109 replies to this topic

[Skötkonung]

Oh the limitations of language.

Once again we have a black and white argument escalating into stupidity.

AVOID PUFAs or suffer!

We have seen this approach before with many things on this forum.

There is just too much evidence, epidemiological and otherwise, that 0-3 consumption lowers inflammation and CVD risk. Not to mention the suggestive evidence of its potential role in alzheimers. A quick look at PUBMEDs database simply typing in 'omega 3' in the search box indicates that this debate is silly and that people who are saying 'PUFA is bad' are performing a disservice to us. Use the correct language! 0-3 PUFA, good. 0-6 PUFA, not so good. okay?

Of the limitations of your brain. Don't you feel embarrassed writing such crap without even bothering to review the discussion in the thread? By the way, you can't even spell "O-3 / O-6" correctly. The "O" stands for Omega. There isn't a zero in the name. LOL! Anyways, it is primarily called n-3 / n-6 in the literature, which refers to the position of the carbon–carbon double bond shared by all PUFA.

But I digress, no one here is saying n-3 is bad, it is an essential fat. So is n-6. Without either, you cannot survive. However, the arguement is in what quantity and what ratio.

We know that too much n-3 can cause problems with prolonged bleed times (induced hemophilia). It thins the blood excessively. Too much n-6 raises inflammation and is thought to contribute to CVD. Too much n-3 / n-6 de-saturates cellular membranes and makes them more prone to oxidative damage. PUFA also contributes to aging via ALEs. N-3 and n-6 work synergistically, even in a situation where one is consuming extremely high levels of n-3 in relation to n-6, it doesn't provide any more reduction in systemic inflammation. In fact, the best combination seems to be balanced levels.

I'm using the 0 so I don't have to capitalize the o fool! You're talking about a fucking fatty acid with ALOT more evidence behind its positive effect against CVD and inflammation than the one you taut on this forum non-stop. I.E saturated fat! And you're talking about the limitations of my brain? Bottom line is I am not saying to O.D on 0-3 I am talking about balance using the correct language, unlike you and most other people here. PUFAs are not bad. Just too much 0-6 PUFA is. I know you're not saying 0-3 is bad but use the correct language so lay people who visit this site are not confused to fucking oblivion! And it is likely that ALL lipids contribute to aging, not just those found in PUFAs!

LOL! You are stupid, aren't you!! Let me get this straight... You use a zero instead of an O because it is easier to write, yet chide me on my use of technical terms because it is hard for a layperson (it is one word, by the way..) to understand? Now that's convoluted. Is it really that hard to use the "shift" key?? One would think, if you were really concerned about helping others understand what you write, you might actually use an O or maybe write "omega." Yes, I think I will continue using n-3 / n-6 as that is the technical term for the fat. Even "O-3" isn't technically correct. If someone doesn't understand, they can Wikipedia it.

By the way, I would hazard to guess you still haven't bothered to read the rest of this thread? I never said PUFA are bad, I just said they should be kept at 10% or less of total lipid intake. PUFA certainly have an important role to play in terms of optimal health, I just think that role is best expressed at lower levels of consumption.

And sure there are lots of studies showing benefit of consuming n-3 fats, but show me one study optimizing health on a predominantly n-3 or PUFA diet? They don't exist. There are plenty of studies showing saturated fat, when in context of a low carbohydrate environment, can be beneficial to health and they are safe to consume as a dominant lipid. So you don't really have any ground to stand on with your baseless claim. By the way, my personal belief is that 10% of fats should be PUFA (n-3/n-6 balanced), 45% should be MUFA, and 45% should be SFA. I don't think anyone should consume a diet of all SFA.

[oehaut]

I know you're not saying 0-3 is bad but use the correct language so lay people who visit this site are not confused to fucking oblivion!

Any layman who'd read this thread would clearly get the good message : PUFAs should be kept low and balance. I don't see how it's possible to get away with the idea that they are bad for health and should be avoided based on what was discussed here.


BTW

Do you guys think that it's possible to have a moderate-high fat diet (30-50%) while keepit it low in PUFAs and, at the same time, not overdoing animal products? My main concern with animal products are their usual high AGEs & toxins content. It seems like an hard thing to do.

[Skötkonung]

Don't keep PUFAs low, keep 0-6 PUFAs low. Oatmeal is not high in 0-6 PUFAs. I am not sure where people get this idea from. My guess is that when 0-6 is consumed with 0-3 and MUFAs that the latter two clean up after the former, sort of. Of course eating too much 0-6 will result in linoleic overspill and we obviously do not want this as it might prevent the healthy fats from doing their thing.

You know what has a lot of n-6 fats? Those blue corn chips you like to eat.

[Mia K.]

I'm using the 0 so I don't have to capitalize the o fool! 

No need for name-calling, TheFountain.


You know, if you were to use the correct n-6 (or even w-6) you would have no need to capitalize either.    

Kind regards, Mia

[Jay]

Do you guys think that it's possible to have a moderate-high fat diet (30-50%) while keepit it low in PUFAs and, at the same time, not overdoing animal products? My main concern with animal products are their usual high AGEs & toxins content. It seems like an hard thing to do.

This is one of the reasons I don't do the low-carb thing. I don't think it is possible to be low-carb & low-PUFA without something else going wrong. I worry a bit about excess retinol since I eat a high dairy and egg diet. I probably get over 2000 IU of retinol from my diet alone. Fish oil pills also add to that (even non-CLO) has about 100IU of retinol for every 400 mg n-3. Krill oil might have more. If I went low-carb and low-PUFA, I think I would overshoot the RDA and then some. There's also trans fat in dairy, found in high amounts especially in grass fed dairy. At high doses, these can start having "negative" effects on cholesterol levels. AGEs in butter... AGEs and/or heme protein in red meat... Coconut oil can be a nice source of a few hundred calories, but it disagrees with me... As a result of all this, I eat lots of root vegetables to fill up every day.

By the way, low-carb diets may be more appropriate for people with insulin resistance. I ate a bowel of oatmeal on Saturday and my blood sugar was at 90 an hour later. I did have a little whey powder in there, but still those are low numbers). My point is that, low-carb may be necessary for people who are broken after years of PUFA/sugar damage, but may not be optimal for people that still process glucose well.

Edited by Jay, 19 April 2010 - 01:57 PM.

[oehaut]

Do you guys think that it's possible to have a moderate-high fat diet (30-50%) while keepit it low in PUFAs and, at the same time, not overdoing animal products? My main concern with animal products are their usual high AGEs & toxins content. It seems like an hard thing to do.

This is one of the reasons I don't do the low-carb thing. I don't think it is possible to be low-carb & low-PUFA without something else going wrong. I worry a bit about excess retinol since I eat a high dairy and egg diet. I probably get over 2000 IU of retinol from my diet alone. Fish oil pills also add to that (even non-CLO) has about 100IU of retinol for every 400 mg n-3. Krill oil might have more. If I went low-carb and low-PUFA, I think I would overshoot the RDA and then some. There's also trans fat in dairy, found in high amounts especially in grass fed dairy. At high doses, these can start having "negative" effects on cholesterol levels. AGEs in butter... AGEs and/or heme protein in red meat... Coconut oil can be a nice source of a few hundred calories, but it disagrees with me... As a result of all this, I eat lots of root vegetables to fill up every day.

By the way, low-carb diets may be more appropriate for people with insulin resistance. I ate a bowel of oatmeal on Saturday and my blood sugar was at 90 an hour later. I did have a little whey powder in there, but still those are low numbers). My point is that, low-carb may be necessary for people who are broken after years of PUFA/sugar damage, but may not be optimal for people that still process glucose well.

Yes, that's how I feel too. I think it's better to shoot for low LDL number nevertheless, even if we don't know the exact mechanism. And a high-fat diet probably means high PUFA, and, as you stated, absolutly no need to go low-carb if you don't suffer from insulin resistance or if you don't have massive amount of weight to loose. Since my fasting glucose is very good, and that i'd actually need to put some weight on right now, in my case, a more balanced approch is probably waranted.

Edited by oehaut, 19 April 2010 - 02:43 PM.

[tunt01]

By the way, low-carb diets may be more appropriate for people with insulin resistance. I ate a bowel of oatmeal on Saturday and my blood sugar was at 90 an hour later. I did have a little whey powder in there, but still those are low numbers). My point is that, low-carb may be necessary for people who are broken after years of PUFA/sugar damage, but may not be optimal for people that still process glucose well.

think complex carbs, very low GI are the way to go. it's about 60% of my daily caloric intake, as of the last week.

i do try to put a dietary fat in my stomach first, before any carbs, to slow the digestion process and keep blood glucose levels as stable as possible. i need to grab some blood glucose strips and do a better job of monitoring it.

however, even if i was diabetic, i'm not sure i'd want to go on a ketogenic diet. though, i think you have a valid point.

[Jay]

think complex carbs, very low GI are the way to go. it's about 60% of my daily caloric intake, as of the last week.

i do try to put a dietary fat in my stomach first, before any carbs, to slow the digestion process and keep blood glucose levels as stable as possible. i need to grab some blood glucose strips and do a better job of monitoring it.

however, even if i was diabetic, i'm not sure i'd want to go on a ketogenic diet. though, i think you have a valid point.

You're quite right. I kind of forget about complex carbs since the best source seems to be grains, no?. And, I have been avoiding grains for some time, probably unnecessarily... I agree that complex carbs are a good solution even for people with compromised gluten tolerence.

Edited by Jay, 19 April 2010 - 03:04 PM.

[oehaut]

By the way, low-carb diets may be more appropriate for people with insulin resistance. I ate a bowel of oatmeal on Saturday and my blood sugar was at 90 an hour later. I did have a little whey powder in there, but still those are low numbers). My point is that, low-carb may be necessary for people who are broken after years of PUFA/sugar damage, but may not be optimal for people that still process glucose well.

think complex carbs, very low GI are the way to go. it's about 60% of my daily caloric intake, as of the last week.

i do try to put a dietary fat in my stomach first, before any carbs, to slow the digestion process and keep blood glucose levels as stable as possible. i need to grab some blood glucose strips and do a better job of monitoring it.

however, even if i was diabetic, i'm not sure i'd want to go on a ketogenic diet. though, i think you have a valid point.

Yup, low GI/GL carbs (even grains) should be part of a healthy diet for a healthy folk, I think. Oats, quinoa, rice, buckwheat, al dente , with a good source of fat to slow down the gastric emptying, can't be bad if you are active and have no glucose tolerance problem. They usually are also sources of phytochemical/antioxidants and fibers, which can probably be useful for an optimal nutrition.

Most of CR on the list have a somewhat high (by our standard) carbs diet (around 60% for what I could see) and, as pointed out by Paul, glucose control is key in achieving the effect of CR. So if a higher carbs diet was giving them that much problem controlling their glucose, I doubt they'll stay on it, considering how important their diet is to reach their goal.

I just make sure to as much as possible have grains that are gluten free (might not be warranted, but it's easy to do).

[tunt01]

I just make sure to as much as possible have grains that are gluten free (might not be warranted, but it's easy to do).

ive been cutting back on grains. partially because there are more omega-6 fats in something like oatmeal than in other high carb alternatives like sweet potato. also the glycemic index of rolled oats is actually pretty high, relatively speaking. you'd have to eat something like steel cut to keep the GI down.

it's also hard to cut out gluten + phytic acid, while dealing with grains. it becomes a real chore.

I still have some buckwheat, soaked overnight. I make lentils every 2 weeks. The one pathetic thing is that I make basmati long grain white rice, because it has no phytic acid and is "relatively" low GI for a white rice. i only eat it in small amounts though. otherwise all my other carb intake is raw veggies.

I gotta find a good way to make rice w/ no phytic acid, that accomodates my daily routine.

[Jay]

I stopped worrying about phytic acid after reading this.

[oehaut]

I just make sure to as much as possible have grains that are gluten free (might not be warranted, but it's easy to do).

ive been cutting back on grains. partially because there are more omega-6 fats in something like oatmeal than in other high carb alternatives like sweet potato. also the glycemic index of rolled oats is actually pretty high, relatively speaking. you'd have to eat something like steel cut to keep the GI down.

it's also hard to cut out gluten + phytic acid, while dealing with grains. it becomes a real chore.

I still have some buckwheat, soaked overnight. I make lentils every 2 weeks. The one pathetic thing is that I make basmati long grain white rice, because it has no phytic acid and is "relatively" low GI for a white rice. i only eat it in small amounts though. otherwise all my other carb intake is raw veggies.

I gotta find a good way to make rice w/ no phytic acid, that accomodates my daily routine.

I think phytic acid is actally beneficial in small/moderate amount. Oatmeal GI is higher than sweet potato?

Actually, oatmeal GI is 59, according to this source, and sweet potato is 44. But if you look at the GL, oatmeal is 3, and sweet potato is 11 to 18, depending on the source.

I think oatmeal is just fine regarding blood sugar.

If you use, oat (gluten free), rice, quinoa, and buckwheat, why is it hard to deal with the gluten?

How many calorie a day do you get? around 60% of your calorie are from carbs, and most of your carbs are vegetable? That must be a hell of a lot of vegetable to eat. What other carbs source do you have? Legumes and potatos?

[tunt01]

I think phytic acid is actally beneficial in small/moderate amount. Oatmeal GI is higher than sweet potato?

Actually, oatmeal GI is 59, according to this source, and sweet potato is 44. But if you look at the GL, oatmeal is 3, and sweet potato is 11 to 18, depending on the source.

I think oatmeal is just fine regarding blood sugar.

If you use, oat (gluten free), rice, quinoa, and buckwheat, why is it hard to deal with the gluten?

How many calorie a day do you get? around 60% of your calorie are from carbs, and most of your carbs are vegetable? That must be a hell of a lot of vegetable to eat. What other carbs source do you have? Legumes and potatos?

it is a lot of veggies. pounds worth every day. for example, see:

http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry398136 (note the oats have been cut out for other sources, potatoes, etc.)

i'd rather eat a ton of brussel sprouts than oatmeal/potatoes, etc. as a source of carbs. the last 7 days i've averaged 1736 calories per day and 59.8% of that has been from carbs. i get some carbs from grapes, blueberries, sprouted grain bread (new favorite of mine). the oats you are citing is full oat bran. i was talking about rolled oats (very high GI). i guess oat bran is ok, but buckwheat seems superior so i might as well just soak and make that.

TBH, gluten isn't a big deal to me, as much as phytic acid. because my diet is near-vegetarian (some fish for the omega-3's), i'm concerned about eating lentils, rice, and any other phytic-acid containing nutrient with every single meal i'm having during the day. i'm calculating my nutrient intake in cron-o-meter and if i am eating a ton of phytic acid and i'm not getting my RDA, then it's a problem. i've read about the benefits of phytic acid. but think i'd rather just take phytic acid separately as a supplement away from meals (similar to how Michael Rae seems to be doing it).

thx for this link btw, this paper is handy. seems like GI is still more valuable than GL, based on what I think are the understandings of the definitions. GL is like GI/adjusted to theoretical portion servings. which is really not as relevant to how I am using it. GI is more important, because if it's 150g of rolled oats or 150g of sweet potato, i care more about calories and the GI. not the 'theoretical' portion size, GL and whatnot.

Edited by prophets, 19 April 2010 - 06:15 PM.

[tunt01]

I stopped worrying about phytic acid after reading this.

y, i understand the benefits of phytic acid. i'd just prefer to take it away from meals, if possible.

[Skötkonung]

Do you guys think that it's possible to have a moderate-high fat diet (30-50%) while keepit it low in PUFAs and, at the same time, not overdoing animal products? My main concern with animal products are their usual high AGEs & toxins content. It seems like an hard thing to do.

Exogenous AGEs won't necessarily be higher on a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if you are comparing your diet to one including meat. Boiling your meat and choosing low-AGE fat sources can further reduce levels. My diet includes the same amount of meat now that I eat low-carbohydrate as it did prior.

PUFA also won't be too high on low-carbohydrate. For me, it stays below 8-10g daily .. which isn't much compared to the other fats I am consuming, under 10% of total lipids. Most of my fats come from heavy cream, olive oil, and animal fats (from meat). With the exception of the latter, these do not contain significant exogenous AGEs.

Specifically regarding exogenous glycotoxins, only about 30% are absorbed, and less bind to structures within the body. For instance, a pan fried pork chop has 47,526 AGEs per U/g. 30% of 47,526 is 14,258. Add in glycation inhibitors present in diet like carotenoids, ECGC, carnosine, etc, and that number drops further. Reduce PUFA, remove fructose, and most endogenous AGE production, I speculate the number for total cross-links being formed is fairly equivalent or less between a low-carb meat / fat based diet and a high-carb / low-meat / low-fat based diet. Of course this is all speculation, there isn't a lot of research comparing the two diets. However, as has been shown with vegetarians, removing fat and meat doesn't necessarily reduce plasma AGEs, endogenous production picks up the slack.

In my opinion, the only way to truly reduce AGEs is to consume a low PUFA, low fructose CR diet.

[TheFountain]

Oh the limitations of language.

Once again we have a black and white argument escalating into stupidity.

AVOID PUFAs or suffer!

We have seen this approach before with many things on this forum.

There is just too much evidence, epidemiological and otherwise, that 0-3 consumption lowers inflammation and CVD risk. Not to mention the suggestive evidence of its potential role in alzheimers. A quick look at PUBMEDs database simply typing in 'omega 3' in the search box indicates that this debate is silly and that people who are saying 'PUFA is bad' are performing a disservice to us. Use the correct language! 0-3 PUFA, good. 0-6 PUFA, not so good. okay?

Of the limitations of your brain. Don't you feel embarrassed writing such crap without even bothering to review the discussion in the thread? By the way, you can't even spell "O-3 / O-6" correctly. The "O" stands for Omega. There isn't a zero in the name. LOL! Anyways, it is primarily called n-3 / n-6 in the literature, which refers to the position of the carbon–carbon double bond shared by all PUFA.

But I digress, no one here is saying n-3 is bad, it is an essential fat. So is n-6. Without either, you cannot survive. However, the arguement is in what quantity and what ratio.

We know that too much n-3 can cause problems with prolonged bleed times (induced hemophilia). It thins the blood excessively. Too much n-6 raises inflammation and is thought to contribute to CVD. Too much n-3 / n-6 de-saturates cellular membranes and makes them more prone to oxidative damage. PUFA also contributes to aging via ALEs. N-3 and n-6 work synergistically, even in a situation where one is consuming extremely high levels of n-3 in relation to n-6, it doesn't provide any more reduction in systemic inflammation. In fact, the best combination seems to be balanced levels.

I'm using the 0 so I don't have to capitalize the o fool! You're talking about a fucking fatty acid with ALOT more evidence behind its positive effect against CVD and inflammation than the one you taut on this forum non-stop. I.E saturated fat! And you're talking about the limitations of my brain? Bottom line is I am not saying to O.D on 0-3 I am talking about balance using the correct language, unlike you and most other people here. PUFAs are not bad. Just too much 0-6 PUFA is. I know you're not saying 0-3 is bad but use the correct language so lay people who visit this site are not confused to fucking oblivion! And it is likely that ALL lipids contribute to aging, not just those found in PUFAs!

LOL! You are stupid, aren't you!! Let me get this straight... You use a zero instead of an O because it is easier to write, yet chide me on my use of technical terms because it is hard for a layperson (it is one word, by the way..) to understand? Now that's convoluted. Is it really that hard to use the "shift" key?? One would think, if you were really concerned about helping others understand what you write, you might actually use an O or maybe write "omega." Yes, I think I will continue using n-3 / n-6 as that is the technical term for the fat. Even "O-3" isn't technically correct. If someone doesn't understand, they can Wikipedia it.

By the way, I would hazard to guess you still haven't bothered to read the rest of this thread? I never said PUFA are bad, I just said they should be kept at 10% or less of total lipid intake. PUFA certainly have an important role to play in terms of optimal health, I just think that role is best expressed at lower levels of consumption.

And sure there are lots of studies showing benefit of consuming n-3 fats, but show me one study optimizing health on a predominantly n-3 or PUFA diet? They don't exist. There are plenty of studies showing saturated fat, when in context of a low carbohydrate environment, can be beneficial to health and they are safe to consume as a dominant lipid. So you don't really have any ground to stand on with your baseless claim. By the way, my personal belief is that 10% of fats should be PUFA (n-3/n-6 balanced), 45% should be MUFA, and 45% should be SFA. I don't think anyone should consume a diet of all SFA.

When someone has no argument they always resort to being grammar nazis. It's a red herring if ever there was one. Also a sign of lack of originality. Stupidity versus intelligence? Try creating your own coherent theories instead of living off of other peoples research all the time block head!

Anyway, I disagree with your ratios of fatty acids. I would say the ratios of fatty acids should be about 30% PUFAs (10% 0-6 and 20% 0-3) 50% MUFAs and 20% SFAs. This is just based on research and experience probably as many other peoples personalized fatty acid ratios seem to be. Maybe how much protein one consumes has to do with how they respond to specific ratios of specific fats. I mean I know my 0-6 ratios look a little high here but not in the context of being a mere 10% of total fat consumption, seriously. Do people think 10% of 0-6 fatty acids is alot when you are consuming them along side healthy, anti-inflammatory fats?

Edited by TheFountain, 19 April 2010 - 07:19 PM.

[TheFountain]

I stopped worrying about phytic acid after reading this.

y, i understand the benefits of phytic acid. i'd just prefer to take it away from meals, if possible.

The studies indicating that phytic acid fights against prostate cancer for example should make many paleo dieters stop being so rigid. It just seems knee-jerk now to say that phytic acid is bad, amongst the paleo dieters here. Like a robotic refrain against anything that questions the precious paleo bible.

[Jay]

I stopped worrying about phytic acid after reading this.

y, i understand the benefits of phytic acid. i'd just prefer to take it away from meals, if possible.

The studies indicating that phytic acid fights against prostate cancer for example should make many paleo dieters stop being so rigid. It just seems knee-jerk now to say that phytic acid is bad, amongst the paleo dieters here. Like a robotic refrain against anything that questions the precious paleo bible.

Why do you always argue against a straw man? Everybody here seems to be grounded in science. If you want to rant against the (much) less-rigorous paleo people, go to the paleohacks forum. That would be funny to see.

[oehaut]

Anyway, I disagree with your ratios of fatty acids. I would say the ratios of fatty acids should be about 30% PUFAs (10% 0-6 and 20% 0-3) 50% MUFAs and 20% SFAs. This is just based on research and experience probably as many other peoples personalized fatty acid ratios seem to be.

Just curious but based on what research are you coming up with this ratio for PUFAs? All of the proposed ratio i've seen were in favor of n-6, or equal.

[oehaut]

I think phytic acid is actally beneficial in small/moderate amount. Oatmeal GI is higher than sweet potato?

Actually, oatmeal GI is 59, according to this source, and sweet potato is 44. But if you look at the GL, oatmeal is 3, and sweet potato is 11 to 18, depending on the source.

I think oatmeal is just fine regarding blood sugar.

If you use, oat (gluten free), rice, quinoa, and buckwheat, why is it hard to deal with the gluten?

How many calorie a day do you get? around 60% of your calorie are from carbs, and most of your carbs are vegetable? That must be a hell of a lot of vegetable to eat. What other carbs source do you have? Legumes and potatos?

it is a lot of veggies. pounds worth every day. for example, see:

http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry398136 (note the oats have been cut out for other sources, potatoes, etc.)

i'd rather eat a ton of brussel sprouts than oatmeal/potatoes, etc. as a source of carbs. the last 7 days i've averaged 1736 calories per day and 59.8% of that has been from carbs. i get some carbs from grapes, blueberries, sprouted grain bread (new favorite of mine). the oats you are citing is full oat bran. i was talking about rolled oats (very high GI). i guess oat bran is ok, but buckwheat seems superior so i might as well just soak and make that.

TBH, gluten isn't a big deal to me, as much as phytic acid. because my diet is near-vegetarian (some fish for the omega-3's), i'm concerned about eating lentils, rice, and any other phytic-acid containing nutrient with every single meal i'm having during the day. i'm calculating my nutrient intake in cron-o-meter and if i am eating a ton of phytic acid and i'm not getting my RDA, then it's a problem. i've read about the benefits of phytic acid. but think i'd rather just take phytic acid separately as a supplement away from meals (similar to how Michael Rae seems to be doing it).

thx for this link btw, this paper is handy. seems like GI is still more valuable than GL, based on what I think are the understandings of the definitions. GL is like GI/adjusted to theoretical portion servings. which is really not as relevant to how I am using it. GI is more important, because if it's 150g of rolled oats or 150g of sweet potato, i care more about calories and the GI. not the 'theoretical' portion size, GL and whatnot.

Right, I think it actually proves me that I still need to tweak my diet quite a lot, and find a way to incorporate more veggies. It's obvious that veggies are winners over grains, but somehow my 300 calorie from oat in the morning is hard to get elsewhere if I don't want to overdo animal product, which I simply do by precaution. Thanks for all the infos.

[oehaut]

Do you guys think that it's possible to have a moderate-high fat diet (30-50%) while keepit it low in PUFAs and, at the same time, not overdoing animal products? My main concern with animal products are their usual high AGEs & toxins content. It seems like an hard thing to do.

Exogenous AGEs won't necessarily be higher on a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly if you are comparing your diet to one including meat. Boiling your meat and choosing low-AGE fat sources can further reduce levels. My diet includes the same amount of meat now that I eat low-carbohydrate as it did prior.

PUFA also won't be too high on low-carbohydrate. For me, it stays below 8-10g daily .. which isn't much compared to the other fats I am consuming, under 10% of total lipids. Most of my fats come from heavy cream, olive oil, and animal fats (from meat). With the exception of the latter, these do not contain significant exogenous AGEs.

Specifically regarding exogenous glycotoxins, only about 30% are absorbed, and less bind to structures within the body. For instance, a pan fried pork chop has 47,526 AGEs per U/g. 30% of 47,526 is 14,258. Add in glycation inhibitors present in diet like carotenoids, ECGC, carnosine, etc, and that number drops further. Reduce PUFA, remove fructose, and most endogenous AGE production, I speculate the number for total cross-links being formed is fairly equivalent or less between a low-carb meat / fat based diet and a high-carb / low-meat / low-fat based diet. Of course this is all speculation, there isn't a lot of research comparing the two diets. However, as has been shown with vegetarians, removing fat and meat doesn't necessarily reduce plasma AGEs, endogenous production picks up the slack.

In my opinion, the only way to truly reduce AGEs is to consume a low PUFA, low fructose CR diet.

That's a fair bet. How many g of meat do you eat in a day and how much PUFAs do you get from this? Other than that, what are your other fatty acid source? Butter, cream? I might look to supplement a few things which decrease AGEs such as taurine and beta-alanine and worry a bit much about AGEs from my meat.

[tunt01]

That's a fair bet. How many g of meat do you eat in a day and how much PUFAs do you get from this? Other than that, what are your other fatty acid source? Butter, cream? I might look to supplement a few things which decrease AGEs such as taurine and beta-alanine and worry a bit much about AGEs from my meat.

http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=398085

he put his sample daily diet in the same thread i did.


i take about 1.5g of beta-alanine and 500mg of taurine a day. not sure the right ratio, tbh.

Edited by prophets, 19 April 2010 - 08:06 PM.

[JLL]

Specifically regarding exogenous glycotoxins, only about 30% are absorbed, and less bind to structures within the body.

Is that the right abstract? I don't see a mention of absorption. Or maybe it's in the full paper?

What happens to the rest of the AGEs that aren't absorbed? I've read a few papers on this and I'm having difficulty understanding what it means when they say that a part of exogenous AGEs are "bioavailable" -- does that mean they're broken down into amino acids, or that they get stored as junk? And when they measure urine levels of AGE compounds in these studies, what does it tell us in practice?

[TheFountain]

I stopped worrying about phytic acid after reading this.

y, i understand the benefits of phytic acid. i'd just prefer to take it away from meals, if possible.

The studies indicating that phytic acid fights against prostate cancer for example should make many paleo dieters stop being so rigid. It just seems knee-jerk now to say that phytic acid is bad, amongst the paleo dieters here. Like a robotic refrain against anything that questions the precious paleo bible.

Why do you always argue against a straw man? Everybody here seems to be grounded in science. If you want to rant against the (much) less-rigorous paleo people, go to the paleohacks forum. That would be funny to see.

I see a bit of science on this forum, yes. But I also see a bit of religious rigidity in favour of ones diet based on meat as a 'must have' component due to paleo ideology. I really see no science at all that indicates meat must be had in the diet in order to maintain physical health and longevity. I see alot of evidence suggesting that cultures where meat consumption is low (Okinawa) are the longest lived of our species. In short I see alot of people cherry picking the science that goes along with their previously established stances.

[TheFountain]

Don't keep PUFAs low, keep 0-6 PUFAs low. Oatmeal is not high in 0-6 PUFAs. I am not sure where people get this idea from. My guess is that when 0-6 is consumed with 0-3 and MUFAs that the latter two clean up after the former, sort of. Of course eating too much 0-6 will result in linoleic overspill and we obviously do not want this as it might prevent the healthy fats from doing their thing.

You know what has a lot of n-6 fats? Those blue corn chips you like to eat.

Back of the package says

Total fat 7g

Saturated fat 0.9g

polyunsaturated fat 1g

monounsaturated fat 4.5g

Doesn't look too bad to me. But it's probably because this particular brand uses a healthier, mostly mono oil to cook the chips in.

[Sillewater]

I thought this was a very interesting discussion related to trans-fat between taka and monty:
Trans fat for longevity

Coconut oil and the "AA release" - TLR connection

[Skötkonung]

Specifically regarding exogenous glycotoxins, only about 30% are absorbed, and less bind to structures within the body.

Is that the right abstract? I don't see a mention of absorption. Or maybe it's in the full paper?

What happens to the rest of the AGEs that aren't absorbed? I've read a few papers on this and I'm having difficulty understanding what it means when they say that a part of exogenous AGEs are "bioavailable" -- does that mean they're broken down into amino acids, or that they get stored as junk? And when they measure urine levels of AGE compounds in these studies, what does it tell us in practice?

I believe the portion that aren't absorbed are destroyed during hydrolyzation / digestive process. AGEs are a relatively complex and fragile structures. Sure it is an ad-hoc hypothesis, but a relatively sound one based on GI physiology. The percentage that survives digestion to be absorbed into the blood and cross-link are the bio-availability. This is similar in effect to protein, where PDCAAS is given based amino acid requirements of humans and their ability to digest it.

The clearance issue is fairly well addressed on Wikipedia actually:
http://en.wikipedia....oduct#Clearance

When someone has no argument they always resort to being grammar nazis. It's a red herring if ever there was one. Also a sign of lack of originality. Stupidity versus intelligence? Try creating your own coherent theories instead of living off of other peoples research all the time block head!

My argument was included in my reply to your post. It was right below the section where I pointed out your poor grammar. Since you didn't address it, should I conclude it is you that doesn't have a valid position? I appreciate your vigor in presenting new ideas, such as early primates probably not being well-adapted to meat consumption (I thought was particularly poignant), but sometimes I get the impression you don't read the whole thread or assess the presented science before replying.

That's a fair bet. How many g of meat do you eat in a day and how much PUFAs do you get from this? Other than that, what are your other fatty acid source? Butter, cream? I might look to supplement a few things which decrease AGEs such as taurine and beta-alanine and worry a bit much about AGEs from my meat.

I consume about 450g of meat daily. Not always red meat, often chicken, fish, or organ. Typically organic. Butter I might use in cooking, but most comes from heavy cream, olive oil.

Edited by Skotkonung, 19 April 2010 - 10:13 PM.

[Skötkonung]

i take about 1.5g of beta-alanine and 500mg of taurine a day. not sure the right ratio, tbh.

What is the correct ratio? I've been taking carnosine, but I'm thinking of switching to beta-alanine based on cost.

Doesn't look too bad to me. But it's probably because this particular brand uses a healthier, mostly mono oil to cook the chips in.

According to the CRON-o-meter data I have for Blue Corn chips (which basically matches what you presented here), that 1g of PUFA is almost entirely n-6 lipid. One serving of those chips constitutes 1/5th my total n-6 intake for the day. Being that you follow a lower fat diet than myself, I would posit the 1g compromises a much larger portion of your total fat intake. Something to consider: Have you ever tracked your total PUFA intake and how it falls over the n-3 and n-6 categories with software like CRON-o-meter? I would like to see the results if you have.

Edited by Skotkonung, 19 April 2010 - 10:23 PM.

[oehaut]

I thought this was a very interesting discussion related to trans-fat between taka and monty:
Trans fat for longevity

Interesting, indeed. What do you think of what he says? Could trans-fat, even industrial, really could not be so bad?

[Jay]

I thought this was a very interesting discussion related to trans-fat between taka and monty:
Trans fat for longevity

Interesting, indeed. What do you think of what he says? Could trans-fat, even industrial, really could not be so bad?

There is strong epidemiological evidence against trans fats, stronger than there is against any other kind of fat. So, to claim it's confounding, you need to come up with a something that wasn't independently measured that is strongly associated with trans fat consumption. I can't think of anything. Trans fats also adversely effect certain surrogate markers, like cholesterol. But the surrogate markers are based on a flawed model, so that's not conclusive either... Would it surprise me if trans fats weren't as bad as everything thinks? Yes, but it's not beyond imagination. They are stable.