33 replies to this topic

[paleo]

I have read numerous reports and have essentially been convinced of the

great benefits of fish oil.


HOWEVER,


I realize that the omega 3's are highly unstable polyunsaturated oils.
This means that they oxidize very easily/quickly. Since the
pharmaceutical grades use either molecular distillation or
deoderization, this exposes the oil to temps exceeding 160-180 degrees
centigrade. Would this not oxidize the oil making it rancid nearly
instantly?


With respect to actual fish, wouldn't cooking fish at oven temperatures


also oxidize and make the "healthy" omega 3's rancid right in the fish?


Any knowledge or information is greatly appreciated.


Mike

[paleo]

Bump

[ajnast4r]

to be honest, i have NO idea... i defintly would like the answer to that. i know that companies like nordic to test for markers of rancidity, and they are nearly non-existant... so they must use some sort of process that removes, or eliminations the initial oxidation. could be that the omega-3 fats are not oxidized by heat at all, but rather some other substance in the body?

my suggestion to you is to call nordic (800.662.2544) and ask them, then post their reply back here... im sure everyone would like to know.

[paleo]

to be honest, i have NO idea... i defintly would like the answer to that. i know that companies like nordic to test for markers of rancidity, and they are nearly non-existant... so they must use some sort of process that removes, or eliminations the initial oxidation. could be that the omega-3 fats are not oxidized by heat at all, but rather some other substance in the body?

my suggestion to you is to call nordic (800.662.2544) and ask them, then post their reply back here... im sure everyone would like to know.

I emailed Ascenta Health and Carlson's with no reply from either (over 1 week). Either they don't have a clue, or they know but don't wanna spill the beans. Regardless, I figure that if the processing is done in a vaccuum, this may potentially negate oxidation.

However, i've been doing a tonne of research on this and have found alot of stuff that shows that all PUFA's are damaging to the body. Maybe this entire EFA thing with respect to O3's and O6's is BS?

For those that care, read up on Dr. Peat and specifically the July 2005 newsletter "The Great Fish Oil Experiment".

Even Art Devany agrees with him...and he doesn't touch the stuff anymore.

[paleo]

Also check out:

http://www.nutri-spe...nl/2006-01.html

http://www.nutri-spe...nl/2006-02.html

http://www.nutri-spe...nl/2006-03.html

http://www.second-op...and_cancer.html

Looks like i'm tossing out the fish oil as of now!

[ajnast4r]

good luck getting a reply from carlsons lol

go with flax


im also gonna venture to say that most of what i just read there is BS... low omega-3 high saturated omega-6 diet is a GREAT way to die at 40.

[paleo]

good luck getting a reply from carlsons lol

go with flax


im also gonna venture to say that most of what i just read there is BS... low omega-3 high saturated omega-6 diet is a GREAT way to die at 40.

I wouldn't ever go near flax oil. Maybe freshly ground flax, but probably not even as I don't believe seeds are healthy.

Low o3 and high o6 is a great way to die at 40, but high o3 and low o6 is a great way to die even sooner.

Best to stick with whole foods including fish. You probably don't eat fish, yeah? Thank "god" i'm an agnostic Although I do respect ayervedic wisdom etc. I'll probably be commenting on your latest regime shortly when I have time. I KNOW you're looking forward to it!

[syr_]

Interesting question. The fish oil i take is molecularly distilled and concentrated. To the benefits of omega-3s, it shouldnt matter since you get them eating cooked fish like salmon or sardines.
About the rest of the oil... hmm...

Better this than chowing 4 tablespoons or fish oil.

[ajnast4r]

  I'll probably be commenting on your latest regime shortly when I have time.  I KNOW you're looking forward to it!

lol i am... please dont comment anything you cant back up with hard evidence.

what evidence do you have that SEEDS are not healthy?

[jaydfox]

I don't believe seeds are healthy.

Curious... Any particular reason? I'm a big fan of freshly ground flaxseed. (Well, I use a blender, so there's going to be some oxygenation as the flaxbits get tossed around, but it's not terribly much, and I eat the pulp within minutes.)

[doug123]

Curious... Any particular reason? I'm a big fan of freshly ground flaxseed. (Well, I use a blender, so there's going to be some oxygenation as the flaxbits get tossed around, but it's not terribly much, and I eat the pulp within minutes.)

Doesen't that taste nasty, Jay? I consume Trader Joe's Organic Flax seed oil -- in pills.

[jaydfox]

Also check out:

http://www.nutri-spe...nl/2006-01.html

You've got to be joking! Eat more saturated fat, it's good for you?

Okay, I understand the part about human milk being high in fat, especially saturated fat, but what kind of argument is that? Are a baby's nutritional needs even remotely similar to an adult's?

This is a serious question, so think about it. A baby is undergoing rapid development and growth (subtle distinction). That requires a hell of a lot of calories. And being so rapid, the baby can actually disperse a lot of the tissue damage that occurs during growth, so regulatory systems that prevent damage aren't as critical. The main exception is DNA, since it's the portion of cellular proliferation that multiplies with the cells: proteins just get dispersed, with new (undamaged) proteins taking up the slack.

Also, a baby needs to develop fast, so evolution has put growth speed in front of optimal growth. If a baby grew slower and ate a "healthier" diet (less saturated fat, though not too much, as I'm sure some of it is necessary for tissue development), it'd probably live many years longer overall, but it'd take too long to become an adult, and hence probably wouldn't gain many years as an adult. And the time lost before reaching puberty would be evolutionary anathema.

The diet of a baby is no sane indicator of what adults should be eating.

As for the PUFA's, the article makes it sound like 100% of them become rancid, deformed molecules before they hit the bloodstream. I'd like to see a study substantiating a percentage, because I can't imagine its being more than a few percent.

[jaydfox]

Curious... Any particular reason? I'm a big fan of freshly ground flaxseed. (Well, I use a blender, so there's going to be some oxygenation as the flaxbits get tossed around, but it's not terribly much, and I eat the pulp within minutes.)

Doesen't that taste nasty, Jay? I consume Trader Joe's Organic Flax seed oil -- in pills.

Not really. Flaxseeds and flax oil only really taste bad when they get rancid, or so I've learned from experience. In fact, while I've read plenty of complaints about the taste of flax oil, I've found that the fresher it is, the less taste it has. If you can taste it, it might already be partially spoiled.

And at any rate, I typically put the ground flaxseed on oatmeal, along with wheat germ, so I'm not just spooning the stuff (usually).

[paleo]

  I'll probably be commenting on your latest regime shortly when I have time.  I KNOW you're looking forward to it!

lol i am... please dont comment anything you cant back up with hard evidence.

what evidence do you have that SEEDS are not healthy?

I do alot of reading, and hard evidence is pretty redundant since science and studies are always conflicting and usually contingent on who is paying for the study.

I don't think seeds are healthy IMHO because of anti-nutrients, phytates, etc. not to even mention their high amount of polyunsaturated omega 6 content.

Furthermore, much of it is impossible to digest as can probably be witnessed in your own excretement.

Leave the seeds to the birds!

[paleo]

Also check out:

http://www.nutri-spe...nl/2006-01.html

You've got to be joking! Eat more saturated fat, it's good for you?

Okay, I understand the part about human milk being high in fat, especially saturated fat, but what kind of argument is that? Are a baby's nutritional needs even remotely similar to an adult's?

This is a serious question, so think about it. A baby is undergoing rapid development and growth (subtle distinction). That requires a hell of a lot of calories. And being so rapid, the baby can actually disperse a lot of the tissue damage that occurs during growth, so regulatory systems that prevent damage aren't as critical. The main exception is DNA, since it's the portion of cellular proliferation that multiplies with the cells: proteins just get dispersed, with new (undamaged) proteins taking up the slack.

Also, a baby needs to develop fast, so evolution has put growth speed in front of optimal growth. If a baby grew slower and ate a "healthier" diet (less saturated fat, though not too much, as I'm sure some of it is necessary for tissue development), it'd probably live many years longer overall, but it'd take too long to become an adult, and hence probably wouldn't gain many years as an adult. And the time lost before reaching puberty would be evolutionary anathema.

The diet of a baby is no sane indicator of what adults should be eating.

As for the PUFA's, the article makes it sound like 100% of them become rancid, deformed molecules before they hit the bloodstream. I'd like to see a study substantiating a percentage, because I can't imagine its being more than a few percent.

I should have figured as much. Seems to be a high vegetarian crowd here. Don't you guys read beyondveg or theOmnivore which clearly smash any beliefs that vegetarian diets are healthy?

Yes, I know it may come as a shocker, but yes saturated fat and cholesterol are the dietary equivalent of rocket fuel. Do some more research, don't just take my word for it. Check out www.theomnivore.com and enjoy JUST THE FACTS that are completely backed up by hard evidence. But how much evidence do you need when we have clearly been eating meat (inc. saturated fat) for millions of years.

As for the breast milk, it looks pretty close to optimum macros with the exception of carbs. I think carbs should always be below 10-20% of diet and only come from produce.

[jaydfox]

I should have figured as much. Seems to be a high vegetarian crowd here. Don't you guys read beyondveg or theOmnivore which clearly smash any beliefs that vegetarian diets are healthy?

Heh, I'm not a vegetarian by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, I know it may come as a shocker, but yes saturated fat and cholesterol are the dietary equivalent of rocket fuel.

If by rocket fuel, you mean packed with energy, great for the whole savage beast, survival of the fittest kind of man, then I won't argue. If by rocket fuel, you mean highly volatile and dangerous for anything other than an explosively fast mission, then I also won't argue.

If you meant rocket fuel, as in, we should run all our cars and home gadgets on the stuff because it's the best source of energy, then, uh, I don't exactly agree with you...

[jaydfox]

You seem to be giving conflicting advice. You advise to eat saturated fat and cholesterol, essentially a diet not for longevity but for early-life quality of life: strength, mass, energy, etc., at the cost of lifespan (particularly cardiovascular health, but that's not the only casualty of such a diet) and late-life quality of life.

On the other hand, you advise a very low-carb diet, which improves health markers, helps prevent or reduce the symptoms of diabetes, etc., and may help you live longer, but which will rob you of the energy needed to make effective use of your strength, mass, etc. Unless you plan on being lethargic... But if you're reasonably active (bearing in mind, I'm defining this from the perspective of, say, a strength athlete, who could make use of all that saturated fat and cholesterol), it's hard to restore glycogen stores when only getting 10%-20% of your calories from carbs. And who wants to be inactive and have a ticking time bomb in their chest from all the bad fats?

[paleo]

You seem to be giving conflicting advice. You advise to eat saturated fat and cholesterol]not[/i] for longevity but for early-life quality of life: strength, mass, energy, etc., at the cost of lifespan (particularly cardiovascular health, but that's not the only casualty of such a diet) and late-life quality of life.

On the other hand, you advise a very low-carb diet, which improves health markers, helps prevent or reduce the symptoms of diabetes, etc., and may help you live longer, but which will rob you of the energy needed to make effective use of your strength, mass, etc. Unless you plan on being lethargic... But if you're reasonably active (bearing in mind, I'm defining this from the perspective of, say, a strength athlete, who could make use of all that saturated fat and cholesterol), it's hard to restore glycogen stores when only getting 10%-20% of your calories from carbs. And who wants to be inactive and have a ticking time bomb in their chest from all the bad fats?

You are very misinformed. If saturated fats are so bad then why is it predominately polyunsaturated fats that are found in arteries? I am a strength athlete...your liver and muscle glycogen stores aren't very much. I never have a problem with my produce intake and am never in ketosis....usually i'm a little over the edge.

I suggest you inform yourself a little more on how saturated fats are not as bad as you may think. Start with the Omnivore and if you're interesting i'll send you many more excellent websites. Oh yes, Weston Price is a MUST.

So much for being inactive with low carbs bud! I'm a firefighter and place consistently under 2 minutes in the combat challenge. Not bad for less than 100g's of carbs based on only on fruit/veggies.

Who is that guy that holds the olympic marathon record? Oldest guy ever too? Yep, FAT!

[Shepard]

If saturated fats are so bad then why is it predominately polyunsaturated fats that are found in arteries? 

Because all the saturated is still stored in your ass.

[jaydfox]

I am a strength athlete...

Saw that one coming...

I suggest you inform yourself a little more on how saturated fats are not as bad as you may think

I've heard it, studied it, not terribly impressed.

your liver and muscle glycogen stores aren't very much.

1500 calories isn't something to sneeze at.

[jaydfox]

I suggest you inform yourself a little more on how saturated fats are not as bad as you may think

I've heard it, studied it, not terribly impressed.

BTW, if you have something more than just the types of oxidized fats in the arteries, or the type of fats that babies need, I'd be interested to hear it. A broad range of scientific studies have pretty conclusively shown saturated fat to be bad for you in the long term. I've seen a few holes here and there, such as the use of hydrogenated tropical oils for testing saturated fats, but most of these holes are small and don't apply generally. If you've got something the "establishment" is trying to hide from us, I'd love to hear it.

[scottl]

Paleo,

You have some points, but are too far to the other side.

1. the issue with polyunsaturated fats is that they go rancid, thus the need for antioxidants.

2. Ever hear of innflammation and it's role in aging? Fish oil decreases inflammation. There are zillions of well rsearched articles on the benefits of fish oil. Again taking flax it is a crapshoot how much EPA your body makes.

3. Flax seeds are a great source of fiber as my gut don't like psyllium, etc.

4. If you are getting enough omega 3s and a healthy diet, I doubt that some saturates make much diference, and there are probably benefits to having some vs none (I'd have to dig for ref).

[jaydfox]

and there are probably benefits to having some vs none

While many will probably disagree, I'll grant that this may be so. I think making saturated fats the majority of fat (or *yikes* calorie) intake is going too far, but a few grams of saturated fat here and there may not be a net negative versus none at all.

[Shepard]

If memory serves, I've seen some evidence that saturated fats are needed for proper hormonal goodness. And, not all saturated fats are bad (if you break them down instead of lumping them all together) I am horrible at remembering or finding exactly where I saw evidence of this stuff, though.

[paleo]

[quote]
I've heard it, studied it, not terribly impressed.[/quote]
BTW, if you have something more than just the types of oxidized fats in the arteries, or the type of fats that babies need, I'd be interested to hear it. A broad range of scientific studies have pretty conclusively shown saturated fat to be bad for you in the long term. I've seen a few holes here and there, such as the use of hydrogenated tropical oils for testing saturated fats, but most of these holes are small and don't apply generally. If you've got something the "establishment" is trying to hide from us, I'd love to hear it.[/quote]

Oh, there are more than a "few" holes man. It pretty much started occuring at the same time they started spouting that polyunsaturated veggie oils were much healthier than full saturated fat ones. Have you read what Mercola says on fat? Weston Price? Sally Fallon and Mary Enig? Barry Groves? Etc Etc. This news isn't exactly new, but I don't understand how you can discredit it. Are you afraid of cholesterol because of a study done decades ago on powdered (read oxidized) eggs?

Here are some links to look through if you have some time:

http://www.theomnivore.com/home.html (my favourite -- JUST THE FACTS)

http://www.second-op...o.uk/index.html

http://www.mylonglife.com/

http://www.biblelife.org/ (Ignore the religious stuff, LOTS of diet info although probably too shocking to you)

http://www.heall.com...turatedfat.html

http://www.arthurdev...ionary_fitness/ (look backward through all the archives - LOTS of info)

http://www.mercola.c...urated_fat1.htm

http://www.westonapr...fats/index.html

There are also books written on the subject by highly respected scientists/doctors. Also look into studying Steffanson's eskimo experiments/studies.

Anyways, enjoy.

[paleo]

Paleo,

You have some points, but are too far to the other side.

1. the issue with polyunsaturated fats is that they go rancid, thus the need for antioxidants.

2.  Ever hear of innflammation and it's role in aging?  Fish oil decreases inflammation.  There are zillions of well rsearched articles on the benefits of fish oil. Again taking flax it is a crapshoot how much EPA your body makes.

3. Flax seeds are a great source of fiber as my gut don't like psyllium, etc.

4. If you are getting enough omega 3s and a healthy diet, I doubt that some saturates make much diference, and there are probably benefits to having some vs none (I'd have to dig for ref).

1. Well, i've actually been reading into how saturated fats help protect the poly's (like in fish) and they apparently have an omega 3/6 sparring effect. This is why I question fish oil to be beneficial since there is no saturated fat or supporting structures with it -- it's just highly concentrated, not to mention processed.

2. I agree with you, but I just think there is more to it than meets the eye. There may be other things going on that are harmful, even though it's anti-inflammatory.

3. That's fine, but I know you think i'm stupid but I don't think fibre is all that healthy as people think. My only fibre is from fruits/veggies and my colon and bowel movements are in excellent health. Perhaps check out the Bible Life site and read up on how fibre isn't very healthy.

4. Some vs none saturated fat? Look over the links I provided....saturated fat is extremely healthy. Monounsat's are decent albeit not as stable as sats. IMHO avoid poly's except for the small amounts found in nearly all foods.

[paleo]

While many will probably disagree, I'll grant that this may be so. I think making saturated fats the majority of fat (or *yikes* calorie) intake is going too far, but a few grams of saturated fat here and there may not  be a net negative versus none at all.

Haha...you still can't get over the misinformation. I make sure that saturated fats consists of a close to 1/2 of my fat intake which is already over 55% of my cals. So yeah, about 25% of my diet is saturated fat. What would you want me to replace it with? Grains? Starches? Healthy and nutritious easily digestable wheat? Corn? Potatoes? Rice? Amazing how i'm not a fat slob eating 55% of my diet as fat! In fact my body fat% is 11% and ever since i've made some adjustments i'm getting even more lean. My goal is to have abs like Anthony Colpo. I'm even training an older lady and have had excellent results.

[paleo]

If memory serves, I've seen some evidence that saturated fats are needed for proper hormonal goodness. And, not all saturated fats are bad (if you break them down instead of lumping them all together) I am horrible at remembering or finding exactly where I saw evidence of this stuff, though.

Hormones, cell wall structure/rigidity, vitamin absorption, etc. etc. etc. I provided ample evidence. But I understand how it's difficult to accept after being lied to for so many years.

[Shepard]

I provided ample evidence. 

You do realize that for every link you post, an opposing one can be found? For every doctor who says saturated fat = Superman, you'll have one that says it will kill you. For every PubMed researcher like Colpo there will be ones with other viewpoints, etc. etc. etc.

I'm on your side that the evidence points to saturated fats not being a path to an early grave, just like I think most things aren't....if practiced in moderation. I'll take my saturated fats from things other than lard, though.

I checked out a couple of those links (I'm on dial-up this weekend, so can't check them all out). I have a feeling you aren't going to convince anyone here with those, if they follow the same trend.

Edited by shepard, 10 June 2006 - 08:53 PM.

[paleo]

I provided ample evidence. 

You do realize that for every link you post, an opposing one can be found? For every doctor who says saturated fat = Superman, you'll have one that says it will kill you. For every PubMed researcher like Colpo there will be ones with other viewpoints, etc. etc. etc.

I'm on your side that the evidence points to saturated fats not being a path to an early grave, just like I think most things aren't....if practiced in moderation. I'll take my saturated fats from things other than lard, though.

I checked out a couple of those links (I'm on dial-up this weekend, so can't check them all out). I have a feeling you aren't going to convince anyone here with those, if they follow the same trend.

Ah well, I guess it just comes down to who you believe the most as well as your own knowledge/experience and most importantly, common sense. I provided those links because I believe them the most out of everything, and I have explored/practiced other sides.

I hope you enjoy reading the rest of the links when you get time.