@stanford.edu

Definitive solutions wont come from another million observational papers or small randomized trials

Research into human nutrition has been criticized on numerous occasions. Critics have focused on the poor track record of observational claims when tested in subsequent randomized trials (0/52 success rate in one review) and perpetuated fallacies.1 2 3 In contrast to major nutritional deficiencies and extreme cases, the effects of modest differences in nutrient intake have been difficult to study reliably at the population level. Nonetheless, some results, even of randomized trials, have been extremely promising.4 5 However, to establish a less controversial legacy for this important field, we should avoid past traps and be explicit about reasonable expectations. Implausible results that are too good to be true still threaten nutritional research on many fronts, including survey measurements, observational associations, treatment effects in randomized trials, and estimates of the impact on populations....[continued]
http://www.bmj.com/c...t/347/bmj.f6698

I see that article has now been pay-walled. Following is a link to the free full article. I highly recommend giving it a read to get a basic undersanding of some of the weaknesses and limitations of current nutritional science:

http://www.dcscience...trition-bmj.pdf

[Brett Black]

Hysterical vegans who are on diets that, unless they are properly supplementing creatine, cobalamin (not cyano), beta alanine, taurine, omega 3s (ALA alone doesn't cut it) etc ironically make them likelier to be depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning, because sustained low levels of any of those have been demonstrated to cause these kinds of psychological and intellectual issues.

There is a small amount of very preliminary evidence, that could be used as a basis upon which to speculate that vegans might benefit from supplementing some of the things you list.

B12(cyanocobalamin-inclusive) is the only thing in that list considered an essential nutrient. Vegans should definitely supplement B12. I'm unaware of any consensus that supplemental non-cyano cobalamin shows any particular benefit over cyanocobalamin. I've never heard of beta-alanine being supplemented for cognitive benefits, it's usually considered an athletic supplement.

Keyword 'essential', I wasn't talking of cognitive benefits only,

You did only talk about cognitive benefits as far as I can see. The problems affecting vegans that you said could be treated with supplements were, and I quote: "depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning" - which all fall withinin the cognitive realm.

and it doesn't matter how a supplement is marketed, I'm almost surprised you think that was a valid point to make.

I made no reference whatsoever to marketing. It seems you may somehow have linked my use of the word "essential" with marketing. If the word "essential" is the thing that springs to your mind when discussing nutrients, you lack some very fundamental knowledge of nutrition.

A substance will be most heavily marketed wherever the biggest money is to be made. Taurine, creatine, beta alanine, these are not really athletic or bodybuilding supplements.

Hang on. You made a list of cognitive problems in vegans that you claimed could be treated with various supplements, one of which was beta-alanine. I then questioned the use of beta-alanine for cognitive issues.

Do you have any peer-reviewed studies showing that beta-alanine can be used to treat vegans or others who are "depressed, anxious, paranoid, slower of deductive reasoning and hastier of intuitive reasoning"?

That's like saying tyrosine or arginine are athletic supplements because they're most popular with bodybuilders, this is what the chemicals are most associated with. Sheesh, illogic abounds already, I'm not sure if I have the patience for it tonight. I probably don't.

There's a whole couple of pages of arguments to be made about the nutritional inferiority of vegan diets compared to those like Paleo, but not here and not today. Make another thread about all this if you want, I won't derail this thread which is about Paleo, and I may come and embarrass all the vegans that dare to show up with their hilariously bad arguments, simple-minded intuitive reasoning, and creative interpretations of studies - if that includes you, then so be it. I do recall the last time I soundly trounced a vegan on this forum, I was banned from posting for one week, clearly some people's feelings were hurt. So it could get ugly because people tend to take this topic as personally as religion... hell, one's dietary/lifestyle philosophies can sometimes be indistinguishable from one's religious beliefs.

There's really no need for you to post "a whole couple of pages of arguments." Just simply post peer-reviewed studies that support your various claims about vegans, cognitive issues and supplements.

[Duchykins]

I've decided to withdraw to avoid repeating past events just because they stress me out and it goes badly for everybody. I easily lose patience when I see things that I perceive to be persistent stupidity in people I irrationally expect to know at least everything I know so that I don't have to engage in the exasperating drudgery of establishing a baseline of mutual understanding of a topic.

Just assume I am wrong, I made it all up, and you'll do fine. Have a pleasant evening.

[Brett Black]

>>> What are your cholesterol levels Duke? 
 
HDL is always around 90-ish last 10+ years.
VLDL always very low.  My LDL is mostly the desirable large particle type.
Total cholesterol (which I consider an unimportant number) typically around 230.
Trigs always under 60.
CRP always rock bottom low.
A1c always around 4.8.

A total cholesterol of 230 is considered to be above the desirable range by mainstream medical authorities and puts you at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke.
(https://www.nhlbi.ni...ics/topics/hbc/)

I would personally be concerned with that level and would be working to reduce it. It could be that your diet is playing a factor in your high cholesterol. I see you eat dark chocolate and coconut oil, both of which are extremely high in saturated fat. I'd be dropping them from your diet immediately.

Whilst there have been some doubts raised about the lipid-hypothesis (http://en.m.wikipedi...ipid_hypothesis), I think that one should generally adhere to the recommendations of the experts, and the consensus. As far as I am aware, the expert consensus is still strongly in favour of the idea that high cholesterol, and diet-induced high cholesterol, are cardiovascular disease risks.

I do wonder, Duke, if you started out with high cholesterol, and then sought and found comfort in the minority alternative view that high total(and LDL?) cholesterol is not unhealthy.

Edited by Brett Black, 14 July 2014 - 04:28 AM.

[Brett Black]

I've decided to withdraw to avoid repeating past events just because they stress me out and it goes badly for everybody. I easily lose patience when I see things that I perceive to be persistent stupidity in people I irrationally expect to know at least everything I know so that I don't have to engage in the exasperating drudgery of establishing a baseline of mutual understanding of a topic.

Just assume I am wrong, I made it all up, and you'll do fine. Have a pleasant evening.

I think this post evidences either a disgraceful evasiveness and passive aggression (all wrapped up in a convenient exit strategy) or a real miscalculation by you of my intellectual capabilities.

I think it's eminently reasonable of me to request supporting peer-reviewed studies for the claims you've made. Responding to my request by bowing out in this fashion leaves you with a badly tarnished reputation.

[Duchykins]

I've decided to withdraw to avoid repeating past events just because they stress me out and it goes badly for everybody. I easily lose patience when I see things that I perceive to be persistent stupidity in people I irrationally expect to know at least everything I know so that I don't have to engage in the exasperating drudgery of establishing a baseline of mutual understanding of a topic.

Just assume I am wrong, I made it all up, and you'll do fine. Have a pleasant evening.

I think this post evidences either a disgraceful evasiveness and passive aggression (all wrapped up in a convenient exit strategy) or a real miscalculation by you of my intellectual capabilities.

I think it's eminently reasonable of me to request supporting peer-reviewed studies for the claims you've made. Responding to my request by bowing out in this fashion leaves you with a badly tarnished reputation.

I'm an Aspie; this topic, logic and biology in general are very high among my special interests, and I genuinely don't care about what others think of me, or interested in any of their opinions in general, unless I find them interesting first, which is an uncommon event. It's both blessing and curse, get me? I know how impassioned I can get with certain discussions and tonight I don't want to continue what I started last night when I know I will probably say something I don't think is offensive but that others might think is offensive. That's why I said assume I am wrong and made it all up, and I meant it, I'm a very literal person. It's okay, it doesn't bother me. You will feel better, dismiss me as a psycho-weirdo who had no knowledge of the topic, and carry on as usual.

I noticed earlier but refrained from pointing out an odd inconsistency in your reasoning: you more than once argued that studies of this topic are not terribly authoritative and intimated a dismissive nature of them, but now you are on a high horse demanding to see the same kind of studies as if they are highly authoritative and to be taken very seriously. Perhaps you can see how an Aspie might find this illogic disorienting and irritating. I'm doing everybody a favor by ceasing participation.

[TheFountain]

 

 

Then there is the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have crap diets and live long without any major health concerns, dying of typical old age or accidents. This is like the guy who smokes a pack a day since his teens, never racks up medical bills, and dies at 90 in his sleep without any sign of the typical diseases associated with tobacco. The cold truth of the matter is that they simply have the genes that allow them to thrive on those diets.

So what? What is the point you are trying to make? That nobody should try? People are leaving a ton of references to favor paleo style diets, as well as the blood work to go along with it. What's the prob bob? 

No, I do not encourage people to avoid diets that cut out processed foods, unless they are extreme like fruitarian or raw vegan. I never saw Paleo as an extreme or overly restrictive diet. I do not believe it is an unhealthy diet even if not optimal for some people like myself. My primary concern is with food myths, hysteria, questionable fads and bad logic because this can have profound effects on someone's life if they are suckered into the next big diet fad with the wrong impression of it. I do this indiscriminately so please don't think I'm just here picking on Paleo because I have a specific beef with it. People can become emotionally invested in their dietary and lifestyle choices and inflict them upon their children where it can do the most damage *if they are making the wrong choices*. I guess it bothers me because I've seen it firsthand and it's so tragically preventable. You want people to alter their diets for the right reasons and you want them to be properly informed because they're passing on their knowledge to others in their lives. If they are armed with actual facts and sound reasoning, everyone benefits with the spread of such knowledge, but if armed with misinformation, unsupported assumptions and illogic then it can do the opposite. We can tell people to look at the actual science and see what is supported and what isn't, but most people won't and will base their dietary choices on sensationalist media, questionable books, best friends and personal beliefs.

 

What major concerns is someone suppose to have putting their child on a paleo diet? Allergies? Such as? Gluten? Paleo is naturally Gluten free. Lactose? Paleo is usually lactose free or very low in milk products. 

 

You said 'inflict it on' as if it is a dangerous thing. Pulease. Low carb high fat diets have proven good for epileptics! 

 

What 'assumptions' are you referring to? I see no assumptions. I see people providing references and giving their blood work after being on the paleo diet for some time. Where's the 'assumption' in this? 

[TheFountain]

 

>>> What are your cholesterol levels Duke? 
 
HDL is always around 90-ish last 10+ years.
VLDL always very low.  My LDL is mostly the desirable large particle type.
Total cholesterol (which I consider an unimportant number) typically around 230.
Trigs always under 60.
CRP always rock bottom low.
A1c always around 4.8.

A total cholesterol of 230 is considered to be above the desirable range by mainstream medical authorities and puts you at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke.
(https://www.nhlbi.ni...ics/topics/hbc/)

I would personally be concerned with that level and would be working to reduce it. It could be that your diet is playing a factor in your high cholesterol. I see you eat dark chocolate and coconut oil, both of which are extremely high in saturated fat. I'd be dropping them from your diet immediately.

Whilst there have been some doubts raised about the lipid-hypothesis (http://en.m.wikipedi...ipid_hypothesis), I think that one should generally adhere to the recommendations of the experts, and the consensus. As far as I am aware, the expert consensus is still strongly in favour of the idea that high cholesterol, and diet-induced high cholesterol, are cardiovascular disease risks.

I do wonder, Duke, if you started out with high cholesterol, and then sought and found comfort in the minority alternative view that high total(and LDL?) cholesterol is not unhealthy.

 

 

Why are you purposefully ignoring the inverse correlation between high HDL and low CV risk? That seems kinda ill informed, or like you are missing some modern data. Yea people with high cholesterol who have low HDL are at higher risk sure. People with high cholesterol and high HDL are at extremely low risk. Not assumption, fact. 

[Chupo]

 

 

>>> What are your cholesterol levels Duke? 
 
HDL is always around 90-ish last 10+ years.
VLDL always very low.  My LDL is mostly the desirable large particle type.
Total cholesterol (which I consider an unimportant number) typically around 230.
Trigs always under 60.
CRP always rock bottom low.
A1c always around 4.8.

A total cholesterol of 230 is considered to be above the desirable range by mainstream medical authorities and puts you at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke.
(https://www.nhlbi.ni...ics/topics/hbc/)

I would personally be concerned with that level and would be working to reduce it. It could be that your diet is playing a factor in your high cholesterol. I see you eat dark chocolate and coconut oil, both of which are extremely high in saturated fat. I'd be dropping them from your diet immediately.

Whilst there have been some doubts raised about the lipid-hypothesis (http://en.m.wikipedi...ipid_hypothesis), I think that one should generally adhere to the recommendations of the experts, and the consensus. As far as I am aware, the expert consensus is still strongly in favour of the idea that high cholesterol, and diet-induced high cholesterol, are cardiovascular disease risks.

I do wonder, Duke, if you started out with high cholesterol, and then sought and found comfort in the minority alternative view that high total(and LDL?) cholesterol is not unhealthy.

 

 

Why are you purposefully ignoring the inverse correlation between high HDL and low CV risk? That seems kinda ill informed, or like you are missing some modern data. Yea people with high cholesterol who have low HDL are at higher risk sure. People with high cholesterol and high HDL are at extremely low risk. Not assumption, fact. 

 

 

 

In addition to his high HDL, his high-fat diet means lots of chylomicrons with their apoA-1. Chylomicrons may be even better than HDL at reverse cholesterol transport. 

 

 

 

 

To investigate the role of various lipoproteins in plasma to promote cholesterol efflux from cell membranes, potencies of lipoproteins in normolipidemic fasting and postprandial (PP) plasmas to accept additional cholesterol molecules from cell membranes were determined. We used red blood cells (RBCs) and lipoproteins in fresh blood as donors and acceptors of cell membrane cholesterol, respectively. When fresh fasting plasma (n=24) containing active lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) and cholesteryl ester transfer proteins (CETP) was incubated with a 3-fold excess of autologous RBCs at 37 degrees C for 18 hours, plasma cholesterol levels increased by 19.6% (38.5+/-14.2 mg/dL) owing to an exclusive increase in the CE level. Very low density lipoprotein (VLDL), low density lipoprotein (LDL), and high density lipoprotein (HDL) fractions retained 48.1%, 26.3%, and 25.6% of the net cholesterol mass increase in fasting plasma, resulting in 91%, 8%, and 21% increases in their cholesterol contents, respectively. The PP plasma was 1.3-fold more potent than fasting plasma in promoting cholesterol efflux from RBCs by associating excess cholesterol with chylomicrons, resulting in a 356% increase in the cholesterol content of chylomicrons. These increases in lipoprotein cholesterol content indicate that chylomicrons were about 3.9x, 44x, and 17x more potent than fasting VLDL, LDL, and HDL, respectively, in accepting additional cholesterol molecules released from RBCs. The capacity of PP plasma to promote cholesterol efflux from RBCs was significantly correlated with plasma cholesterol levels (r=0.60, P<0.005), triglycerides (r=0.68, P<0.001), chylomicrons (r=0.90, P<0.001), VLDL (r=0.65, P<0.001), and LDL (r=0.47, P<0.025) but not with the levels of HDL (r= -0.34, P<0.20). In fasting plasma containing a low level of VLDL and HDL, isolated chylomicrons supplemented to the plasma were approximately 9x more potent than HDL in boosting the capacity of plasma to promote cholesterol efflux from RBCs. This study indicates that chylomicrons in PP plasma are the most potent ultimate acceptors of cholesterol released from cell membranes and that a low HDL level is not a factor that limits the ability of PP plasma to promote cholesterol efflux from cell membranes. Our data obtained from an in-vitro system suggest that PP chylomicrons may play a major role in promoting reverse cholesterol transport in vivo, since the transfer of cholesterol from cell membranes to chylomicrons will lead to the rapid removal of this cholesterol by the liver. HDL in vivo may promote reverse cholesterol transport by enhancing the rapid removal of chylomicrons from the circulation, since the rate of clearance of chylomicrons is positively correlated with the HDL level in plasma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9714128

 

 

 

We examined whether postprandial (PP) chylomicrons (CMs) can serve as vehicles for transporting cholesterol from endogenous cholesterol-rich lipoprotein (LDL+HDL) fractions and cell membranes to the liver via lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase (LCAT) and cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) activities. During incubation of fresh fasting and PP plasma containing [(3)H]cholesteryl ester (CE)-labeled LDL+HDL, both CMs and VLDL served as acceptors of [(3)H]CE or cholesterol from LDL+HDL. The presence of CMs in PP plasma suppressed the ability of VLDL to accept [(3)H]CE from LDL+HDL. In reconstituted plasma containing an equivalent amount of triglycerides from isolated VLDL or CMs, a CM particle was about 40 times more potent than a VLDL particle in accepting [(3)H]CE or cholesterol from LDL+HDLs. When incubated with red blood cells (RBCs) as a source for cell membrane cholesterol, the cholesterol content of CMs, VLDL, LDL, and HDL in PP plasma increased by 485%, 74%, 13%, and 30%, respectively, via LCAT and CETP activities. The presence of CMs in plasma suppressed the ability of endogenous lipoproteins to accept cholesterol from RBCs. Our data suggest that PP CMs may play an important role in promoting reverse cholesterol transport in vivo by serving as the preferred ultimate vehicle for transporting cholesterol released from cell membranes to the liver via LCAT and CETP.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15102891
 

Edited by Chupo, 15 July 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[shifter]

Whats wrong with coconut oil? As far as I can tell, the coconut does not have a liver, so there is no way it can impact on cholesterol. It is a healthy and stable fat. Just because it is saturated, doesn't mean it's bad for you. You can have morbidly obese people with low cholesterol levels and people as thin as skeletons with dangerosly high cholesterol. Coconut oil is not an energy source that gets stored in the body either, rather immediately used and being from a plant rather than an animal, has zero cholesterol

 

Looking at DukeNukems lifestyle, I'm sure he is physically active and fit so he uses the energy he puts in his body and not waste away as a couch potato

 

Some day I am sure there will be a recognised distinction between healthy saturated fats and unhealthy saturated fats. Remember when ALL cholesterol was touted as unhealthy??

 

I much rather use coconut oil in my cooking than some cheap canola rubbish oil. The coconut oil might be saturated fat, but is still a far healthier option and has nutritional value over the cheap non saturated transfatty crap.

 

And dark chocolate too. HEALTHY for cardiovascular system. Why dump it from the diet?? Everything in moderation is the key of course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>> What are your cholesterol levels Duke? 
 
HDL is always around 90-ish last 10+ years.
VLDL always very low.  My LDL is mostly the desirable large particle type.
Total cholesterol (which I consider an unimportant number) typically around 230.
Trigs always under 60.
CRP always rock bottom low.
A1c always around 4.8.

A total cholesterol of 230 is considered to be above the desirable range by mainstream medical authorities and puts you at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke.
(https://www.nhlbi.ni...ics/topics/hbc/)

I would personally be concerned with that level and would be working to reduce it. It could be that your diet is playing a factor in your high cholesterol. I see you eat dark chocolate and coconut oil, both of which are extremely high in saturated fat. I'd be dropping them from your diet immediately.

Whilst there have been some doubts raised about the lipid-hypothesis (http://en.m.wikipedi...ipid_hypothesis), I think that one should generally adhere to the recommendations of the experts, and the consensus. As far as I am aware, the expert consensus is still strongly in favour of the idea that high cholesterol, and diet-induced high cholesterol, are cardiovascular disease risks.

I do wonder, Duke, if you started out with high cholesterol, and then sought and found comfort in the minority alternative view that high total(and LDL?) cholesterol is not unhealthy.

 

 

[Dolph]

It's the most atherogenic oil for every species tested, including primates. That's pretty much as far away from "perfectly healthy" as it can get.

[mikela]

I think most of the "coconut oil is bad for you" studies were conducted with the refined hydrogenated version.  I would stay away from anything with hydrogenated on the label.

[Dolph]

If you hydrogenate coconut oil it makes no difference whatsoever. Virgin CO is basically saturated fatty acids and a very little bit MUFA. If you then hydrogenate it, what you get is ordinary SFAs, nothing mystical about that and no, NO trans fatty acids to blame in this case!
Wake up out of your silly dream!

[mikela]

Wake up out of your silly dream!

 

Really!  You need to say things like this?  Grow up.

[Dolph]

Wake up out of your silly dream!

 
Really!  You need to say things like this?  Grow up.

Obviously this needs to be said! The world and your vascular system don't care for your dreams of for Mr. Mercola's newest ridiculous business scheme.

Edited by Dolph, 26 July 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[mikela]

I don't subscribe to either of you

[timar]

If you hydrogenate coconut oil it makes no difference whatsoever. Virgin CO is basically saturated fatty acids and a very little bit MUFA. If you then hydrogenate it, what you get is ordinary SFAs, nothing mystical about that and no, NO trans fatty acids to blame in this case!

 

I agree that the idea that hydrogenation makes much difference regarding coconut oil is silly. Coconut oil is more than 90% saturated fatty acids anyway. Hydrogenation is applied to CO to further increase its melting point and shelf life. As there are less than 10% unsaturated FAs to begin with, partial hydrogenation, which yields large amounts of trans fatty acids (as opposed to complete hydrogenation which yields only saturated fatty acids), woudn't make much sense. Even if the unsaturated fraction would only be hydrogenated to 90%, there would be less than 1% of trans fatty acids in the coconut oil. To confirm this reasoning, I looked up the USDA nutrient database which provides detailed information on the classes of fatty acids. And, in fact, hydrogenated coconut oil (click on lipids) contains 0.27% trans fatty acids (similar to the amounts naturally found in virgin olive oil). Totally negligible compared to the 93% all-natural saturated fatty acids (most of which 12:0-16:0) present in coconut oil, virgin or hydrogenated. I think, however, that there may be beneficial compounds or structural properties of unrefined oils lost during refining which could potentially lead to very different health effects, as suggested by a intriguing study on palm oil I have discussed here.

 

[mikela]

hydrogenated = refined (for practical purposes)

Edited by mikela, 26 July 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[mikela]

 

 

 I think, however, that there may be beneficial compounds or structural properties of unrefined oils lost during refining which could potentially lead to very different health effects, as suggested by a intriguing study on palm oil I have discussed here.

 

 

I agree.  I only use virgin CO in moderation.

[YOLF]

I'm going to step in here and remind everyone to keep the conversation kind. I realize that sometimes there may be information which is supported by unqualified authorities with good media reach, and that they often have acolytes which harass people to no end to preserve their profits, but there has to be a better way in these circumstances to deal with things like this and if we lose control in our passionate science discussions, we're only stimulating neurochemistry that leaves us easily suggestible. Stay cool and remember that the best discussions happen when we're all at ease and as open to the truth as possible. Back up your discussion with the facts of studies and explain things clearly so people will understand. Stick to what the science tells us, and remember that the best thing to come of the truth in these matters will be less money spent on products which don't help us live longer and more money spent on things that do. Your discussions, in order to be on topic should support a transition to better and healthier foods that will extend human lifespans for all. 

[DukeNukem]

Virgin coconut oil is perfectly healthy for humans.  In fact, it's a great way to raise HDL.

Time magazine finally reversed their stance on saturated fat after 30 years of mounting evidence showed it to be a healthy fat, and NOT responsible for heart disease.
http://time.com/2863...the-war-on-fat/

And the evidence keeps pouring in.  For example, just a few days ago a new study appeared showing that adding beef to you diet IMPROVES vascular function and blood pressure:
http://www.nature.co...jhh201434a.html

The three foodstuffs that are new to the human diet that cause the most harm:  [1] processed sugar in ANY form (including natural fruit juices), [2] cereal grains (whole or processed, doesn't matter), [3] vegetable and seed oils.  ANY population (such as the USA) that has incorporated these as a significant portion of their diet has serious metabolic and inflammatory disease issues.

(Olive and avocado oils, both very healthy in their virgin forms, are fruit oils.)

[timar]

The three foodstuffs that are new to the human diet that cause the most harm:  [1] processed sugar in ANY form (including natural fruit juices), [2] cereal grains (whole or processed, doesn't matter), [3] vegetable and seed oils.  ANY population (such as the USA) that has incorporated these as a significant portion of their diet has serious metabolic and inflammatory disease issues.

(Olive and avocado oils, both very healthy in their virgin forms, are fruit oils.)

IMO this gives a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the Paleo ideology. Although there certainly is a grain of truth to some of them, you can't just come up with some simplistic ideas about nutrition, present them as apodictic truisms and cherry-pick some studies (or even popular media articles) to support them while simply ignoring the large majority of conflicting nutritional science up to the point of stubbornly adhering to ideas directly contradicted by a large body of well-confirmed and virtually undisputable scientific evidence. No use arguing with that  - I'm out if this topic again...

[shifter]

I have to ask about the Paleo diet what is so unhealthy about grains. Sure there is a small percentage of the population that can't tolerate them, but for those who have no problem????

 

What about fermenting the grains and then cooking before eating them?? I see some Paleo love 'activated almonds' (and pay a massive mark up for the privilige) presumably to get rid of the same 'anti-nutrients' found in grains, so whats wrong then with 'activating oats'?? (for example)

 

Also I know that 'cooking' goes against the 'raw food' ideology of Paleo, but if (in the case of grains) it can open up a world of nutrients for the body safely, then whats wrong with it?? The rules in Paleo seem too strict and assume that all human bodies are the same. Porridge (oatmeal) has been a breakfast staple for most of my life and have never had any indigestion or any health problems in my 32 years ever. Just because a small percentage of people cant tolerate it, doesn't mean the entire human race should avoid it and it's unhealthy for everybody. I'd be a dumbarse to eat raw grains and legumes sure, thats unhealthy and would cause me problems.
 

This 'gluten free' fad as a health food really did people who do suffer dire health consequences if they ingest gluten a great disservice. The prices on some of these things have this ridiculous 'health premium' mark up for something that was probably a lot cheaper to produce then its gluten containing counterpart.

 

Do Paleo advocates put all grains out there in the 'to be avoided at all costs regardless' list or are there some out there (such as my favourite oats ) that are acceptable provided they are prepared properly for consumption somehow. Or is there NO WAY a grain regardless of the amount and preperation can be ANY good.

 

 

 

 

[shifter]

lol who marked my post which was really a series of questions and not statements presented as facts as 'ill informed'

 

Maybe I am 'ill informed' but thats why I'm on a forum asking questions trying to learn - duh!

 

Rather than get your rocks off tagging everyones posts as 'ill informed' perhaps you would be better spending your time 'informing' us with your 'well informed' brain

 

By all means, tag this very post as 'off topic' lol

 

 

 

 

[oneshot2shots]

 

The three foodstuffs that are new to the human diet that cause the most harm:  [1] processed sugar in ANY form (including natural fruit juices), [2] cereal grains (whole or processed, doesn't matter), [3] vegetable and seed oils.  ANY population (such as the USA) that has incorporated these as a significant portion of their diet has serious metabolic and inflammatory disease issues.

(Olive and avocado oils, both very healthy in their virgin forms, are fruit oils.)

IMO this gives a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the Paleo ideology. Although there certainly is a grain of truth to some of them, you can't just come up with some simplistic ideas about nutrition, present them as apodictic truisms and cherry-pick some studies (or even popular media articles) to support them while simply ignoring the large majority of conflicting nutritional science up to the point of stubbornly adhering to ideas directly contradicted by a large body of well-confirmed and virtually undisputable scientific evidence. No use arguing with that  - I'm out if this topic again...

 

 

Thats great. Cholesterol being bad for you was well-confirmed and undisputed. until, of course it wasn't. The same as saturated fats, they have now been proven to be essential.

 

In the end, we know what the (properly done) studies will show - A complete alignment with evolutionary theory. Which is what Paleo's rely on. And it works, as they have incredible biomarkers. As opposed to non-Paleos, who have worse bio-markers. If we eat what we evolved to eat we will be fine. Simple,obvious, why is this debate even here. 

 

"grain of truth" lol. 

 

 

Point made in minute 30. 

[YOLF]

This guy has a convincing argument and seems to know his stuff. What do you guys think about us doing a podcast with Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology?

 

I'll see if I can arrange an interview on lifespan and biometrics or something like that. Justin plans to start doing lots of podcasts again soon.

 

 

The three foodstuffs that are new to the human diet that cause the most harm:  [1] processed sugar in ANY form (including natural fruit juices), [2] cereal grains (whole or processed, doesn't matter), [3] vegetable and seed oils.  ANY population (such as the USA) that has incorporated these as a significant portion of their diet has serious metabolic and inflammatory disease issues.

(Olive and avocado oils, both very healthy in their virgin forms, are fruit oils.)

IMO this gives a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the Paleo ideology. Although there certainly is a grain of truth to some of them, you can't just come up with some simplistic ideas about nutrition, present them as apodictic truisms and cherry-pick some studies (or even popular media articles) to support them while simply ignoring the large majority of conflicting nutritional science up to the point of stubbornly adhering to ideas directly contradicted by a large body of well-confirmed and virtually undisputable scientific evidence. No use arguing with that  - I'm out if this topic again...

 

 

Thats great. Cholesterol being bad for you was well-confirmed and undisputed. until, of course it wasn't. The same as saturated fats, they have now been proven to be essential.

 

In the end, we know what the (properly done) studies will show - A complete alignment with evolutionary theory. Which is what Paleo's rely on. And it works, as they have incredible biomarkers. As opposed to non-Paleos, who have worse bio-markers. If we eat what we evolved to eat we will be fine. Simple,obvious, why is this debate even here. 

 

"grain of truth" lol. 

 

 

Point made in minute 30. 

 

This guy has a convincing argument and seems to know his stuff. What do you guys think about us doing a podcast with Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology?

 

I'll see if I can arrange an interview on lifespan and biometrics or something like that. Justin plans to start doing lots of podcasts again soon.

[oneshot2shots]

As long as you can get him promise he won't go into the Krebs cycle again:)

[timar]

Of course Robert Lustig has a point, be he has way overdone it. His exaggerated ideas about fructose being the no. 1 cause of the obesity epidemic don't hold up to scientific scrutiny (like, of course, most ideas Paleo advocates dwell on). Lustig has pretty much become a figure of ridicule within the medical and nutritional science community, which I think is unfair as he has made an important point that had been neglected previously. He must, however, be critizised for cherry-picking the data he presents and suggesting causalities where there are not even clear correlations. Moreover, he doesn't seem to be very responsive to justified criticism. I think he enjoys his showman abilities and his public image as the "savior who delivers us from the evil fructose" a bit too much for his own good - let alone the good of science...

 

For more details, see Alan Aragon's excellent critique of Lustig's YouTube lecture.

 

Thats great. Cholesterol being bad for you was well-confirmed and undisputed. until, of course it wasn't. The same as saturated fats, they have now been proven to be essential.

 

I'm not going to argue with such utter nonesense. Keep on living in La La Land, as Dolph would say...

Edited by timar, 28 July 2014 - 07:05 AM.