164 replies to this topic

[HaloTeK]

One issue that comes up when comparing the diets of indigenous cultures and applying it to modern society is the differences in activity levels. Norepinephrine inhibits insulin release to a large degree, and norepinphrine could be elevated a large chunk of the time depending on the type of activity. That said, I'm not familiar with the Kitava people and their lifestyle.

If you look on Lindebergs studies, he analyzes this! Activity is really only slightly elevated from modern day humans. Makes them excellent in comparisons.

http://www.paleodiet.com/lindeberg/

The level of physical activity was roughly estimated at 1.7 multiples of the basal metabolic rate, which is slightly higher than the levels of sedentary western populations. Eighty per cent of both sexes were daily smokers, supporting the concept that smoking alone is not sufficient to cause cardiovascular disease. Our survey methods preclude any speculation as to the role of psychosocial factors.

Maybe the smoking is inhibiting Norepinephrine <-----LOL time to smoke!

[DukeNukem]

I wonder how many polyunsaturates were comsumed by individuals in the Kitava Study by Staffan lindeberg. Their diet was high in carbohydrates (up to 70%), and low in fats (~20%). There is more and more evidence these days that paleo humans ate starchy tubers (as evidence on teeth) (for around 1-2 million years) (A tuber rich diet would have also been rich in vitamin a precursors!). Kitava individuals show sickinly low insulin levels for their amount of carbohydrates. Their coconut and starch rich diet would have been low in omega 6s, with the exception being any kind of nut they might have ate. And of course they ate fish once in a while, but because the waters are warm there, the omega 3 content would have been low. So I would estimate that they might of have anywhere from a 1:4 to 1:9 ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 in their diet based on variability of the veggies,tubers, nuts, and coconut.

And btw, the kitavas' are the best group for paleo people to look at who say carbs are just the enemy and age you faster. I would wager that someone on a 30% protein, 60% fat, 10% carb diet would almost certainly have higher insulin levels than a Kitava on a isocaloric diet because of the insulin producing effects of having higher protein levels and higher growth hormone levels.

Higher fat diets seem to clog my brain and make me sluggish, not to mention that I feel the insulin producing effects of high fat/high protein diets vs low glycemic Kitava like diets. I always find it a little hard to believe that high protein consuming individuals don't have some form of heartburn or heaviness from a higher fat diet.

Lastly, the higher carb diet of the kitava's allows the body to use what it wants from the carbs, and then preferentially turn extra carbs into saturated fat (which spares the individual from having to count high polyunsaturated fats from different sources, your body knows best!) As long as you don't overconsume calories and don't let yourself have extra weight, you will never have a problem with carbs because your overall insulin will be low.

What to take from this?

Let your body make its own fats from precursors and exercise caution with fatty acid supplements.

If your body wants to make saturated fats from carbs, let it do it.
If your body wants to make DHA or EPA from ALA, let it do it.
If your body wants to make Vitamin D from sunlight, get it from sunlight.

Avoid sugar, keep insulin low (most of you know how), exercise, and avoid unnatural fatty acids in supplements unless you really have an imbalance.

It's probably been linked already, but Whole Health has several articles on the Kitavan diet, all of which can be found on this link. Papua New Guinea is a tropical rain forest island above Australia, rich in vegetable diversity. This probably helped their health. Also, they ate a lot of coconut meat/fat, which was a plentiful source of saturated fat. The unique way the MCTs of coconut oil metabolize impart unique health benefits, I'm convinced. Plus, any animal fed coconut oil appears to lose weight, regardless of other eating habits. Palm oil might be in the same boat, but I've not seen similar evidence.

[david ellis]

From haotek's paleodiet.com link- "Fully developed ATHEROSCLEROSIS of the coronary vessels of the heart is part of normal ageing in westernized populations.."

Atherosclerosis also seemed to be part of normal aging for ancient Egyptians and South American indians. I don't understand limiting atherosclereosis to only "westernized" populations. The most famous "bread eaters", the Egyptians weren't healthy despite eating lots of whole grains. David Sinclair, in his book(p 96), "Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science", writes that "Atherosclerosis has been frequently diagnosed in Egyptian and South American mummies." And in Asia, the same trouble.

It seems the trouble began at the very edge of the beginning of history and civilizations. All of which were characterized by eating grain, whole grains even. We can't blame this trouble on modern fats and foods and yearn for the good old days.

Edited by david ellis, 24 December 2008 - 05:15 AM.

[DukeNukem]

From haotek's paleodiet.com link- "Fully developed ATHEROSCLEROSIS of the coronary vessels of the heart is part of normal ageing in westernized populations.."

Atherosclerosis also seemed to be part of normal aging for ancient Egyptians and South American indians. I don't understand limiting atherosclereosis to only "westernized" populations. The most famous "bread eaters", the Egyptians weren't healthy despite eating lots of whole grains. David Sinclair, in his book(p 96), "Egyptian Mummies and Modern Science", writes that "Atherosclerosis has been frequently diagnosed in Egyptian and South American mummies." And in Asia, the same trouble.

It seems the trouble began at the very edge of the beginning of history and civilizations. All of which were characterized by eating grain, whole grains even. We can't blame this trouble on modern fats and foods and yearn for the good old days.

The single best nutritional advice anyone can adopt is to cut grains (and grain derived products, including corn syrup) from their diet. Of this, I'm certain. Number two and not far behind would be to cut processed PUFAs from their diet. These two tactics alone, I believe, would radically improve the health of Americans and others on the Western diet. I can't even think of a third tactic that comes close to providing the benefits of these first two--they are in a league of their own.

[Shepard]

Dr. Davis on the fish oil:

http://heartscanblog...-oil-right.html

[david ellis]

The single best nutritional advice anyone can adopt is to cut grains (and grain derived products, including corn syrup) from their diet. Of this, I'm certain. Number two and not far behind would be to cut processed PUFAs from their diet. These two tactics alone, I believe, would radically improve the health of Americans and others on the Western diet. I can't even think of a third tactic that comes close to providing the benefits of these first two--they are in a league of their own.

I almost 100% agree with you. I was just slamming the concept that "western" stuff is bad and everything else is good. Farther back than recorded history heart disease and bad teeth have been with us. It is also very obvious that processed PUFA's are just natural extensions of industrial agriculture progress.

I remain unconvinced that my body can make all the EPA/DHA that I need. I have had to stop supplementing fish oil for surgery two times, the return of arthritis was tough the first time. But the second time I was frightened because relief from pain took more than a week longer. I supplement with GLA to keep my prostaglandins in good balance.

[david ellis]

Dr. Davis on the fish oil:

http://heartscanblog...-oil-right.html

Dr Davis makes a piker out of me. I only take 3.9 g EPA/DHA a day.

[Shepard]

Dr Davis makes a piker out of me. I only take 3.9 g EPA/DHA a day.

I think I've mentioned this before, but I've taken close to 8g EPA/DHA during certain periods, which is the only time that I noticed tangible benefits.

[DukeNukem]

The single best nutritional advice anyone can adopt is to cut grains (and grain derived products, including corn syrup) from their diet. Of this, I'm certain. Number two and not far behind would be to cut processed PUFAs from their diet. These two tactics alone, I believe, would radically improve the health of Americans and others on the Western diet. I can't even think of a third tactic that comes close to providing the benefits of these first two--they are in a league of their own.

I almost 100% agree with you. I was just slamming the concept that "western" stuff is bad and everything else is good. Farther back than recorded history heart disease and bad teeth have been with us. It is also very obvious that processed PUFA's are just natural extensions of industrial agriculture progress.

I remain unconvinced that my body can make all the EPA/DHA that I need. I have had to stop supplementing fish oil for surgery two times, the return of arthritis was tough the first time. But the second time I was frightened because relief from pain took more than a week longer. I supplement with GLA to keep my prostaglandins in good balance.

I will continue to supplement with Krill and fish oil too, but about half of what I was taking, down to one fish oil and two krill oil capsules daily. If I'm successful at reducing my intake of processed PUFAs to under 5-10 grams daily, then I think reducing fish oil is the right move. I eat out practically everyday, so that's where I will be challenged -- I'm having to request my meats cooked with butter versus vegetable oil, and who knows how compliant they will be. And no salad dressings! It's amazing too me how many restaurants (even nicer ones) I've asked if their olive oil is extra virgin, and the wait-person doesn't have a clue. And often times when they go to check, the answer is no.

I take one GLA capsule daily, too.

[DukeNukem]

Dr Davis makes a piker out of me. I only take 3.9 g EPA/DHA a day.

I think I've mentioned this before, but I've taken close to 8g EPA/DHA during certain periods, which is the only time that I noticed tangible benefits.

What benefits?

[Shepard]

What benefits?

Mostly skin appearance and quality. I don't think this says too much, but de Vany and his followers (Free the Animal,) think that skin appearance mirrors internal health and youth. So, some people might put stock into the idea. And, my diet (semi-Paleo, but not low carb) and individual lifestyle probably has more to do with it than anything.

[DukeNukem]

What benefits?

Mostly skin appearance and quality. I don't think this says too much, but de Vany and his followers (Free the Animal,) think that skin appearance mirrors internal health and youth. So, some people might put stock into the idea. And, my diet (semi-Paleo, but not low carb) and individual lifestyle probably has more to do with it than anything.

K2 is suppose to improve skin appearance, too. My father, since starting to take 5mg MK-4 a few months ago, appears to have smoother skin already. Two people made this comment to him without them knowing he had add MK-4. I absolutely believe skin health reflects full-body health.

[david ellis]

http://raypeat.com/a...s/fishoil.shtml

From the provided link - Ray Peat writes-

"In declaring EPA and DHA to be safe, the FDA neglected to evaluate their antithyroid, immunosuppressive, lipid peroxidative (Song et al., 2000), light sensitizing, and antimitochondrial effects, their depression of glucose oxidation (Delarue et al., 2003), and their contribution to metastatic cancer (Klieveri, et al., 2000), lipofuscinosis and liver damage, among other problems."

I am a total clown, but I couldn't find the Ray Peat quoted studies. Can I have some help in finding them? If not, any PubMed links to the idea that EPA/DHA is needed in tiny amounts would be helpful to me. I am committed to 3.9 grams EPA/DHA a day. Funny thing, when I am cruising PubMed, I am always finding stuff that is the opposite of Ray Peat's viewpoint. And about the immune suppressive thing, all I see is an increase in anti-inflammatory prostaglandins with fish oil. Is that the immune system suppressive effect? Or is there more?

[balance]

I too wondered about the immunosuppressive effect of fish oil. All I could find is that at an intake of 20grams fish (oil) became suppressive, but at lower intakes between 1-2 grams, it actually enhanced it.

http://www.bulknutri...9_Fish_Oil.html


On the topic of skin appearance, neither vitamin K (k1, MK4, or MK7) nor fish oil & GLA ever did anything for my skin, nor did they make it any worse.

Edited by piet3r, 24 December 2008 - 06:02 PM.

[Shepard]

And about the immune suppressive thing, all I see is an increase in anti-inflammatory prostaglandins with fish oil. Is that the immune system suppressive effect? Or is there more?

I don't know anything about Ray Peat, but this paper might be worth a look. I've only really skimmed over it, but picked out a few cool things.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=26551

[tham]

High fish, and fish oil, intake is correlated with not only
the usual risk of hemorrhagic strokes, but surprisingly
ischemic ones as well.

Taking fish oil itself after an ischemic stroke aggavates it.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=21755


Apparently part of the mechanism behind this is that fish oil
causes intraischemic hyperglycemia, as concluded in one of
the above studies.

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/stroke/fullte...#33;8091!-1


Then again, fish oil improves heart function, particularly in males.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

[david ellis]

You are right, shepard, there are a lot of cool things there. One little gem, that sparkles-

"Interestingly, phagocytic activity was negatively correlated with the ratio of n-6to n-3PUFAs suggesting that the latter are superior in terms of enhancing phagocytic activity." A generous amount of fish oil wins again.

A very thorough document that covers pretty much all immune system activity. A hard read for an accounting major from 1966. But only 5 1/2 pages, with 99 source references. A little power packed book.

And about the immune suppressive thing, all I see is an increase in anti-inflammatory prostaglandins with fish oil. Is that the immune system suppressive effect? Or is there more?

I don't know anything about Ray Peat, but this paper might be worth a look. I've only really skimmed over it, but picked out a few cool things.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=26551

[balance]

Shepard, for some reason I cannot view the link you have pasted. It says board error. I'm hoping this is not due to non-full member limitation? I would really love to read the paper!

[NDM]

What benefits?

Mostly skin appearance and quality. I don't think this says too much, but de Vany and his followers (Free the Animal,) think that skin appearance mirrors internal health and youth. So, some people might put stock into the idea. And, my diet (semi-Paleo, but not low carb) and individual lifestyle probably has more to do with it than anything.

I understand that EPA, and not DHA, is responsible for skin beauty (at the local store I've seen high % DHA capsules advertised for "brain/cognition" and high % EPA advertised either for skin quality or "brain/mood". At the moment I take up to 2620 mg EPA and 800 mg DHA /day...but my diet is not that healthy (although not quite as bad as the typical American diet).

[Shepard]

I would really love to read the paper!

Check your private messages.

[balance]

Thanks Santa Shepard

[david ellis]

Tham, the quoted links do not support increased risk of ischemic strokes with fish oil. They all are post ischemic studies. (Except the spanish study, which is unimpressive because the highest ischemic stroke risk fish eaters ate 46 grams/day. Not enough omega3 to cause problems).

I would like to see a study that proves risk of ischemic strokes is higher with fish oil.

Also I don't understand the statement that fish oil causes intraischemic hyperglycemia. The hyperglycemia is caused by the stroke, hyperglycemia happened for all the controls.

Effects of fish oil supplementation on acute ischemic brain injury in the rat.

Lai ML, Hsu CY, Liu TH, He YY, Xu J, Navidi M, Sun G, Hogan EL.

Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

We studied the effects of long-term fish oil (FO) dietary supplementation on brain edema, polymorphonuclear neutrophil (PMN) infiltration, and infarct size in a rat stroke model. Rats were given regular rat chow with or without FO supplement (20% of total calories) for 7 weeks. Body weight did not differ between the two groups. In the FO group, an increase in eicosapentaenoic acid and a decrease in arachidonic acid content in hepatic phospholipids were significant in the phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, and phosphatidylserine but not in the phosphoinositol fraction. Platelet activity reflected by serum thromboxane B2 levels was reduced in the FO group. Postischemic brain edema and PMN infiltration were not different between the two groups. The infarct volume was significantly greater in the FO group (controls: 96 +/- 7 mm3, n = 49; FO group: 124 +/- 6 mm3, n = 53; p = 0.0036). The greater ischemic brain injury in the FO-supplemented animals is probably related to the intraischemic hyperglycemia, which was worse in the FO group than in the control group (controls: 265 +/- 19 mg/dl, n = 14; FO group: 340 +/- 18 mg/dl, n = 16; p = 0.0079).

High fish, and fish oil, intake is correlated with not only
the usual risk of hemorrhagic strokes, but surprisingly
ischemic ones as well.

Taking fish oil itself after an ischemic stroke aggavates it.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=21755


Apparently part of the mechanism behind this is that fish oil
causes intraischemic hyperglycemia, as concluded in one of
the above studies.

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/stroke/fullte...#33;8091!-1


Then again, fish oil improves heart function, particularly in males.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

[david ellis]

I kept looking, From the provided link - Ray Peat writes-
The most popular way of arguing that fish oil will prevent heart disease is to show that it lowers blood lipids, continuing the old approach of the American Heart Association's "heart protective diet." Unfortunately for that argument, it's now known that the triglycerides in the blood are decreased because of the fish oil's toxic effects on the liver (Hagve and Christophersen, 1988; Ritskes-Hoitinga, et al., 1998). In experiments with rats, EPA and DHA lowered blood lipids only when given to rats that had been fed, in which case the fats were incorporated into tissues, and suppressed mitochondrial respiration (Osmundsen, et al., 1998).

I researched this to find that here is what Hagve says in the abstract -
The finding that n-3 fatty acids are transported from the liver as ketone bodies to a larger extent than n-6 fatty acids may thus explain that a high intake of n-3 fatty acids is not accompanied with hepatic steatosis. (fatty liver)

On this link I found someone else who had been asked about Ray Peat's ideas, so he researched three of Ray Peat's assertions. One of them was the same one where I was finally able to find a reference source. This blogger fact checked three assertions in a row, and Ray Peat missed every one of them. This investigation is proving good to me, because I am examining my commitment to fish oil. And I have found one thing I am not certain of. Hemorrhagic stroke. I am controlling nose bleeds with K1, and my clotting time has been checked by the Red Cross. But, maybe, my clotting is not within a healthy range. My last surgeon didn't care whether or how much fish oil I take. So I have an array of facts that made me comfortable. But now I intend to get my clotting measured and make sure that I am in the safe zone. That is the same procedure used to make coumadin safe.



From the Blog
Misty,

re Ray Peat's ideas, particularly trying to see what is what in the text you mention:

I have a number of problems with this document. The first is that the references in the text are in the format (Author/s year). In the reference section they are listed alphabetically by the title of the journal in which they appeared. This makes following them a nightmare.

I checked up on three of them, hitting fairly at random on those supporting this section which purports that fish oil is toxic to the liver:

"Unfortunately for that argument, it's now known that the triglycerides in the blood are decreased because of the fish oil's toxic effects on the liver (Hagve and Christophersen, 1988; Ritskes-Hoitinga, et al., 1998). In experiments with rats, EPA and DHA lowered blood lipids only when given to rats that had been fed, in which case the fats were incorporated into tissues, and suppressed mitochondrial respiration (Osmundsen, et al., 1998)."

Hagve and Christophersen, 1988

This one actually says they encourage ketogenesis and stop hepatic steatosis (fatty liver). Sounds OK to me.

Ritskes-Hoitinga, et al., 1998

This one fed rabbits 40% of calories as fat and up to 20% of calories as fish oil. Rabbits eat grass.

Osmundsen et al 1998

As far as I can make out this last paper is looking at the metabolism features of omega 3 fatty acids, which are clearly specific to omega three fatty acids, and different from other fatty acids. I'm happy with that. I don't see any mention of toxicity. This paper is available full text and I've been through the introduction and discussion. These discuss metabolism without mentioning toxicity. There are undoubted differences in fatty acid metabolism between different fats. So be it. Toxicity??? I'm not convinced.

Too much of a slog to go through the whole document. My take on Alzheimers is that it is carbohydrate poisoning. Re BSE, the prion hypothesis is absolutely that, hypothesis. Researches in this field who give small group seminars to the scientists, my wife included, at her institute are VERY careful to stress that the prion hypothesis is not remotely proven. Not what you would think from the BBC reports, or DEFRA. The cause of BSE is currently unknown.

Grass has omega 3 fats, cows put omega three fats to their muscles. I eat those muscles. This sort of "bovine" level seems fine to me. A few grams extra to compensate for grain feeding to beef also seems fine. I'd not go for 30ml a day from a bottle of cod liver oil myself, but I worry that Peat goes over the top. I would agree that anyone getting 20% of their calories from flax oil is in trouble!

Peter

http://raypeat.com/a...s/fishoil.shtml

From the provided link - Ray Peat writes-

"In declaring EPA and DHA to be safe, the FDA neglected to evaluate their antithyroid, immunosuppressive, lipid peroxidative (Song et al., 2000), light sensitizing, and antimitochondrial effects, their depression of glucose oxidation (Delarue et al., 2003), and their contribution to metastatic cancer (Klieveri, et al., 2000), lipofuscinosis and liver damage, among other problems."

I am a total clown, but I couldn't find the Ray Peat quoted studies. Can I have some help in finding them? If not, any PubMed links to the idea that EPA/DHA is needed in tiny amounts would be helpful to me. I am committed to 3.9 grams EPA/DHA a day. Funny thing, when I am cruising PubMed, I am always finding stuff that is the opposite of Ray Peat's viewpoint. And about the immune suppressive thing, all I see is an increase in anti-inflammatory prostaglandins with fish oil. Is that the immune system suppressive effect? Or is there more?

[maxwatt]

My understanding of EPA needs are that it depends on one's level of delta-5 and delta-6 desaturase. If you have enough of them, no need for supplements, but high omega-6 intake depletes the enzymes necessary to make these fatty acids. Also, there is variation in how much of these enzymes individuals produce, and the levels decline with age, so older people might benefit from supplementing where young adults will not. Lack of EPA in formula was shown to adversely affect infants' brain development, so it is now added to formula. if I recall correctly. EPA is present in mothers' milk, depending to some extent on diet.

The point is one size does not fit all. Many people don't need to supplement fish oil, others will benefit, particularly older individuals. Eating cold-water ocean fish or wild venison (or buffalo, 6% or more EPA) might stand in for supplementing. But rancidity is a problem. If your meat or fish isn't fresh you can smell it, but not fish oil in a capsule. Try breaking open your capsules if you have any, and if they smell rancid toss them.

[SonofSocrates]

Just finished reading all of the posts thus far and I am loving the topic.

For those such as Duke and others, who support a high animal protein and high animal fat intake, I feel its worth talking about the Okinawans, seeing that this is a forum about lifespan, and the Okinawans have the longest known live expectancy. My current understanding this that the diet of the Okinawans, the older generation that has the very high level of 100+ people was and is very low in meat, due to the fact that most older people in Okinawa are poor and could not afford meat for most of their lives. They consume a diet high in vegetables, tubers, soy, green tea and a moderate amounts of fish. So if animal protein and fat are so important for the longest life then what happened with these people who by and large lacked it?

I should note Dr. Campbell the author of the China study is another researcher who's work on animal protein might be worth discussing?

I look forward to your responses

Edited by SonofSocrates, 25 December 2008 - 06:51 AM.

[nameless]

They consume a diet high in vegetables, tubers, soy, green tea and a moderate amounts of fish. So if animal protein and fat are so important for the longest life then what happened with these people who by and large lacked it?

Perhaps methionine restriction, due to lack of animal protein, accounted for their longer than expected lifespans?

[woly]

This is a very interesting thread! ive been reading over the posts and links, trying to digest it all. So from what i can see, omega 6 polyunsaturated fats may have a beneficial effect on lipid parameters but should possibly be restricted due to the a) increase in systemic inflamation due to an increase in arachidonic acid and b) oxidation that occurs due to their instability. Omega 3 fatty acids are also unstable however the research shows that it may not increase in vivo oxidation. Therefore, a diet that incorperates either a high level of saturated fat, due to its low oxidation rate, or monounsaturated fat because it seems like a middle ground between the two, is probably recomended. Is that the jist of it?

[paba]

Just finished reading all of the posts thus far and I am loving the topic.

For those such as Duke and others, who support a high animal protein and high animal fat intake, I feel its worth talking about the Okinawans, seeing that this is a forum about lifespan, and the Okinawans have the longest known live expectancy. My current understanding this that the diet of the Okinawans, the older generation that has the very high level of 100+ people was and is very low in meat, due to the fact that most older people in Okinawa are poor and could not afford meat for most of their lives. They consume a diet high in vegetables, tubers, soy, green tea and a moderate amounts of fish.

I don't think the Okinawa diet is particularly low in animal products. At least, animal protein consumption seems to be higher than in the rest of japan:


And what do Okinawans eat? The main meat of the diet is pork, and not the lean cuts only. Okinawan cuisine, according to gerontologist Kazuhiko Taira, "is very healthy—and very, very greasy," in a 1996 article that appeared in Health Magazine.19 And the whole pig is eaten—everything from "tails to nails." Local menus offer boiled pigs feet, entrail soup and shredded ears. Pork is cooked in a mixture of soy sauce, ginger, kelp and small amounts of sugar, then sliced and chopped up for stir fry dishes. Okinawans eat about 100 grams of meat per day—compared to 70 in Japan and just over 20 in China—and at least an equal amount of fish, for a total of about 200 grams per day, compared to 280 grams per person per day of meat and fish in America. Lard—not vegetable oil—is used in cooking.

http://www.westonapr...d_in_china.html

Also don't forget that other regions who are also famous for their longevity and numbers of centenarians have a very high animal fat and protein intake, like for instance the isles of sardinia in italy or iceland.

I should note Dr. Campbell the author of the China study is another researcher who's work on animal protein might be worth discussing?

I don't think it's worth discussing. It's seems to be one of the worst scientific studies ever done. Have a look at the discussion between Chris Masterjohn and Campell:
http://www.cholester...Masterjohn.html

Edited by paba, 25 December 2008 - 11:50 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Just finished reading all of the posts thus far and I am loving the topic.

For those such as Duke and others, who support a high animal protein and high animal fat intake, I feel its worth talking about the Okinawans, seeing that this is a forum about lifespan, and the Okinawans have the longest known live expectancy. My current understanding this that the diet of the Okinawans, the older generation that has the very high level of 100+ people was and is very low in meat, due to the fact that most older people in Okinawa are poor and could not afford meat for most of their lives. They consume a diet high in vegetables, tubers, soy, green tea and a moderate amounts of fish. So if animal protein and fat are so important for the longest life then what happened with these people who by and large lacked it?

I should note Dr. Campbell the author of the China study is another researcher who's work on animal protein might be worth discussing?

I look forward to your responses

Check out the Dr. Weil thread, where this is discussed (late in the thread, I think).

Note that the Okinawans do not eat processed fats/oils, their diet includes a lot of high-water volume vegetables that provide a lot of filling bulk), AND they practice calorie restriction. The well-researched book, The Okinawa Diet Plan, goes into great detail on their diet.

[DukeNukem]

This is a very interesting thread! ive been reading over the posts and links, trying to digest it all. So from what i can see, omega 6 polyunsaturated fats may have a beneficial effect on lipid parameters but should possibly be restricted due to the a) increase in systemic inflamation due to an increase in arachidonic acid and b) oxidation that occurs due to their instability. Omega 3 fatty acids are also unstable however the research shows that it may not increase in vivo oxidation. Therefore, a diet that incorperates either a high level of saturated fat, due to its low oxidation rate, or monounsaturated fat because it seems like a middle ground between the two, is probably recomended. Is that the jist of it?

Pretty much. The super villain is really linoleic acid, which is a significant percentage of practically all omega-6 rich vegetable oils.

Stephan, at Whole Heath Source, has written two exceptional blog entries on this recently:
http://wholehealthso...eight-gain.html
http://wholehealthso...suppresses.html

(For anyone new to this blog, I recommend spend one-two hours starting from the earliest post, and catching up to present day. This has become my favorite health blog, and when you've read through it all you'll see why.)