164 replies to this topic

[SonofSocrates]

Duke,

Thanks for your timely response.

I am still unclear on how your response addresses my question regarding your support of high animal protein and fat intake, I agree that the Okinawans do not consume proccessed plant or animal products, but again my understanding is that they do not consume much animal protein and fat, say as a percentage of daily calories, this is due to the cost and the fact that they are poor. Please address this contention.

I am currently reading the other thread you directed me too. Thanks.

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.

[david ellis]

A very good post. I want to add one tiny thing to it. The Okinawans eat until they are 80% full. That is calorie restriction.

[SonofSocrates]

Dr. Campbell's life work out of Cornell University, which interesting enough has the largest amount of money annually for nutrition research of any US university, showed the negative effects of animal protein intake on health status.

Please read the attached work as a start, Dr. Campbell has many more published papers on the subject available on Pubmed, search TC Campbell.

Duke, I, as I believe you do as well, try to base my opinions on the available evidence, I try and look at all the evidence, weigh it and then make my determinations.

That being the case, I fail to understand how high intakes of animal protein and fat correlate with optimal human health in light of the work I have previously mentioned.

Please educate me on the truth of the matter at hand.

Attached Files

•  Energy_Balance_Interpretation_of_Data_from_Rural_China.pdf   87.3KB   42 downloads
•  Dietary_Protein.pdf   74.63KB   46 downloads

[DukeNukem]

Dr. Campbell's life work out of Cornell University, which interesting enough has the largest amount of money annually for nutrition research of any US university, showed the negative effects of animal protein intake on health status.

Please read the attached work as a start, Dr. Campbell has many more published papers on the subject available on Pubmed, search TC Campbell.

Duke, I, as I believe you do as well, try to base my opinions on the available evidence, I try and look at all the evidence, weigh it and then make my determinations.

That being the case, I fail to understand how high intakes of animal protein and fat correlate with optimal human health in light of the work I have previously mentioned.

Please educate me on the truth of the matter at hand.

I read The China Study (the book by Campbell) when it came out, and it swayed me initially, but IMO the only thing of value from the book now is the evidence against casein (as it relates to cancer).

From the first paper you linked Campbell blames all harmful fat consumption on animals, without appearing to differentiate between fried foods, vegetable cooking oils, salad dressings, margarine, and Crisco-type oils (trans-fats)--all vegetable-based. These are all highly inflammatory oils that lead to obesity and cancers. Animal-based saturated fats, alone (though they are almost always lumped together with trans-fats) do not cause health problems. In fact, the body requires them as an essential fat. So, based on this alone, Campbell's paper has a fatal flaw the derails practically all of his follow-up claims. The fats eaten by the rural Chinese are almost certainly non-processed, wholefood fats and oils. They would not be able to afford processed vegetable oils, and likely resourcefully use animal fats (lard, etc.) for cooking. The diet in America has been horrible for over half-a-century, when supermarkets appeared, when trans-fats because commonplace because of their long shelf life in supermarket foods, when the fried potato because the national vegetable, and when per person sugar consumption rose from a few pounds to 70 pounds annually. Not to mention, grain (wheat, corn and soy) consumption has taken off in the last 50 years in America. It's practically impossible to find a processed food that doesn't include one or more of these three grains, or so processed derivative of same. A Chicken McNugget, for example, is actually 52% corn product (about five different corn products, actually, including corn syrup). Campbell would likely count a Chicken McNugget as a meat product. Then again, so would most Americans--it's an easy mistake to make.

Editorial from The New York Times:

I have a suggestion for those Old World cooks who are wrestling with New World advice: take another look at the fat profile of lard. It has half the level of saturated fat of palm kernel oil (about 80 percent saturated fat) or coconut oil (about 85 percent) and its approximately 40 percent saturated fat is lower than butter's nearly 60 percent. Today's miracle, olive oil, is much lower in saturated fat, as everyone knows, but it does have some: about 13 percent. As for monounsaturated fat, the current savior, olive oil contains a saintly 74 percent, yes. But scorned lard contains a very respectable 45 percent monounsaturated fat - double butter's paltry 23 or so percent.

http://www.nytimes.c...ummer.html?_r=1

[DukeNukem]

Dr. Campbell's life work out of Cornell University, which interesting enough has the largest amount of money annually for nutrition research of any US university, showed the negative effects of animal protein intake on health status.

Please read the attached work as a start, Dr. Campbell has many more published papers on the subject available on Pubmed, search TC Campbell.

Duke, I, as I believe you do as well, try to base my opinions on the available evidence, I try and look at all the evidence, weigh it and then make my determinations.

That being the case, I fail to understand how high intakes of animal protein and fat correlate with optimal human health in light of the work I have previously mentioned.

Please educate me on the truth of the matter at hand.

Oh, btw, as for the second paper, I'm not a high-protein advocate. I generally eat well under one gram per pound daily. I eat a moderate level of protein. Fat is easily my primary caloric source.

[SonofSocrates]

To me this seems to be the main point of contention, you state, "Animal-based saturated fats, alone (though they are almost always lumped together with trans-fats) do not cause health problems. In fact, the body requires them as an essential fat."

Just as you correctly note the common error of aligning saturated fatty acids with Trans fatty acids, you seem to attempt to align animal derived fats with saturated fats, in doing so you seem to indicate some unique quality of animal derived fat over plant derived fat.

Can one not get all of the same saturated fatty acids via say coconut oil and cocoa butter as they could via beef tallow or cow's milk butter? If not, what makes animal fat derived saturated fat better then plant fat derived saturated fat?

Your second point indicating that saturated fatty acids are essential fatty acids confuses me, my current understanding is that their are only two fatty acids that are considered essential, in this case they are essential for proper health and your body cannot produce them so you must consume them via your diet, those two EFAs are linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid. Please educate me on how any of the saturated fatty acids from 1 to 24 carbon atoms long cannot be synthesized in the body? If they can be synthesized my current understanding is that they are not essential, at least by my previously used definition and if they cannot be synthesized I would love to see the research on that.

We can, if you would like discuss the current findings on the different saturated fatty acids and their impacts on health outcomes, my current understanding is that you cannot lump all saturated fatty acids together with regards to their positive or negative impacts on ones health, its quite interesting.

Finally, am I to believe that you see no difference between animal protein and plant protein in terms of impacts on health? You stated you DON'T consume a high protein diet, fair enough, but what is your basis for providing the protein you do consume via animal sources vs. plant sources?

Thanks again for you time and your insightful responses.

Dr. Campbell's life work out of Cornell University, which interesting enough has the largest amount of money annually for nutrition research of any US university, showed the negative effects of animal protein intake on health status.

Please read the attached work as a start, Dr. Campbell has many more published papers on the subject available on Pubmed, search TC Campbell.

Duke, I, as I believe you do as well, try to base my opinions on the available evidence, I try and look at all the evidence, weigh it and then make my determinations.

That being the case, I fail to understand how high intakes of animal protein and fat correlate with optimal human health in light of the work I have previously mentioned.

Please educate me on the truth of the matter at hand.

I read The China Study (the book by Campbell) when it came out, and it swayed me initially, but IMO the only thing of value from the book now is the evidence against casein (as it relates to cancer).

From the first paper you linked Campbell blames all harmful fat consumption on animals, without appearing to differentiate between fried foods, vegetable cooking oils, salad dressings, margarine, and Crisco-type oils (trans-fats)--all vegetable-based. These are all highly inflammatory oils that lead to obesity and cancers. Animal-based saturated fats, alone (though they are almost always lumped together with trans-fats) do not cause health problems. In fact, the body requires them as an essential fat. So, based on this alone, Campbell's paper has a fatal flaw the derails practically all of his follow-up claims. The fats eaten by the rural Chinese are almost certainly non-processed, wholefood fats and oils. They would not be able to afford processed vegetable oils, and likely resourcefully use animal fats (lard, etc.) for cooking. The diet in America has been horrible for over half-a-century, when supermarkets appeared, when trans-fats because commonplace because of their long shelf life in supermarket foods, when the fried potato because the national vegetable, and when per person sugar consumption rose from a few pounds to 70 pounds annually. Not to mention, grain (wheat, corn and soy) consumption has taken off in the last 50 years in America. It's practically impossible to find a processed food that doesn't include one or more of these three grains, or so processed derivative of same. A Chicken McNugget, for example, is actually 52% corn product (about five different corn products, actually, including corn syrup). Campbell would likely count a Chicken McNugget as a meat product. Then again, so would most Americans--it's an easy mistake to make.

Editorial from The New York Times:

I have a suggestion for those Old World cooks who are wrestling with New World advice: take another look at the fat profile of lard. It has half the level of saturated fat of palm kernel oil (about 80 percent saturated fat) or coconut oil (about 85 percent) and its approximately 40 percent saturated fat is lower than butter's nearly 60 percent. Today's miracle, olive oil, is much lower in saturated fat, as everyone knows, but it does have some: about 13 percent. As for monounsaturated fat, the current savior, olive oil contains a saintly 74 percent, yes. But scorned lard contains a very respectable 45 percent monounsaturated fat - double butter's paltry 23 or so percent.

http://www.nytimes.c...ummer.html?_r=1

[DukeNukem]

...you seem to attempt to align animal derived fats with saturated fats, in doing so you seem to indicate some unique quality of animal derived fat over plant derived fat. Can one not get all of the same saturated fatty acids via say coconut oil and cocoa butter as they could via beef tallow or cow's milk butter? If not, what makes animal fat derived saturated fat better then plant fat derived saturated fat?

All I've said is that saturated fat is not the demon fat that most nutritionist, nor the government, wants you to believe. It's essential due to the fact that our body cannot make enough of it, so we rely on external sources, too. I've not made a distinction between plant-based or animal-based saturated fat. Paleolithic humans had high intakes of animal-based saturated fats, there's no getting around that extremely reasonable hypothesis.

Paper: The case for not restricted saturated fat on a low carb diet

Finally, am I to believe that you see no difference between animal protein and plant protein in terms of impacts on health?

I do see a difference. I think animal protein is superior, if only because it better matches the ratios of amino acids we need. Plus, vegetarians either need to supplement protein, and use special combinations of plant foods (to get a complete set of aminos). I'm convinced that the vegetarian diet is less healthy, and unnatural to humans. It's agreed by experts in this field that there were no vegetarian tribes among paleolithic humans. Or, if there were, they died off -- a dead-end evolutionary experiment.

Edited by DukeNukem, 26 December 2008 - 04:30 PM.

[donjoe]

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.

For those of us who don't work in the food industry, could you please explain how we're supposed to tell when a food has "processed" PUFAs? (What "process" are we talking about here? Is it something they're bound to mention on the package? etc.)

Thanx.

---

- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.

- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

Edited by donjoe, 26 December 2008 - 10:36 AM.

[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.

For those of us who don't work in the food industry, could you please explain how we're supposed to tell when a food has "processed" PUFAs? (What "process" are we talking about here? Is it something they're bound to mention on the package? etc.)

If there's no Nutritional Facts label on the product, almost certainly it won't contain processed PUFAs. Otherwise, look at the ingredients list and look for any of the following: fractionated oil, hydrogenated oil, soy oil, corn oil, canola oil (often touted as a healthy oil--used a lot at Whole Foods within their store-made foods), safflower oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil, palm oil, and sunflower oil.

Palm oil is actually a very healthy oil, but the food industry almost exclusively uses the fractionated and hydrogenated forms, which are unhealthy and contain trans-fats. The food industry also used to use coconut oil in this way, which is why it got a bad reputation. But both of these oils, in their extra virgin (cold processed) form, and extremely healthy.

The "process" being talked about here is that food manufacturers need oils with a long shelf life to make sure that Twinkies, Oreos and frozen dinners can last years without going bad. Or, the oils used in deep fryers last several days versus several hours. So, these cheap vegetable oils are extracted and heat processed, and made more stable. But even cold processed vegetable oils are bad because they are too high in linoleic acid, which is highly inflammatory and reduces thyroid function (leading to weight gain).

[Mind]

Just wanted to make sure this discussion does not drift into the ethics of eating animals vs. plants. We are all aware of those arguments and there are proper threads for that. Please remain on the topic of healthy vs. unhealthy fats/oils and the science behind the choices.

Also, this topic has garnered a lot of interest here and around the net, so I wanted to remind everyone coming here for the first time that this is the Immortality Institute and thus the focus on the fine detail of diet choices. People here are trying to squeeze every last healthy minute out of their life. Extreme longevity is the goal. For most people, a balanced diet with exercise while avoiding too much sugar/carbs/junk food will keep you healthier than average. If you want to maximize your chances of living well beyond the average, then you end up scrutinizing which fats/oils should be eaten or avoided and in what ratios. Happy reading!

[DukeNukem]

I'm suspicious of using mice and rats as models for the effects of using dietary fats for humans, because these rodents evolved under different dietary conditions and stresses. But, that said, here's two studies:

Diets rich in saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids: metabolic shifting and cardiac health.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of diets rich in saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids on metabolic pathways and the relation of metabolic shifting to oxidative stress in cardiac tissue. METHODS: Male Wistar rats (age, 60 d; n = 10) were fed with a control low-fat diet, a diet rich in saturated fatty acids (SFAs), or a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). After 5 wk of treatment, sera were used for protein and lipid determinations. Protein, glycogen, triacylglycerol, lactate dehydrogenase, citrate synthase, beta-hydroxyacyl coenzyme-A dehydrogenase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase, lipoperoxide, and lipid hydroperoxide were measured in cardiac tissue. RESULTS: The SFA group had higher triacylglycerol, cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and atherogenic index (ratio of cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein) than did the PUFA and control groups. The PUFA group had low serum cholesterol, triacylglycerol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as compared with the SFA group. SFA increased myocardial lipid hydroperoxide and diminished glutathione peroxidase. Despite the beneficial effects on serum lipids, the PUFA diet led to the highest levels of myocardial lipoperoxide and lipid hydroperoxide and diminished superoxide dismutase and catalase activities. The PUFA effects were related to increased feed efficiency, increased susceptibility to lipoperoxidation, and metabolic shifting in cardiac tissue. PUFA elevated triacylglycerol levels and decreased myocardial glycogen concentrations. The ratios of lactate dehydrogenase to citrate synthase and beta-hydroxyacyl coenzyme-A dehydrogenase to citrate synthase were increased, indicating myocardial reduction of tricarboxylic acid cycle. CONCLUSIONS: PUFAs have been recommended as a therapeutic measure in preventive medicine to lower serum cholesterol, but PUFAs increased oxidative stress in the heart by providing cardiac susceptibility to lipoperoxidation and shifting the metabolic pathway for energy production. The control diet, which was much lower in calories and fat, produced better overall clinical outcomes, better fat profiles, and less oxidative stress than did the diets rich in fatty acids.
PMID: 14962692

The control rats were on a CR diet, so it's no surprise they did the best. CR and IF overcomes a myriad of poor diet choices. I'd love to know exactly which SFAs and PUFAs were used in this study, but I don't have access to the full doc, and most likely the researches don't reveal this useful information anyway.

Compared with saturated fatty acids, dietary monounsaturated fatty acids and carbohydrates increase atherosclerosis and VLDL cholesterol levels in LDL receptor-deficient, but not apolipoprotein E-deficient, mice.
Heart-healthy dietary recommendations include decreasing the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFA). However, the relative benefit of replacing SFA with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), or carbohydrates (CARB) is still being debated. We have used two mouse models of atherosclerosis, low density lipoprotein receptor-deficient (LDLRKO) and apolipoprotein E-deficient (apoEKO) mice to measure the effects of four isocaloric diets enriched with either SFA, MUFA, PUFA, or CARB on atherosclerotic lesion area and lipoprotein levels. In LDLRKO mice, compared with the SFA diet, the MUFA and CARB diets significantly increased atherosclerosis in both sexes, but the PUFA diet had no effect. The MUFA and CARB diets also increased very low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (VLDL-C) and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in males and VLDL-C levels in females. Analysis of data from LDLRKO mice on all diets showed that atherosclerotic lesion area correlated positively with VLDL-C levels (males: r = 0.47, P < 0.005; females: r = 0.52, P < 0.001). In contrast, in apoEKO mice there were no significant dietary effects on atherosclerosis in either sex. Compared with the SFA diet, the CARB diet significantly decreased VLDL-C in males and the MUFA, PUFA, and CARB diets decreased VLDL-C and the CARB diet decreased LDL-C in females. In summary, in LDLRKO mice the replacement of dietary SFA by either MUFA or CARB causes a proportionate increase in both atherosclerotic lesion area and VLDL-C. There were no significant dietary effects on atherosclerotic lesion area in apoEKO mice. These results are surprising and suggest that, depending on the underlying genotype, dietary MUFA and CARB can actually increase atherosclerosis susceptibility, probably by raising VLDL-C levels through a non-LDL receptor, apoE-dependent pathway.
PMID: 11606787

Again, super useful to know which fats they're using. Perhaps the MUFA source was still high in linoleic acid?

[SonofSocrates]

I agree with Mind, that the focus here should be on how to maximize longevity. That is why I have referred multiple times to the extensive epidemiological research that has been done on our current longest lived populations i.e. the populations in southern Japan, the island of Sardinia, certain areas Costa Rica and in Loma Linda, CA. In all of these instances saturated fat intakes as well as intakes of animal based fat and protein were very low. With the majority of calories coming from minimally processed plant foods, specifically from the carbohydrate macronutrient.



I do not object to the consumption of animal fats and proteins from an ethical (animal rights) standpoint, but if one, such as Duke, asserts that for maximal longevity animal based protein is superior to that of plant based protein, it seems to me that he is doing so in direct opposition to what I see as overwhelming epidemiological research contrary to such beliefs.


My beef, pun intended, with the Paleo line of thinking, is that there is way, way, too much extrapolating going on. Just like Engels did in his work on the origins of the family, private property and the state. I don't see the logic in trying to base ones diet on such assertions, the environment that my body exists in, i.e. everything that my cells are exposed to from the food, the air, the water, the stress via exercise, etc. is not the same as that of humans living during the Paleolithic period, so such comparisons are invalid. If conditions were quite similar, which again they are not, what again was the average life expectancy of Paleolithic man, not nearly that of the populations I mentioned earlier.

Finally, I would like to note what I see as major factor which plays into discussions such as this one and often creates many problems. The science of nutritional biochemistry and human nutrition is very complicated, I repeat, the subject matter, if truly understood is very complex and requires extensive time and effort to understand. Just like say, particle physics, to truly understand particle physics one must dedicated much of their life to that specific subject. The major difference between "nutrition" and "physics" is the number of people presenting themselves as experts on the subject, you ask most people and they have their theory for a "healthy" diet, but ask them their theory on the nature of matter, a shrug of the shoulders, its not something they have an opinion on. I'm fine with people weighing in the subject of health and nutrition, that’s the point of this forum of course, but just remember that 99.9% of people are doing so from a point of general ignorance, just as they would be if they chose to weigh in on the physical forces governing the universe. I of course hold myself to the same standard, so I hope not to insinuate that my assertions are any different.

Just wanted to make sure this discussion does not drift into the ethics of eating animals vs. plants. We are all aware of those arguments and there are proper threads for that. Please remain on the topic of healthy vs. unhealthy fats/oils and the science behind the choices.

Also, this topic has garnered a lot of interest here and around the net, so I wanted to remind everyone coming here for the first time that this is the Immortality Institute and thus the focus on the fine detail of diet choices. People here are trying to squeeze every last healthy minute out of their life. Extreme longevity is the goal. For most people, a balanced diet with exercise while avoiding too much sugar/carbs/junk food will keep you healthier than average. If you want to maximize your chances of living well beyond the average, then you end up scrutinizing which fats/oils should be eaten or avoided and in what ratios. Happy reading!

[neogenic]

...you seem to attempt to align animal derived fats with saturated fats, in doing so you seem to indicate some unique quality of animal derived fat over plant derived fat. Can one not get all of the same saturated fatty acids via say coconut oil and cocoa butter as they could via beef tallow or cow's milk butter? If not, what makes animal fat derived saturated fat better then plant fat derived saturated fat?

All I've said is that saturated fat is not the demon fat that most nutritionist, nor the government, wants you to believe. It's essential due to the fact that our body cannot make enough of it, so we rely on external sources, too. I've not made a distinction between plant-based or animal-based saturated fat. Paleolithic humans had high intakes of animal-based saturated fats, there's no getting around that extremely reasonable hypothesis.

Paper: The case for not restricted saturated fat on a low carb diet

Finally, am I to believe that you see no difference between animal protein and plant protein in terms of impacts on health?

I do see a difference. I think animal protein is superior, if only because it better matches the ratios of amino acids we need. Plus, vegetarians either need to supplement protein, and use special combinations of plant foods (to get a complete set of aminos). I'm convinced that the vegetarian diet is less healthy, and unnatural to humans. It's agreed by experts in this field that there were no vegetarian tribes among paleolithic humans. Or, if there were, they died off -- a dead-end evolutionary experiment.

I am registered dietitian with a master's in nutritional biochemistry and I've been reading through this whole thread enamored. I agree 100% with this post right here. Duke is making some very compelling arguments and dogma is so counterproductive. So many things we're taught are oversimplified and don't stand up on there on...Duke is poking some big holes in those dogmatic principles here.

[neogenic]

I agree with Mind, that the focus here should be on how to maximize longevity. That is why I have referred multiple times to the extensive epidemiological research that has been done on our current longest lived populations i.e. the populations in southern Japan, the island of Sardinia, certain areas Costa Rica and in Loma Linda, CA. In all of these instances saturated fat intakes as well as intakes of animal based fat and protein were very low. With the majority of calories coming from minimally processed plant foods, specifically from the carbohydrate macronutrient.



I do not object to the consumption of animal fats and proteins from an ethical (animal rights) standpoint, but if one, such as Duke, asserts that for maximal longevity animal based protein is superior to that of plant based protein, it seems to me that he is doing so in direct opposition to what I see as overwhelming epidemiological research contrary to such beliefs.


My beef, pun intended, with the Paleo line of thinking, is that there is way, way, too much extrapolating going on. Just like Engels did in his work on the origins of the family, private property and the state. I don't see the logic in trying to base ones diet on such assertions, the environment that my body exists in, i.e. everything that my cells are exposed to from the food, the air, the water, the stress via exercise, etc. is not the same as that of humans living during the Paleolithic period, so such comparisons are invalid. If conditions were quite similar, which again they are not, what again was the average life expectancy of Paleolithic man, not nearly that of the populations I mentioned earlier.

Finally, I would like to note what I see as major factor which plays into discussions such as this one and often creates many problems. The science of nutritional biochemistry and human nutrition is very complicated, I repeat, the subject matter, if truly understood is very complex and requires extensive time and effort to understand. Just like say, particle physics, to truly understand particle physics one must dedicated much of their life to that specific subject. The major difference between "nutrition" and "physics" is the number of people presenting themselves as experts on the subject, you ask most people and they have their theory for a "healthy" diet, but ask them their theory on the nature of matter, a shrug of the shoulders, its not something they have an opinion on. I'm fine with people weighing in the subject of health and nutrition, that’s the point of this forum of course, but just remember that 99.9% of people are doing so from a point of general ignorance, just as they would be if they chose to weigh in on the physical forces governing the universe. I of course hold myself to the same standard, so I hope not to insinuate that my assertions are any different.

Just wanted to make sure this discussion does not drift into the ethics of eating animals vs. plants. We are all aware of those arguments and there are proper threads for that. Please remain on the topic of healthy vs. unhealthy fats/oils and the science behind the choices.

Also, this topic has garnered a lot of interest here and around the net, so I wanted to remind everyone coming here for the first time that this is the Immortality Institute and thus the focus on the fine detail of diet choices. People here are trying to squeeze every last healthy minute out of their life. Extreme longevity is the goal. For most people, a balanced diet with exercise while avoiding too much sugar/carbs/junk food will keep you healthier than average. If you want to maximize your chances of living well beyond the average, then you end up scrutinizing which fats/oils should be eaten or avoided and in what ratios. Happy reading!

Epidemiological data shouldn't take precedence over studies. All epidemiology ever shows is correlation, granted on a large scale...which gives it pertinence...but not like the data from a controlled study. You can never establish causality, just correlation...therefore anything you deduce is open to significant conjecture. It is a nice way to take those correlations and do further study to try and establish causality, but giving them so much weight on their own is a bit misguided to me.

[SonofSocrates]

Neogenic, thanks for your insightful response, but please don't mention to all the epidemiologists out there that you don't consider their work "studies".

I absolutely agree that you cannot find causality in epi studies, for that we need well designed highly controlled studies carried out in a clinical environment that can be repeated over and over again, that being said please direct to me the controlled studies on human longevity with regard to dietary intakes. Furthermore, let me know who wrote the grant proposal for such research that has human subjects existing in a controlled environment for the duration of a longitudinal study on aging, because I want that person on my staff. If you can't find that then we are back to the population studies that I have been presenting in support of my assertions and controlled studies on other organisms such as rats, but we all know the limitations of making the jump from the species to the next with regards to causality.

In a previous post, you noted your support of Duke's assertions and how you felt he was poking huge whole in conventional thinking. I agree he is "poking huge holes", but I feel he is doing so without the support of the literature. Now just because the current science, in my opinion of course, doesn't support such claims, doesn't mean they are not valid, but I for one am not a person to make such a leap of faith.

Another thought came to mind just now, are we being logical to look to dietary patterns of the past, say the Paleolithic period, for means of maximizing longevity? What I mean is, this attempt at long life goes in complete opposition of "nature", first of all, nature doesn't care if one person lives or dies, furthermore, all nature wants to do is to perpetuate the species, so for any human all nature cares about is that humans in general survive until maturation and procreation, after that point, "nature" wants you gone. That being said, it seems to me that following patterns of past humans who existed within the past paradigm (make kids and die), is not the best method of working towards the new paradigm of radical life extension. ???

Looking forward to your responses.

I agree with Mind, that the focus here should be on how to maximize longevity. That is why I have referred multiple times to the extensive epidemiological research that has been done on our current longest lived populations i.e. the populations in southern Japan, the island of Sardinia, certain areas Costa Rica and in Loma Linda, CA. In all of these instances saturated fat intakes as well as intakes of animal based fat and protein were very low. With the majority of calories coming from minimally processed plant foods, specifically from the carbohydrate macronutrient.



I do not object to the consumption of animal fats and proteins from an ethical (animal rights) standpoint, but if one, such as Duke, asserts that for maximal longevity animal based protein is superior to that of plant based protein, it seems to me that he is doing so in direct opposition to what I see as overwhelming epidemiological research contrary to such beliefs.


My beef, pun intended, with the Paleo line of thinking, is that there is way, way, too much extrapolating going on. Just like Engels did in his work on the origins of the family, private property and the state. I don't see the logic in trying to base ones diet on such assertions, the environment that my body exists in, i.e. everything that my cells are exposed to from the food, the air, the water, the stress via exercise, etc. is not the same as that of humans living during the Paleolithic period, so such comparisons are invalid. If conditions were quite similar, which again they are not, what again was the average life expectancy of Paleolithic man, not nearly that of the populations I mentioned earlier.

Finally, I would like to note what I see as major factor which plays into discussions such as this one and often creates many problems. The science of nutritional biochemistry and human nutrition is very complicated, I repeat, the subject matter, if truly understood is very complex and requires extensive time and effort to understand. Just like say, particle physics, to truly understand particle physics one must dedicated much of their life to that specific subject. The major difference between "nutrition" and "physics" is the number of people presenting themselves as experts on the subject, you ask most people and they have their theory for a "healthy" diet, but ask them their theory on the nature of matter, a shrug of the shoulders, its not something they have an opinion on. I'm fine with people weighing in the subject of health and nutrition, that's the point of this forum of course, but just remember that 99.9% of people are doing so from a point of general ignorance, just as they would be if they chose to weigh in on the physical forces governing the universe. I of course hold myself to the same standard, so I hope not to insinuate that my assertions are any different.

Just wanted to make sure this discussion does not drift into the ethics of eating animals vs. plants. We are all aware of those arguments and there are proper threads for that. Please remain on the topic of healthy vs. unhealthy fats/oils and the science behind the choices.

Also, this topic has garnered a lot of interest here and around the net, so I wanted to remind everyone coming here for the first time that this is the Immortality Institute and thus the focus on the fine detail of diet choices. People here are trying to squeeze every last healthy minute out of their life. Extreme longevity is the goal. For most people, a balanced diet with exercise while avoiding too much sugar/carbs/junk food will keep you healthier than average. If you want to maximize your chances of living well beyond the average, then you end up scrutinizing which fats/oils should be eaten or avoided and in what ratios. Happy reading!

Epidemiological data shouldn't take precedence over studies. All epidemiology ever shows is correlation, granted on a large scale...which gives it pertinence...but not like the data from a controlled study. You can never establish causality, just correlation...therefore anything you deduce is open to significant conjecture. It is a nice way to take those correlations and do further study to try and establish causality, but giving them so much weight on their own is a bit misguided to me.

[DukeNukem]

I don't see the logic in trying to base ones diet on such assertions, the environment that my body exists in, i.e. everything that my cells are exposed to from the food, the air, the water, the stress via exercise, etc. is not the same as that of humans living during the Paleolithic period, so such comparisons are invalid.

Well, we are the way we are because of our evolutionary path, and multi-million year interaction with nature. We should respect this. Instead, the post-agricultural diet and more notably the post-industrial diet has introduced foods that are our expressing genes in non-natural (and inflammatory) ways, and that's one of the key reasons most people eating such a diet are developing chronic diseases. (Not to mention becoming deformed by fat.) We are still paleolithic humans, like it or not.

That is why I have referred multiple times to the extensive epidemiological research that has been done on our current longest lived populations i.e. the populations in southern Japan, the island of Sardinia, certain areas Costa Rica and in Loma Linda, CA. In all of these instances saturated fat intakes as well as intakes of animal based fat and protein were very low.

In tropical regions, palm oil and coconut oil are commonly used, so I'd be surprised if these two oils are not used in Costa Rica, for example. I'm sure the Sardinians cook with lard, like most the people in Italy and France. They also eat fish and game.

Another thought came to mind just now, are we being logical to look to dietary patterns of the past, say the Paleolithic period, for means of maximizing longevity? What I mean is, this attempt at long life goes in complete opposition of "nature", first of all, nature doesn't care if one person lives or dies, furthermore, all nature wants to do is to perpetuate the species, so for any human all nature cares about is that humans in general survive until maturation and procreation, after that point, "nature" wants you gone. That being said, it seems to me that following patterns of past humans who existed within the past paradigm (make kids and die), is not the best method of working towards the new paradigm of radical life extension. ???

There are two sides to the longevity coin. The first is to do no harm to yourself. That's really the point of this entire topic. The other side is to discover/research/apply methods that maximize life, such as key supplements, episodic fasting and best of all, a program like SENS.

[athrahasis]

Not sure this is a proper thread to raise these issues, but Duke makes a strong case and I'm hoping for some methodological clarification to make better sense of it:

1. Do we have all that much information, save the one mummified iceman from the alps and some dozen old camp sites, about what a generic "Paleo diet" actually looked like? Seems to me that there have been a myriad of paleo diets, varied by geography and availability of food stuff. If this is a correct assessment, then what is the justification of arguing the evolutionary optimal line? Rather than sticking to epidemiological/meta and controlled case studies?

From my readings in human migration, lots of that was coastal. Meaning there was plenty of opportunity to eat a lot of sea food, that probably includes a lot of crustaceans as well as fish.

2. In juxtaposition, there seems to be this idea that the evolutionary process magically stopped right before the historic period (5k-6k years ago). I personally think that there has been immense and relatively recent adaptation that accounts for human bio diversity, and it has possibly sped up due to exposure of new selective pressures as well as the ever present aspects of boundary sexual selection. When did the sickle cell give most African populations some protection against malaria? When did the European population adapt to dairy? Is it today adapting to peanuts and other inflammatory foods, that elsewhere where not as inflammatory? Why do some people have SPRU (celiac) and others do not? So, if you look at things strictly medically then I guess you miss the story of human evolution in action.

I wonder how long it will take for genetic testing to overturn our conceptions regarding best dietary choices... very much like blood testing has done in the last few decades.

[CobaltThoriumG]

I haven't seen insects/larvae mentioned in the thread. I'd be interested to see their content of various fats. I'm sure grubs made up a significant portion of our paleo diet. Think termite mound.

[Brainbox]

A question.

I've been looking for evidence for the following hypothesis.

There seems to be a lot discrepancy in various studies about the health of fat in diets. One of the reasons for this discrepancy can be found in the design of (cohort) studies. On the other hand, there could very well be a basic biological mechanism that is an important underlying causative factor.
I've been looking for evidence that eating above one's caloric requirement, differences in the fat contents of the diet becomes more critical and more apparent. Or the other way around, eating below one's caloric requirement (with a nutritional sufficient diet) assures that the utilisation of fats is mainly for energy, hence reducing common bad effects found in abundant modern western diets. Generally, the research on CRON could be seen as such evidence, but CRON is also low in fats that have an extremely high caloric density. So, CRON studies also express the same design "flaw" as far is this fat related question is concerned.

Any thoughts on this or research references?

[david ellis]

The reference you had for discontinuing fish oil was Ray Peat. I found a web site that checked Ray Peat's work in one of the links you gave. His opinion was that all three of the references did not support the assertions made by Ray Peat. A search for "Ray Peat" in the link will take you to his comments.

Here is an extract from the web site that did the source checking.

I have a number of problems with this document. (speaking of Ray Peat's article) 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.

More and more, I'm questioning whether EPA and DHA are truly essential fatty acids. These are unstable, easily oxidized long-chain lipids, that may cause more problems than they solve.

Over at The Whole Health Source blog, there are two recent entries on polyunsaturated fats that, while focused on omega-6 oils, is further convincing me that fish oils, too, are more problematic than beneficial:

Read first: http://wholehealthso...eight-gain.html
And second: http://wholehealthso...suppresses.html

I'm definitely moving my diet toward more saturated fat intake, including animal fats, and two tropical oils, palm oil and coconut oil, both primarily saturated fat. Saturated fat is extremely stable and hardly capable of oxidation. (For example, coconut oil can be left out for a year with no noticeable degradation.)

Omega-9 oils are far more stable than o-3's and o-6's, so these are still worthwhile for diet and health. But, I'm eliminating omega-6's as much as possible, and for now reducing marine lipid supplementation to jut two krill oil's per day.

More reading:
http://raypeat.com/a...conut-oil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/a...s/fishoil.shtml
http://raypeat.com/a...tablefats.shtml

[HaloTeK]

Once again, I'd like to mention the Kitava. Duke, as you have mentioned earlier, Stephen at Whole Heath Source has talked about them in detail. Even he's somewhat convinced that carbohydrates in the form of tubers are not as bad as we once thought (he states the low insulin levels of Kitavan natives). We already know that shifting from carb to fat intake increases the amount of growth hormones in the body. Do we really want high levels of growth hormones from higher intakes of fat and protein (think Jean Calment, 4'11, being short automatically exempted here from being bathed by higher growth hormones!!). And I don't know where I've read this, but I remember reading that the body better utilizes insulin with a modest amount of carbohydrates intake 40-60% intake. (its possible that years of really low carb intake damages the bodies ability to handle carbohydrates) And don't buy into the saturated fat craze. (However, i trust coconut oil more than other saturated fats. The kitavans eat most of there 20% fat in the form of coconut).

This is what I want answered:

The difference in insulin, growth hormone, IGF-1 levels, etc. between a kitavan-like diet of 20% protein 20% fat 60% carb (mostly tubers, greens, fruit), vs a Duke like 25% protein 60% fat 15% carb (mostly greens).

I just have a nagging feeling that insulin, growth homone, and igf-1 levels will be lower on the kitavan-like diet because of the lower amount of protein, lower amount of fat, and a higher amount of nutrient-dense tubers. There are no studies out there even close to this so don't show me a stand low carb diet vs high carb diet study.

Both diets are exellent for good heath though- and both would contain low amounts of poly-unsaturates.

[DukeNukem]

Once again, I'd like to mention the Kitava. Duke, as you have mentioned earlier, Stephen at Whole Heath Source has talked about them in detail. Even he's somewhat convinced that carbohydrates in the form of tubers are not as bad as we once thought (he states the low insulin levels of Kitavan natives). We already know that shifting from carb to fat intake increases the amount of growth hormones in the body. Do we really want high levels of growth hormones from higher intakes of fat and protein (think Jean Calment, 4'11, being short automatically exempted here from being bathed by higher growth hormones!!). And I don't know where I've read this, but I remember reading that the body better utilizes insulin with a modest amount of carbohydrates intake 40-60% intake. (its possible that years of really low carb intake damages the bodies ability to handle carbohydrates) And don't buy into the saturated fat craze. (However, i trust coconut oil more than other saturated fats. The kitavans eat most of there 20% fat in the form of coconut).

This is what I want answered:

The difference in insulin, growth hormone, IGF-1 levels, etc. between a kitavan-like diet of 20% protein 20% fat 60% carb (mostly tubers, greens, fruit), vs a Duke like 25% protein 60% fat 15% carb (mostly greens).

I just have a nagging feeling that insulin, growth homone, and igf-1 levels will be lower on the kitavan-like diet because of the lower amount of protein, lower amount of fat, and a higher amount of nutrient-dense tubers. There are no studies out there even close to this so don't show me a stand low carb diet vs high carb diet study.

Both diets are exellent for good heath though- and both would contain low amounts of poly-unsaturates.

Dr. Eades made a relevant post today. Also, I recommend reading, Good Calorie, Bad Calorie.

I don't have answers for the hGH/IGF-1 issues. Yes, Stephen at Whole Heath Source knows that certain high-carb (but no grain) diets can be healthy. But, possibly their high intake of saturated fat from coconuts has a dramatic protective effect -- possibly by raising HDL. Also, note that the Kitavan's do not eat processed sugars, nor vegetable oils (and no grains), so under these strict conditions (very unlike an industrial high-carb diet) they can live healthily. This is an area that needs to be explored. BTW, there is a tuber that the Okinawans eat that raises the level of hyaluronic acid, which is suspected of being a pro-aging benefit. Perhaps the Kitavans are benefiting in this way, too.

[HaloTeK]

[/quote]
I don't have answers for the hGH/IGF-1 issues. Yes, Stephen at Whole Heath Source knows that certain high-carb (but no grain) diets can be healthy. But, possibly their high intake of saturated fat from coconuts has a dramatic protective effect -- possibly by raising HDL. Also, note that the Kitavan's do not eat processed sugars, nor vegetable oils (and no grains), so under these strict conditions (very unlike an industrial high-carb diet) they can live healthily. This is an area that needs to be explored. BTW, there is a tuber that the Okinawans eat that raises the level of hyaluronic acid, which is suspected of being a pro-aging benefit. Perhaps the Kitavans are benefiting in this way, too.
[/quote]

Duke, here is a "one" study that may be of interest on this topic:

The low-methionine content of vegan diets may make methionine restriction feasible as a life extension strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pt=AbstractPlus

Don't let the title put you off, even I don't fully endorse vegan diets. I am interested in the findings that a lower-protein diet (with Methionine restriction) lowers mitochondrial superoxide generation (leading to increased longevity).

Moderate to high protein diets seem great for maintaining lean body mass and satiety, but may increase the speed of aging (The question is how fast does it spead it up?)

The study concludes that this type of diet should decrease systemic levels of insulin and free IGF-1.

I'm sure its possible that you might argue that a a Duke-type diet would have lower levels insulin --- but I'm pritty sure the levels of IGF-1 would be higher than on the vegan type diet they are suggesting.

I want to know the difference between the systemic levels of insulin and free IGF-1 on:

Duke-like diet: 20-25% protein, 55-65% fat, 10-25% carbs
Kitava-type diet: 15-25% protein, 20% fat, 55-65% carbs
Duke-modified lower protein (low methionine), low carb: 15% protein, 65% fat, 20% carb
Unknown diet with ?% protein, ?% fat, ?% carbs (if their is a diet besides the ones i've mentioned that
would lead to the lowest levels of insulin and free IGF-1)

I am also assuming low polyunsaturated intake- but that might also be tweaked to make for the lowest insulin and free IGF-1.

Which one is going to having the lowest systemic insulin and free IGF-1? That's a type of diet that will maximize longevity.

Edited by HaloTeK, 04 January 2009 - 07:07 PM.

[JLL]

Your questions are very good (I would be interested in answers to them, too), but why do you think lower IGF-1 will result in longer lifespans? In rodents, CR results in lower IGF-1 levels, but in humans it doesn't. Should we conclude that CR will not result in longer lifespans in humans, or that IGF-1 is not the reason behind longer lifespans in rodents, or that IGF-1 is not (or rather, will not be) the reason behind longer lifespan in humans on CR?

[Sillewater]

Lowered methionine ingestion as responsible for the decrease in rodent mitochondrial oxidative stress in protein and dietary restriction possible implications for humans.

López-Torres M, Barja G.
Department of Animal Physiology II, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Complutense University, Madrid 28040, Spain.
Available information indicates that long-lived mammals have low rates of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation and oxidative damage at their mitochondria. On the other hand, many studies have consistently shown that dietary restriction (DR) in rodents also decreases mitochondrial ROS (mtROS) production and oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA and proteins. It has been observed that protein restriction also decreases mtROS generation and oxidative stress in rat liver, whereas neither carbohydrate nor lipid restriction change these parameters. This is interesting because protein restriction also increases maximum longevity in rodents (although to a lower extent than DR) and is a much more practicable intervention for humans than DR, whereas neither carbohydrate nor lipid restriction seem to change rodent longevity. Moreover, it has been found that isocaloric methionine restriction also decreases mtROS generation and oxidative stress in rodent tissues, and this manipulation also increases maximum longevity in rats and mice. In addition, excessive dietary methionine also increases mtROS generation in rat liver. These studies suggest that the reduced intake of dietary methionine can be responsible for the decrease in mitochondrial ROS generation and the ensuing oxidative damage that occurs during DR, as well as for part of the increase in maximum longevity induced by this dietary manipulation. In addition, the mean intake of proteins (and thus methionine) of Western human populations is much higher than needed. Therefore, decreasing such levels to the recommended ones has a great potential to lower tissue oxidative stress and to increase healthy life span in humans while avoiding the possible undesirable effects of DR diets.

Here is another recent paper describing methionine and its relationship to oxidative stress. What is the minimum amount of protein one requires per day? Right now I eat quite a lot, considering I eat a "Duke-like" diet. Only if there was a methionine remover, things could be better.

[stephen_b]

Here is another recent paper describing methionine and its relationship to oxidative stress. What is the minimum amount of protein one requires per day? Right now I eat quite a lot, considering I eat a "Duke-like" diet. Only if there was a methionine remover, things could be better.

From "Caloric restriction and methionine and their effects on longevity in Drosophila melanogaster",

While the data seem to support previous CR studies, the effect of methionine is not clear. Shifts in longevity seemed to be negligible when methionine was added to the medium. The most noticeable shift occurred in males on 4% yeast media with added methionine. Even then, a decrease of only a few days was seen. Some females on 4% yeast media with added methionine may have actually lived longer than those raised solely on a 4% yeast medium. If methionine metabolism is mediated during CR, an increase in methionine seemed to have little or no effect. If metabolic processes are already maximally using amino acids on a normal diet, an increase in amino acid intake would have no effect on the output of these processes. Oxidative free radicals and other harmful cellular products would already be causing their maximum cellular impact. However, if methionine is removed from the diet, these metabolic processes would be in involved less production of metabolites. Because of this, nutrient mediated pathways can't be ruled out. Amino acid metabolism could still have an impact during CR without decreasing longevity when boosted. Even so, the study does little to show that methionine metabolism plays a critical role in longevity.

Granted, that was on fruit flies.

My suspicion is that methionine is a red herring and probably just correlates with AGE content in food.

PMID 11254667 might be interesting:

Although hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) is a well-known risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease, the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully elucidated. Here we show that induction of HHcy in apoE-null mice by a diet enriched in methionine but depleted in folate and vitamins B6 and B12 increased atherosclerotic lesion area and complexity, and enhanced expression of receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE), VCAM-1, tissue factor, and MMP-9 in the vasculature. These homocysteine-mediated (HC-mediated) effects were significantly suppressed, in parallel with decreased levels of plasma HC, upon dietary supplementation with folate and vitamins B6/B12. These findings implicate HHcy in atherosclerotic plaque progression and stability, and they suggest that dietary enrichment in vitamins essential for the metabolism of HC may impart protective effects in the vasculature.

StephenB

[Mind]

Very interesting papers about methionine. Might want to post them here. (since this thread is kind-of about fish oil )

Edited by Mind, 15 January 2009 - 09:35 PM.

[woly]

Does anyone have any studies on polyunsaturated fat intake vs sat/mono fat intake in humans that have shown polyunsaturated fat to be deterimental? This thread has alot of theoretical and unreferenced view points but doesnt show alot of studies where polyunsaturated fat intake actually increased mortality.

[Shepard]

Does anyone have any studies on polyunsaturated fat intake vs sat/mono fat intake in humans that have shown polyunsaturated fat to be deterimental? This thread has alot of theoretical and unreferenced view points but doesnt show alot of studies where polyunsaturated fat intake actually increased mortality.

I don't have any off the top of my head, but search around for "malondialdehyde". This is the end product of PUFA damaged by ROS.

[david ellis]

I don't have any off the top of my head, but search around for "malondialdehyde". This is the end product of PUFA damaged by ROS.

A good idea shepard, but, I only found studies that found that fish oil decreased "malondialdehyde". Because that was what I expected, I was not surprised. I never understood this thread, we used to insist on quality studies, preferably from PUBMED. I never received a reply to my objections to studies referenced in this thread.

I found one important study using your hint. This study said that contrary to what you might expect, maldialdehyde went down. Bottom line, substantially less "malondialdehyde".

Here's the quote-"The dietary supplementation with fish oil was associated with a significant increase in glutathione peroxidase activity in both erythrocytes and platelets. On the contrary, the production of malondialdehyde, which was originally higher than normal in hyperlipidaemics, was inhibited significantly after fish oil (p less than 0.001).

I don't know whether the study authors were surprised or confirmed by their conclusion. But their conclusion was clear, omega-3 fish oils reduce malondialdehyde.

Other favorable fish oil studies in NIH.gov.
PMID: 1995786 -Fish Oil with high E reduces malodialdehyde below normal levels. (interesting, it proves Vitamin D needs to be taken with fish oil)
PMID: 2920445 -Fish oil again trumps polyunsaturated oils
Article ID-2535628 -Animals exposed to formaldlehyde and supplemented with fish oil had decreased levels of malondialdehyde.

A study that shows increased levels of malondialdehyde with fish would be informative and important. And very much appreciated, so if anyone knows or can find one ... because I have been known to miss the point.