98 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

Big oops, in my most recent post above I wrote "I consider MUFA as generally a neutral oil, with negative health effects...", when I meant to write "I consider MUFA as generally a neutral oil, WITHOUT negative health effects..."

I agree that EVOO is healthy, but I've wondered if the benefits come more from the polyphenols. As for pure MUFA sans polyphenols, my strong suspicion is that it's not necessarily healthy, but also not unhealthy. I do not know how MUFA is used in our body. And I know we can live a perfectly long lifespan without plant MUFAs in our diet--but I wonder if the MUFA we get from non-plant sources is absolutely necessary or not. I'd love to see a study that isolated MUFA (polyphenols filtered out) at different quantities (maybe: zero grams/day, 10 grams, and 25 grams, for the three test groups), and do this for a year, testing 40 or so blood markers (including hormones) every three months.

[TheFountain]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

[Werner]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

[rwac]

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

I wouldn't call that a "positive result" but a mixed bag. All hormones are made from LDL Cholesterol.

[TheFountain]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

Those were only two abstracts from the entire page. Click the link and read the rest of them. You will see that the majority of the abstracts favor MUFAs over both SFAs and PUFA.

[Luminosity]

Carbs aren't the devil. No food is the devil, except, perhaps, hydrogenated oil.

And refined sugar.

I just ate a peppermint patty, and I'm not sorry.

[Werner]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

Those were only two abstracts from the entire page. Click the link and read the rest of them. You will see that the majority of the abstracts favor MUFAs over both SFAs and PUFA.

n-3-PUFA=omega-3-FA is by far the best fat that exists. You can cure
diseases with this fat. There is a huge scientific literature confirming this.
MUFAs lag far behind.

[TheFountain]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

Those were only two abstracts from the entire page. Click the link and read the rest of them. You will see that the majority of the abstracts favor MUFAs over both SFAs and PUFA.

n-3-PUFA=omega-3-FA is by far the best fat that exists. You can cure
diseases with this fat. There is a huge scientific literature confirming this.
MUFAs lag far behind.

Not according to the page I linked to above, which you apparently did not read in its entirety.

And as stated already, omega 3s are only healthy when properly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other will fail you, as they both compete for the same metabolic pathways.

[Werner]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

Those were only two abstracts from the entire page. Click the link and read the rest of them. You will see that the majority of the abstracts favor MUFAs over both SFAs and PUFA.

n-3-PUFA=omega-3-FA is by far the best fat that exists. You can cure
diseases with this fat. There is a huge scientific literature confirming this.
MUFAs lag far behind.

Not according to the page I linked to above, which you apparently did not read in its entirety.

And as stated already, omega 3s are only healthy when properly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other will fail you, as they both compete for the same metabolic pathways.

The is not the slightest doubt that omega-3-FA is the best fat. There is a
mountain of scientific evidence.
Of course, you also need omega-6. As I stated already the ratio to omega-3
should be 5:1 or better 4:1. My personal ratio is 3:1. Instead, you find a ratio
of ~14:1 in Western countries. And that is the most important reason for all
these "modern" diseases.

[TheFountain]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

Those were only two abstracts from the entire page. Click the link and read the rest of them. You will see that the majority of the abstracts favor MUFAs over both SFAs and PUFA.

n-3-PUFA=omega-3-FA is by far the best fat that exists. You can cure
diseases with this fat. There is a huge scientific literature confirming this.
MUFAs lag far behind.

Not according to the page I linked to above, which you apparently did not read in its entirety.

And as stated already, omega 3s are only healthy when properly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other will fail you, as they both compete for the same metabolic pathways.

The is not the slightest doubt that omega-3-FA is the best fat. There is a
mountain of scientific evidence.
Of course, you also need omega-6. As I stated already the ratio to omega-3
should be 5:1 or better 4:1. My personal ratio is 3:1. Instead, you find a ratio
of ~14:1 in Western countries. And that is the most important reason for all
these "modern" diseases.

I do not deny the studies that omega 3, in the proper context, is a health fat in moderation.

But to completely mull over all the positive research on MUFAs is just, well, out of touch with the reality.

[Werner]

"Of course, but the kind of fats still proven most effective for long term health, thus far, are MUFAs. Also, the context in which omega 3s are usually sited to have health benefits in is when evenly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other may not be beneficial."
------------------
MUFAs are not important, sometimes unhealthy. For example, chicken fat has a MUFA:PUFA relation
of 50 : 23. And chicken fat is really not healthy. Or take hazelnuts. The relation is 48 : 7. A lot of MUFAs
and hazelnuts are harmful due to their lectine and phytate content. It is not that easy.
The relation n-6 : n-3 is very important. It should be 5 : 1. Instead, in the western world it is about 14 : 1
due to most used oils and wheat.

Did you read ANY of the studies I pasted above?

Yes, I did.
"Overall, MUFA replacing saturated fat (SFA) in the diet as percent of energy leads to a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)."

OK. Replacing something bad with something better shows a positive result.

"Comparing substitution of SFA with MUFA vs. polyunsaturated fat (PUFA) showed a greater decrease in TC and LDL-C with PUFA substitution."

OK. PUFA is better than MUFA. And n-3 PUFA is better than n-6 PUFA.

Those were only two abstracts from the entire page. Click the link and read the rest of them. You will see that the majority of the abstracts favor MUFAs over both SFAs and PUFA.

n-3-PUFA=omega-3-FA is by far the best fat that exists. You can cure
diseases with this fat. There is a huge scientific literature confirming this.
MUFAs lag far behind.

Not according to the page I linked to above, which you apparently did not read in its entirety.

And as stated already, omega 3s are only healthy when properly rationed with omega 6. Too much of one or the other will fail you, as they both compete for the same metabolic pathways.

The is not the slightest doubt that omega-3-FA is the best fat. There is a
mountain of scientific evidence.
Of course, you also need omega-6. As I stated already the ratio to omega-3
should be 5:1 or better 4:1. My personal ratio is 3:1. Instead, you find a ratio
of ~14:1 in Western countries. And that is the most important reason for all
these "modern" diseases.

I do not deny the studies that omega 3, in the proper context, is a health fat in moderation.

But to completely mull over all the positive research on MUFAs is just, well, out of touch with the reality.

Well, could you please explain the metabolic pathways which lead to this positive
result of MUFAs?

[niner]

The is not the slightest doubt that omega-3-FA is the best fat. There is a
mountain of scientific evidence.

"Best" as a micronutrient? Certainly not as a macronutrient. Not EPA and DHA, anyway. They are far too oxidation prone. I think we're all in agreement that we need a balanced ratio of the n-3 and n-6 essential fatty acids. I think most of the mountain of evidence is in the context of an excess of n-6, in which case additional n-3 will improve the ratio. Given an appropriate amount of n-6, I don't think excess n-3 would look that good.

PUFAs, preferably balanced n-3/n-6, may improve CVD outcomes, at least in people with bad diets, but when all-cause M&M is taken into account, they don't look as good. For people with good diets, I'm not convinced that PUFAs are good, and suspect that they are a net negative beyond a couple energy%.

[hivemind]

Nice quotes.

Forum admin should set the "stop quote embedding" to "Yes" from the admin-panel.

[niner]

Nice quotes.

Forum admin should set the "stop quote embedding" to "Yes" from the admin-panel.

We tried something like that, and it basically sucks. Even though we sometimes get these huge stacks of quotes, it's better than no (or very limited) quotes.

Everyone, it would be cool if we could trim down unneeded earlier quotes before posting. Usually the previous one or two is all you need to maintain flow and have it all make sense.

[Werner]

The is not the slightest doubt that omega-3-FA is the best fat. There is a
mountain of scientific evidence.

"Best" as a micronutrient? Certainly not as a macronutrient. Not EPA and DHA, anyway. They are far too oxidation prone. I think we're all in agreement that we need a balanced ratio of the n-3 and n-6 essential fatty acids. I think most of the mountain of evidence is in the context of an excess of n-6, in which case additional n-3 will improve the ratio. Given an appropriate amount of n-6, I don't think excess n-3 would look that good.

PUFAs, preferably balanced n-3/n-6, may improve CVD outcomes, at least in people with bad diets, but when all-cause M&M is taken into account, they don't look as good. For people with good diets, I'm not convinced that PUFAs are good, and suspect that they are a net negative beyond a couple energy%.

Micronutrient. It could be shown that babys receiving omega-3s, and here DHA which is a
downstream metabolite of omega-3, have a better brain development. Because omega-3s
are building bricks of the brain. So, look at baby milk products. Today, you will find all? these
products with DHA added.
What is "excess n-3"? I have a ratio of 3:1 because of taking 3-4 spoons of flaxseed oil/day.
And it works perfectly with a lot of health effects. Look at those people with 14:1 and you
will see them suffering from osteoporosis, arthritis, hypertension, CVD...

[niner]

What is "excess n-3"? I have a ratio of 3:1 because of taking 3-4 spoons of flaxseed oil/day.
And it works perfectly with a lot of health effects. Look at those people with 14:1 and you
will see them suffering from osteoporosis, arthritis, hypertension, CVD...

"Excess" as in more n-3 than needed to balance n-6. We should also make a distinction between PUFA and HUFA (Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acids); the common HUFA are EPA, DHA, and arachidonic acid. The oxidation propensity of unsaturated fatty acids increases exponentially with double bond count. In this regard, linoleic (n-6, 2 double bonds) is actually better than linolenic (ALA, n-3, 3 double bonds) and of course the HUFA are terrible. Looking across species, there is a direct relationship between the HUFA content of membranes and longevity; more HUFA = shorter lifespan.

Having a substantial excess of dietary n-6 is very bad; there's no argument there. Adding n-3 can correct the problem, but I would argue that it would be better to reduce the n-6, thus reducing the need for more oxidation-prone unsaturated oils. Everyone needs an adequate amount of all essential fatty acids, but using vast excesses, for example, taking 10-15 grams of fish oil/day for nootropic effects is a dangerous long term practice.

[idquest]

What is "excess n-3"? I have a ratio of 3:1 because of taking 3-4 spoons of flaxseed oil/day.
And it works perfectly with a lot of health effects. Look at those people with 14:1 and you
will see them suffering from osteoporosis, arthritis, hypertension, CVD...

How old are you? Because most people start to experience those conditions after 50 yo in general. I'd say if you are younger than 40-45 then your statement is hardly an evidence to support excessive omega 3. There are also other factors contributing to the general health like otherwise good diet and exercising.

[Werner]

What is "excess n-3"? I have a ratio of 3:1 because of taking 3-4 spoons of flaxseed oil/day.
And it works perfectly with a lot of health effects. Look at those people with 14:1 and you
will see them suffering from osteoporosis, arthritis, hypertension, CVD...

"Excess" as in more n-3 than needed to balance n-6. We should also make a distinction between PUFA and HUFA (Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acids); the common HUFA are EPA, DHA, and arachidonic acid. The oxidation propensity of unsaturated fatty acids increases exponentially with double bond count. In this regard, linoleic (n-6, 2 double bonds) is actually better than linolenic (ALA, n-3, 3 double bonds) and of course the HUFA are terrible. Looking across species, there is a direct relationship between the HUFA content of membranes and longevity; more HUFA = shorter lifespan.

Having a substantial excess of dietary n-6 is very bad; there's no argument there. Adding n-3 can correct the problem, but I would argue that it would be better to reduce the n-6, thus reducing the need for more oxidation-prone unsaturated oils. Everyone needs an adequate amount of all essential fatty acids, but using vast excesses, for example, taking 10-15 grams of fish oil/day for nootropic effects is a dangerous long term practice.

What is excess? For infants there are recommendations as low as 1.4:1.
Is that too low? Maybe, but one thing is very clear: The ratio of 90% of
Western people is way too high with all its consequences.
Again, HUFAs = EPA and DHA are very useful in avoiding or combatting
diseases. More HUFA = shorter lifespan? Never heard that. Do you have
anythin supporting this?
Oxidation: "DHA increases LDL particle size in type 2 diabetic patients, which decreases the susceptibility of LDL to glycation and oxidation and lower the progression of endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetic patients."
www.douglaslabs.com/

[Werner]

What is "excess n-3"? I have a ratio of 3:1 because of taking 3-4 spoons of flaxseed oil/day.
And it works perfectly with a lot of health effects. Look at those people with 14:1 and you
will see them suffering from osteoporosis, arthritis, hypertension, CVD...

How old are you? Because most people start to experience those conditions after 50 yo in general. I'd say if you are younger than 40-45 then your statement is hardly an evidence to support excessive omega 3. There are also other factors contributing to the general health like otherwise good diet and exercising.

I am >50.
Of course, other things are important, too: exercising (+), alcohol (-), smoking(-).
Otherwise good diet: salads, veggies, fish, fruits.
Otherwise bad diet: meat, bread, dairy, cakes.

[niner]

"Excess" as in more n-3 than needed to balance n-6. We should also make a distinction between PUFA and HUFA (Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acids); the common HUFA are EPA, DHA, and arachidonic acid. The oxidation propensity of unsaturated fatty acids increases exponentially with double bond count. In this regard, linoleic (n-6, 2 double bonds) is actually better than linolenic (ALA, n-3, 3 double bonds) and of course the HUFA are terrible. Looking across species, there is a direct relationship between the HUFA content of membranes and longevity; more HUFA = shorter lifespan.

Having a substantial excess of dietary n-6 is very bad; there's no argument there. Adding n-3 can correct the problem, but I would argue that it would be better to reduce the n-6, thus reducing the need for more oxidation-prone unsaturated oils. Everyone needs an adequate amount of all essential fatty acids, but using vast excesses, for example, taking 10-15 grams of fish oil/day for nootropic effects is a dangerous long term practice.

What is excess? For infants there are recommendations as low as 1.4:1.
Is that too low? Maybe, but one thing is very clear: The ratio of 90% of
Western people is way too high with all its consequences.
Again, HUFAs = EPA and DHA are very useful in avoiding or combatting
diseases. More HUFA = shorter lifespan? Never heard that. Do you have
anythin supporting this?

"Excess" as I describe it above refers to the absolute quantity of n-3 consumed. A low ratio of n-6 to n-3 is good, but it's better to obtain a low ratio by reducing n-6 than by increasing the oxidation-prone n-3.

Here is a good treatment of the relationship between membrane HUFA content and maximum lifespan. Note that I am absolutely not arguing for getting less n-3 than needed to obtain a low n-6/n-3 ratio. I'm arguing that it's better to reduce the need for n-3 by consuming less n-6. We still need a low ratio. Dietary consumption doesn't have a large effect on membrane composition, but still, I'd rather not push it in the wrong direction.

[Werner]

"Excess" as in more n-3 than needed to balance n-6. We should also make a distinction between PUFA and HUFA (Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acids); the common HUFA are EPA, DHA, and arachidonic acid. The oxidation propensity of unsaturated fatty acids increases exponentially with double bond count. In this regard, linoleic (n-6, 2 double bonds) is actually better than linolenic (ALA, n-3, 3 double bonds) and of course the HUFA are terrible. Looking across species, there is a direct relationship between the HUFA content of membranes and longevity; more HUFA = shorter lifespan.

Having a substantial excess of dietary n-6 is very bad; there's no argument there. Adding n-3 can correct the problem, but I would argue that it would be better to reduce the n-6, thus reducing the need for more oxidation-prone unsaturated oils. Everyone needs an adequate amount of all essential fatty acids, but using vast excesses, for example, taking 10-15 grams of fish oil/day for nootropic effects is a dangerous long term practice.

What is excess? For infants there are recommendations as low as 1.4:1.
Is that too low? Maybe, but one thing is very clear: The ratio of 90% of
Western people is way too high with all its consequences.
Again, HUFAs = EPA and DHA are very useful in avoiding or combatting
diseases. More HUFA = shorter lifespan? Never heard that. Do you have
anythin supporting this?

"Excess" as I describe it above refers to the absolute quantity of n-3 consumed. A low ratio of n-6 to n-3 is good, but it's better to obtain a low ratio by reducing n-6 than by increasing the oxidation-prone n-3.

Here is a good treatment of the relationship between membrane HUFA content and maximum lifespan. Note that I am absolutely not arguing for getting less n-3 than needed to obtain a low n-6/n-3 ratio. I'm arguing that it's better to reduce the need for n-3 by consuming less n-6. We still need a low ratio. Dietary consumption doesn't have a large effect on membrane composition, but still, I'd rather not push it in the wrong direction.

We are talking about different things.
You mean HUFAs in cell membranes or in the brain which
are prone to peroxidation.
I mean HUFA intake trough nutrition. The advantage of these
HUFAs is their metabolism that consumes the same enzymes
as arachidonic acid and prevents the building of damaging
cytokines. No matter what composition cell membranes have.

[The Immortalist]

Proponents of the raw food diet (which I also see benefits for) would argue that feasting on meat (cooked) is toxic for the body. AGEs?

Do you have an opinion on this?

The only reason I ask is because I'd imagine it is pretty tricky doing the ketogenic thing if you try to avoid meat. Even nuts seem to contain sufficient amounts of carbs so would be very suitable as a stand in.

Instead of eating the meat cooked you could eat it raw. You would have to be very careful though about choosing which meats to eat raw.

[niner]

"Excess" as I describe it above refers to the absolute quantity of n-3 consumed. A low ratio of n-6 to n-3 is good, but it's better to obtain a low ratio by reducing n-6 than by increasing the oxidation-prone n-3.

Here is a good treatment of the relationship between membrane HUFA content and maximum lifespan. Note that I am absolutely not arguing for getting less n-3 than needed to obtain a low n-6/n-3 ratio. I'm arguing that it's better to reduce the need for n-3 by consuming less n-6. We still need a low ratio. Dietary consumption doesn't have a large effect on membrane composition, but still, I'd rather not push it in the wrong direction.

We are talking about different things.
You mean HUFAs in cell membranes or in the brain which
are prone to peroxidation.
I mean HUFA intake trough nutrition. The advantage of these
HUFAs is their metabolism that consumes the same enzymes
as arachidonic acid and prevents the building of damaging
cytokines. No matter what composition cell membranes have.

No, we are both talking about n-3 consumption, as well as (particularly, in fact) the consumption of both n-3 and n-6 HUFA. Dietary consumption affects the content of our membranes. Read the part that I put in bold above. I'm saying that people shouldn't drink large quantities of fish oil, or flax oil, (or linoleic acid), as though it had no downside risk.

[The Immortalist]

My diet is paleo plus, because I do include dairy (goat when possible, and never anything but whole fat diary). Luckily dairy doesn't appear to negatively impact my health markers--especially my inflammation markers (which are rock bottom low).

I do eat a relatively high-fat diet simply because fat is a less destructive fuel (in terms of metabolic waste, and glycation issues). Plus, it's the perfect endurance energy fuel for maintaining relatively high and unchanging energy throughout the day, avoiding the ups-n-downs typical of relying on carbs as fuel.

Most well known people on a paleo diet, like all of the bloggers I know, including Sisson, De Vany and Richard Nikoley, all would benefit greatly by also incorporating hormones and more supplements into their health program. I also don't get the impression that they do extensive blood and body tests.

Dairy is really NOT a good nutrition.
With dairy you have the problem of A1 beta casein. "In the Western world...dairy
has become one of the most inflammatory foods", Dr. David Jockers).

Relating to fat you have to distinguish the type of fat and that there is maximum
level to respect. Otherwise, the longterm effect will be desastrous.
Look at Atkins and his diet. Protein and saturated fat, more or less no carbs.
Its a diet for people who wish to die.

The problem with carbs is that there are good carbs and bad carbs. You
should avoid bad carbs and take good carbs, as fruits. Avoid sugar added food.

What about whey protein supplements? Anything bad in that?

Edited by The Immortalist, 12 December 2011 - 01:30 AM.

[The Immortalist]

BTW, all of our organs run better (and cleaner -- with less metabolic damage) on fat. Again, the one exception is our brain, which runs best on a 50/50 mix of fat and glucose. But, this is NOT a reason to eat carbs, because our body can make all the glucose the brain needs from the protein we ingest. We can live our entire lifetime without consume a gram of carbs. Yet we will quickly die if we do not consume fat and/or proteins.

Burning fat does not create most of this waste by-product, and leaves the brain free of intercellular gunk.

Why do plaques not form on the walls of the arteries while on a high fat low carb diet? Do plaques still form to a certain extent? Are you immune from heart disease on paleo or is the risk just reduced?

Why does burning fat not create as much waste products as does carbs or protein?

[hivemind]

What about whey protein supplements? Anything bad in that?

Whey stimulates insulin release.

[The Immortalist]

What about whey protein supplements? Anything bad in that?

Whey stimulates insulin release.

So does all protein.

[hivemind]

What about whey protein supplements? Anything bad in that?

Whey stimulates insulin release.

So does all protein.

Not as much, if I remember correctly.

Edited by hivemind, 12 December 2011 - 04:24 AM.

[hivemind]

Nice quotes.

Forum admin should set the "stop quote embedding" to "Yes" from the admin-panel.

We tried something like that, and it basically sucks.

No it doesn't. You don't need quoted quotes. One quote is enough. It sucks when you have to start editing those quotes manually.

[DukeNukem]

BTW, all of our organs run better (and cleaner -- with less metabolic damage) on fat. Again, the one exception is our brain, which runs best on a 50/50 mix of fat and glucose. But, this is NOT a reason to eat carbs, because our body can make all the glucose the brain needs from the protein we ingest. We can live our entire lifetime without consume a gram of carbs. Yet we will quickly die if we do not consume fat and/or proteins.

Burning fat does not create most of this waste by-product, and leaves the brain free of intercellular gunk.

Why do plaques not form on the walls of the arteries while on a high fat low carb diet? Do plaques still form to a certain extent? Are you immune from heart disease on paleo or is the risk just reduced?

Why does burning fat not create as much waste products as does carbs or protein?

A higher fat diet can still lead to plaque build-up if the fat ratio is inflammatory, which can happen with the consumption of hydrogenated fats and polyunsaturated fats. The key is to avoid the formation of small particle LDLs, which happens on a high glucose (aka carb) diet, or a diet with too much inflammatory fat.

I'm not sure about the science behind why glucose creates more metabolic waste than fatty acids, but I've read this enough times in enough places to believe it is correct. Dr. Rosedale, for example, states this quite often in his writings.