47 replies to this topic

[jpars82]

What about rice bran oil? Anyone used this? Is it expensive? I've seen claims saying it's the "world's healthiest" oil, also that it has antioxidant, cholesterol lowering, anticancer properties, etc. It's supposed to have a neutral taste with a high burning point. rice bran oil rice bran oil#2

[paleo]

What, because extremely low levels of cholesterol correlate with death, that means high levels are called for?

Look at calorie restriction. In rodents, lifespan increases very predictably with decreased calorie content. But cut a rodent's calories 60% and it'll die. Does that mean that CR is bunk?

No, it means there is a minimum necessary level. I'm not denying that there is a minimum necessary level of cholesterol, but the evidence is overwhelming that that minimum level is well below the average for Americans, and the diet you propose would push a typical person's cholesterol above that average.


Weak?

That's a bunch of crap. You still seem to be brainwashed by the Lipid Hypothesis. You have alot more research to do my friend, and get over the fact that the "scientific theory" over the last 5 decades has been a bunch of myths. Who is to say what the "minimum" or "max" levels of cholesterol should be?

You need to take a visit to the Weston Price Foundation to squash these myths surrounding your belief that saturated fats increase cholesterol to unhealthy levels. Perhaps look up the 2004 study in the Journal of American College of Nutrition comparing fat composition of diets and resulting cholesterol levels.

[paleo]

What, because extremely low levels of cholesterol correlate with death, that means high levels are called for?

Look at calorie restriction. In rodents, lifespan increases very predictably with decreased calorie content. But cut a rodent's calories 60% and it'll die. Does that mean that CR is bunk?

No, it means there is a minimum necessary level. I'm not denying that there is a minimum necessary level of cholesterol, but the evidence is overwhelming that that minimum level is well below the average for Americans, and the diet you propose would push a typical person's cholesterol above that average.


Weak?

Oh yeah, extremely weak. "There has not been a single tightly-controlled clinical trial that has produced any reduction in CHD mortality that can honestly be attributed to saturated fat restriction or cholesterol-lowering?"....quoted from Colpo. If you feel you have the evidence, please bring it to his attention as I believe there is probably a monetary reward waiting for you.

[jaydfox]

"There has not been a single tightly-controlled clinical trial that has produced any reduction in CHD mortality that can honestly be attributed to saturated fat restriction or cholesterol-lowering?"

The same can be said about reducing one's weight. The fact is that (statistically speaking) mortality increases with increasing percentage body fat (again, above the minimum, I don't need you to point out that a BMI under 20 correlates with increase mortality), yet oddly enough, most long term studies show that losing weight doesn't extend lifespan.

Why? The typical reasons extracted from such studies include:
- People who lose weight without trying. E.g., because they got a disease that causes the body to waste away, perhaps by reducing appetite. But the very reason they lost the weight was also the cause of death in later years.
- People lose weight in an unhealthy manner. E.g., they simply "diet", without making up for lost nutrients. Cut food intake 40%, you cut micronutrient intake by 40% as well. On top of that, during rapid weight loss, you lose certain essential nutrients at a higher rate, and hence need more when on a diet (while you're getting less, a double whammy). Also, toxins stored in body fat are released into the blood stream, causing damage and collecting in other fatty tissues, such as internal organs and the brain. Also, if you cut protein in proportion with the rest of the calories you cut, and if you're sedentary, then you'll lose muscle mass and bone health. I could go on.

The conclusion, by your logic, is that gaining fat is good for you (even when already healthy or overweight/overfat), and one shouldn't bother trying to maintain a "healthy" body weight.

But this conclusion ignores the fact that >90% of people who diet and try to lose weight do it the wrong way, and hence shorten their lives (ironically). The conclusion shouldn't be, "Hey, throw caution to the wind and pork out!"


Similarly, the manner in which people reduce their cholesterol may be affecting the results. For example, statins used to reduce cholesterol also interfere with CoQ10 production, actually increasing the risk of congestive heart failure, and, ironically enough, reducing or negating the benefits of exercising.
http://altmedicine.a...atins_coq10.htm
http://www.lef.org/w...004_06.htm#efts
http://www.jeancarpe...ters/1163#a1164

Additionally, people who cut cholesterol out of their diets sometimes go to great extremes and cut other essential micronutrients out of their diets (e.g., oatmeal is good for you "in moderation", but you gotta eat something else too!).

The point is, cholesterol correlates quite well with heart disease. If the "saturated fat restriction or cholesterol-lowering" doesn't correlate very well, it's most likely the manner in which people restrict saturated fat or lower their cholesterol.

Show me a study where people actually intentionally increase an otherwise "healthy" level of cholesterol, and live longer and have better heart health because of it, and I'll let this one slide (for now).

[Matt]

I mean it has been found that cholesterol has a weak correlation with heart disease anyway AND those with the lowest levels live the shortest

Uh oh... looks like the whole Human CR cohort are about to drop dead at any time... [tung]

[zerodeathrider]

Organic Palm oil ok?

[paleo]

jaydfox:

When did I say that gaining fat is good for you? I think you have completely misunderstood everything I have stated. Surely I am a proponent of a healthy lean body, and as such am working hard toward obtaining a "6-pack" at the age of 30 (presently 12% BF but down from 13% over the last couple of weeks). Yes, this is by eating a high fat, moderate protein, and relatively low carb diet (NON-ketogenic). Did you see Colpo's abs on his website? Surely he doesn't think that gaining fat is good either. Now, on the flip side, a diet high in carbs and low in fat (that is the typical SAD diet) is great for gaining fat, if that's your thing. So I think your "conclusions" by my logic are completely unfound.

As for studies, i'm sure there are many but i'm not inclined to go look them up. As I mentioned before, i really don't care what you or anyone else thinks. If you do the research or even visit some other discussion forums such as T-Nation, you will see that many have reversed cholesterol health issues by eating MORE eggs (cholesterol)! So, yes, this IS intentional.

Don't take my word for it though, there is alot of info out there. Amazing how I continue to lose fat and am leaner than I have been in years by eating a high fat diet (saturated and mono). The good news is that all these myths that you believe are starting to get shattered and exposed.

Bring on the coconut oil! (oh no! my poor heart!)

[paleo]

Organic Palm oil ok?

Absolutely. Enjoy and don't let the saturated fat fear mongering bother you. By the way, i've never even seen that oil (I live in Canada) and as a result only use coconut oil. Where are you located?

[zerodeathrider]

North America.

[jaydfox]

When did I say that gaining fat is good for you? I think you have completely misunderstood everything I have stated.

I didn't. I was using it as an analogy. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I stated: Cholesterol correlates with heart disease, etc.
You stated: Reducing cholesterol doesn't correlate well with reducing heart disease, etc.
Ergo, cholesterol isn't the problem.

So, by analogy:
Body fat percentage correlates with mortality
Reducing body fat percentage doesn't correlate well with reducing mortality
Ergo, body fat percentage isn't the problem.

I hope you can agree that this second set of statements is pretty ludicrous, and I hope you can see why I used it as an analogy to what you said.

[DJS]

North America.

Chicago, to be more precise. [sfty]

[Shepard]

If you do the research or even visit some other discussion forums such as T-Nation, you will see that many have reversed cholesterol health issues by eating MORE eggs (cholesterol)!

Suggesting T-Nation has hurt your credibility more than anything else.

[paleo]

I didn't. I was using it as an analogy. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I stated: Cholesterol correlates with heart disease, etc.
You stated: Reducing cholesterol doesn't correlate well with reducing heart disease, etc.
Ergo, cholesterol isn't the problem.

So, by analogy:
Body fat percentage correlates with mortality
Reducing body fat percentage doesn't correlate well with reducing mortality
Ergo, body fat percentage isn't the problem.

I hope you can agree that this second set of statements is pretty ludicrous, and I hope you can see why I used it as an analogy to what you said.

Yes, I can agree, but only because the analogy is irrelevant. The first statement is right on the money though.

[paleo]

If you do the research or even visit some other discussion forums such as T-Nation, you will see that many have reversed cholesterol health issues by eating MORE eggs (cholesterol)!

Suggesting T-Nation has hurt your credibility more than anything else.

It has nothing to do with my credibility. Nor do I care if anyone thinks i'm not credible. The point was that there are annecdotal reports out there and I just mentioned that I saw some on T-nation. What's wrong with another forum where people discuss things much like here? Sure it's centred more along the lines of building muscle and not life extension, but there are several folks there who are.

Furthermore, don't take my word for what I say. Go visit the Cholesterol Skeptics site, Weston Price Foundation, Omnivore, etc ect. It's all there.

[systemicanomaly]

I use always extra virgin olive oil . It is the oil that better resists the high temperatures without being degraded.  Never use  polyunsaturated oils (seeds mainly) because they become  "trans" fats when you fry them. 

See this link: http://www.bantransf...fatsinoils.html

In the table you can see the percent of polyunsaturated oil of different sources of fat. If polyunsaturated oils don´t resist high temperatures...olive oil and coconut oil will be the best option, because they have the smaller rate ( 8 olive oil and 2 coconut oil)

But Coconut oil is rich in saturated fats and can enlarge the levels of  cholesterol, so my recommendation is without doubt the olive oil. 

The healthiest oils are usually unsuitable for cooking, particularly at high temps. According to several sources, most olive oil is suitable for low to medium temps (for light sauteeing)... no more than 325 degrees F (163 degrees C). For temps up to 375 F (190 C), coconut oil, ghee or butter are recommended. High-oleic sunflower or high oleic safflower (such as Saffola) may also be suitable at the higher temp. Note, however, that the standard sunflower and safflower should be used at lower cooking temps.

Two of the sources for my info are:

Omega Nutrition
Udo Erasmus - Fats That Heal Fats That Kill


Note that Udo Erasmus is something of a guru on the subject of fats (both healthy fats & unhealthy fats). Back in the late '80s or early '90s his writings had called onto question cholesterol theory that is still prevalent. He also called into question (more than 15 yrs ago?) the popular notion that coconut oil was detrimental to heart health.

It was back in the 1950s and then again in the 1980s that coconut (& other tripical oils) were demonized. I seem to recall that the Soybean Growers (of America) were a major player in the crusade against tropical oils in the '80s. It was in their interest to sell (partially) hydrogenated soybean oil in place of the tropical oils. Margarines & partially hydrogenated soybean oil have been responsible for much of the trans fats in the American diet.

Udo Erasmus, as well as a few others, started questioning the validity of replacing tropical oils with the highly suspect (partially) hydrogenated oils.

[paleo]

According to the first source:

"In 1986, noting the critical deficiency of Omega-3 and Omega-6 Essential Fatty Acids in the North American diet, Omega Nutrition was formed."

ok, a criticial deficiency in o3, maybe....but o6? Not so sure about that. But this is a supplement company, so I wouldn't believe anything they say really. Also I have tried their coconut oil and in my opinion, isn't even suitable for dogs.

[Athanasios]

paleo, what do you think of the studies I posted in the thread "Dietary cholesterol, atherosclerosis and coronary"? Especially the one on the clearance of chylomicron remnants? Reply in other thread please.

[systemicanomaly]

According to the first source:

"In 1986, noting the critical deficiency of Omega-3 and Omega-6 Essential Fatty Acids in the North American diet, Omega Nutrition was formed."

ok, a criticial deficiency in o3, maybe....but o6?  Not so sure about that.  But this is a supplement company, so I wouldn't believe anything they say really.  Also I have tried their coconut oil and in my opinion, isn't even suitable for dogs.

Be not too hasty to dismiss "anything they say". It is true that Omega Nutrition is a supplement company in the business to make a profit. That, in itself, is not cause to disregard the wealth of information that they provide (in their Product Book). Granted, I would also be tempted take issue with that oversimplified statement that the ON website makes regarding deficiencies about EFAs. It is well known that the diet for a majority of North American has been woefully lacking in w-3 fatty acids for quite a long time. It has also been pointed out by numerous sources that the ratio of w-3 to w-6 fatty acids is way out of whack. There are also some segments of the population that also appear to have an w-6 deficiency as well... however, this is a much smaller portion of the North American population than is deficient in w-3 fatty acids. There are a fair # of ppl that are unable to convert an adequate amount of w-6 EFA in to GLA. Perhaps w-6 deficiencies are a bit more common in Canada than in the US. (Note that Omega Nutrition is a Canadian-based company).

If you take a look at the product line for ON, you'll notice that there is a much greater emphasis on w-3 products or on products that promote a balance of w-3, w-6, & w-9 fatty acids. They are not really pushing standalone w-6 oils with their product line.

Regardless of that single statement, the Omega Nutrition Product Book has a great deal of educational information that is well worth perusing. The details that i presented was really based the information I had gleaned from their Product Book (rather than from their website). Before I picked up the Udo Erasmus book some 5 yrs ago, I had initially learned quite a bit about EFA oils and cooking oils from an older (1999) Omega Nutrition Product Book. This 62 page book had a considerable amount of background info on oils in general (not just their own products). They presented quite a bit of info on oils: how oils are manufactured (refined vs unrefined), fatty acid profiles for numerous oils, an in-depth (cooking) temperature chart for a wide variety of oils (not just their own), the effect of light and heat on vegetable oils, and the superiority of HDPE plastic over dark-colored glass for protecting sensitive vegetable oils. The also presented a great primer on saturated vs unsaturated fatty acids, hydrogenation, cis vs trans fatty acids, and lignans. They also presented quite a bit of background info on coconut oil and called into question the validity of the link of dietary cholesterol to heart disease.

When I subsequently picked up the Erasmus book (my "fat bible"), I found that pretty much all the info that I had gleaned from the ON product book was in agreement with what Udo had to say. Note that the original printing of "Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill" actually came out in 1986 (not the late '80s or early '90s as I had previously stated).

Atho' I typically get much of my EFA oils and cooking oils from other manufacturers, I've got to take my hat off to Omega Nutrition for introducing w-3 oils to North America way back in 1986. I'm also indebted to them for the education on oils in their product book.

The Omega Nutrition Product books appear to provide a good deal of info that is very even-handed. For certain applications, they provide info for (& even recommend) products that are not in their own product line at all. These include fish oil, unsalted butter (clarified), ghee, soy oil and walnut oil. Altho' they discourage deep frying, they indicate that Macadamia nut oil as suitable for (occasional) pan frying or stir frying (I assume that this is the 325F to 375F range they refer to elsewhere)...

http://www.omeganutr...her-bestoil.php


I've not tried either of Omega Nutrition's 2 coconut oils, so I can't really comment on their quality. However I've tried coconut oils from other respected manufacturers & have found that the taste has been variable from 1 batch to the next (it could be due to storage or some other factor).