• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Polyunsaturated Fat In The American Diet: Past & Present.

pufa arachidonic acid saturated fat metabolic syndrom inflammation american diet

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 misterE

  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:44 PM


This will be different from my other post that looked at how the American diet has changed overall since 1909 [1]. This post will focus on polyunsaturated-fat consumption over the last 105 years. And all the information was taken from here [2].

What I did was I went back and compared staple foods from 1909 to current staple foods. And we are going to look at the stark difference, not in the type of food, but rather the composition. I’m excluding fruits and vegetables, because the amount hasn’t changed much (albeit some).

What is interesting is that staple foods popular in 1909 no longer hold such popularity nowadays and vice-versa. Below is a list of foods from each time-period. The foods from 1909 have all decreased overtime, while the foods below have all increased.

1909 diet:
Beef
Beans
Grains
Potatoes
Milk
Butter

21st century diet:
Poultry
Pork
Nuts
Soybeans
Vegetable-oil
Cheese

Can anyone tell the major difference from the two diets? The 1909 diet is much lower in polyunsaturated-fat than our modern-diet.

Beef was the most popular-meat back in 1909 and was the main meat consumed, now days chicken is nearly as popular as beef increasing 5 fold over the past 105 years. Poultry and pork is different from beef in that the composition of their diet determines the fat composition of the poultry or pork.

Now days they are fed corn and soybeans which increases the amount of polyunsaturated-fat in the animals, and the type of polyunsaturated-fat produced by animals is the worst kind of all, called arachidonic-acid (AA).

Cows are ruminant-animals and they are able to saturate everything inside the rumen, so it doesn’t matter what you feed them, they will always produce food of the same composition… beef still does contain some AA however, just nowhere near as much as poultry, eggs, pork or farmed-fish, which are fed corn and soybeans and they convert that omega-6 oil into AA.

All of the food products made from cattle (like milk and their meat) is naturally low in polyunsaturated-fats, due to the hydrogenation that takes place in the rumen, so cooking fats (butter and tallow) from the early 1900’s were also low in polyunsaturated-fats.

The consumption of nuts doubled during the last 105 years, whereas in1909 nuts were only available during the fall season, and now today nuts are available all season long and in vast quantities. While considered a healthy snack, nuts are fairly high in polyunsaturates compared to starches like white-rice, pinto-beans or sweet-potatoes. Peanuts and almonds also contain one of the highest omega-6 to omega-3 ratios too.

Soybeans and their oil are mainly found in processed-food and fried-food. Crackers, cookies, cakes, pastries, salad-dressings, condiments, cereals, even bread, all contain soybean-oil and soybean byproducts. Fryer-grease in most restaurants and fast-food joints are all used with polyunsaturated-oils (canola, corn, soybean, cottonseed, etc) and used to cook food with because of how cheap they are. The fast-food, processed-food and restaurant industries can save lots of money by using them cheap oils like that.

Fried fish and fried chicken are probably two of the foods that contain the most AA, and are often consumed alongside with potatoes fried in vegetable-oil.

The consequences of a high polyunsaturated-fat diet are that polyunsaturated-fats trigger torpor (or a reduced metabolism similar to what you see in hibernating animals). The intricacy of this can be explored more in depth here [3]. Animals with the longest longevity are found to have very little polyunsaturated-fatty-acids incorporated in their cells. The higher the percentage of polyunsaturated-fat stored in adipose-tissue, the more free-radicals are produced and the higher likelihood of adipocyte lipolysis. Once released polyunsaturated FFA’s inhibit hormone transport and activate eicosanoid production (like thromboxane-A2).

The level of saturated-fat has remained relatively stable since 1909, while that of polyunsaturated-fat has taken a noticeable climb. I find this very compelling and I think there is a metabolic consequence one way or another as the result of such a novel dietary change.



[1] http://www.longecity...t-past-present/

[2] http://www.cnpp.usda...ly1909-2000.pdf

[3] http://www.longecity...aling-hormones/

Edited by misterE, 30 March 2014 - 07:53 PM.

  • like x 5
  • dislike x 2

#2 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 01 April 2014 - 03:22 PM

When I saw the title of this post I was optimistic that you were going to post something I agreed with. I am disappointed. The total PUFAs in beef, chicken, pork, etc has not changed significantly due to the shift from grass fed to grain feed/finished. What has changed and is a big deal is the ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 PUFAs. (although I do agree that the shift from beef to chicken has increased total PUFAs in the average diet, it is a misdirection to the more important issue of altered Omega ratios in meat). I mitigate the problem with unbalanced Omega ratios by eating a lot of Omega 3s in the form of salmon and shellfish, grass finished beef, high Omgea 3 eggs, and supplementing with fish and krill oils. I estimate my n-6/n-3 ratio to be about 1.4-1, as opposed to the typical American ratio of greater than 10-1.
And contrary to what you say, animal processed Omega 3s are far superior to plant based Omega 3s. Plant based Omega 3s come exclusively in the form of ALA, which is converted by humans in into EPA and DHA (which are useful to Humans), but is done so at a very inefficient rate, as little as 5% for non vegetarian males. One can come close to balancing their Omega ratios if they are vegan only because their consumption of Omega 6 is so small, that the low serum Omega 6 concentration does not compete so significantly for the enzymes needed to convert ALA to DHA and EPA. If one is an omnivore, eating plant foods high in Omega 3 such as flax or nuts is not an effective means of balancing one's Omega ratios.

Edited by JohnD60, 01 April 2014 - 03:44 PM.

  • like x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 bracconiere

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Az
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2014 - 10:02 PM

When I saw the title of this post I was optimistic that you were going to post something I agreed with. I am disappointed. The total PUFAs in beef, chicken, pork, etc has not changed significantly due to the shift from grass fed to grain feed/finished. What has changed and is a big deal is the ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3 PUFAs. (although I do agree that the shift from beef to chicken has increased total PUFAs in the average diet, it is a misdirection to the more important issue of altered Omega ratios in meat). I mitigate the problem with unbalanced Omega ratios by eating a lot of Omega 3s in the form of salmon and shellfish, grass finished beef, high Omgea 3 eggs, and supplementing with fish and krill oils. I estimate my n-6/n-3 ratio to be about 1.4-1, as opposed to the typical American ratio of greater than 10-1.
And contrary to what you say, animal processed Omega 3s are far superior to plant based Omega 3s. Plant based Omega 3s come exclusively in the form of ALA, which is converted by humans in into EPA and DHA (which are useful to Humans), but is done so at a very inefficient rate, as little as 5% for non vegetarian males. One can come close to balancing their Omega ratios if they are vegan only because their consumption of Omega 6 is so small, that the low serum Omega 6 concentration does not compete so significantly for the enzymes needed to convert ALA to DHA and EPA. If one is an omnivore, eating plant foods high in Omega 3 such as flax or nuts is not an effective means of balancing one's Omega ratios.


Not sure if this matters to you, but the government's recommendation of omega-3's is based on ALA. Not that their 1.6/17g, sounds good. But I've read somewhere that you only need mg's of DHA EPA. Sounds like your od'ing on omega-3's.

But I agree with your thought that the ratio is important.

#4 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2014 - 11:49 PM




Plant based Omega 3s come exclusively in the form of ALA, which is converted by humans in into EPA and DHA (which are useful to Humans), but is done so at a very inefficient rate, as little as 5% for non vegetarian males.



I believe this happens for a reason thou. EPA and DHA, while essential, are only so, in small amounts and the body has tight control over how much conversion takes places and how much it needs. The same is true with the conversion of linoleic-acid into AA. Perhaps the problem isn’t the low conversion rate, but rather we are supplying too much premade DHA and AA and bypassing the tight nit conversion process.

Edited by misterE, 01 April 2014 - 11:50 PM.

  • like x 1

#5 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2014 - 11:56 PM

But I agree with your thought that the ratio is important.







No doubt about it. The only same characteristic that all traditional-diets contain is an appropriate omega-3 to omega-6 ratio (1:5 or less). However keeping total-fat intake low allows you to better manage your ratio, and tends to keep total PUFA low at the same time.



Interestingly enough, two of the most powerful diets ever documented ( the Rice-diet and Gerson-diet) could be in part so beneficial and healing because of how low they both are in AA and other polyunsaturated-fats.


  • like x 1

#6 bracconiere

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Az
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2014 - 12:54 AM

Then we're in agreement :) I'm a mostly vegetarian and get mostly polyunsaturated fat, about 6g omega-3, from flax seed. And about 17g-20g omega-6, from sunflower seeds, and a tad bit of soybean oil for sautéing. My cholesterol is great at 86/HDL 89/LDL 71/Tri. And I'm not overweight, although I'd say that's more due to the fact that I use cron-o-meter and count calories.

I don't fully understand why your comparing the modern diet to the 1909 one though, there were a lot of fat people and they didn't live as long back then? I think, from the old pix I've seen. And they had to work a lot more to do stuff thus burning more calories and getting exercise. They also didn't have TV and a remote control, or video game consoles, the list probably is longer than that.

Edited by bracconiere, 02 April 2014 - 01:00 AM.


#7 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:27 AM

I don't fully understand why your comparing the modern diet to the 1909 one though, there were a lot of fat people and they didn't live as long back then?



The 1909 diet was how America ate before becoming rich and industrialized. It is a good way of looking back in time and seeing more of what our ancestors ate. The only reason we have increased lifespan today is because we have less infant mortality and death from childbirth.
  • like x 1

#8 bracconiere

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Az
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:33 AM

I don't fully understand why your comparing the modern diet to the 1909 one though, there were a lot of fat people and they didn't live as long back then?



The 1909 diet was how America ate before becoming rich and industrialized. It is a good way of looking back in time and seeing more of what our ancestors ate. The only reason we have increased lifespan today is because we have less infant mortality and death from childbirth.



I found this:

Five leading causes of death were:


1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke


http://blog.eogn.com...-year-1909.html


being that we have medicine for the first three now, that would make heart disease number one


I'm not sure where people get the idea that people were so much healthier in the past and model their diets after them. Since then we have researched what people need to eat (they barley knew about vitamins back then), how much is in what food, and a good idea at how much we need.


Edited by bracconiere, 02 April 2014 - 01:45 AM.


#9 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:12 AM

The only reason we have increased lifespan today is because we have less infant mortality and death from childbirth.


That is absolutely not true. The idea that little or no extra human lifespan has been gained other than by way of a reduction in infant mortality is a common myth, but there is good data from multiple countries that debunk the myth.

It's potentially a dangerous myth too, because denying the reality that we can and actually already have increased human lifespan beyond merely eliminating infant mortality, could influence people to have a less optimistic view of the potential for further future life extension. The truth is, we have already been in an era of continuous adult life-extension for the past century.

Here is data on Australian life expectancy, at different ages, from the 1880's through to the 2000's:

http://abs.gov.au/AU...tures10Mar 2011
[see the table under the heading "LIFE EXPECTANCY (ADDITIONAL YEARS OF LIFE) FOR PEOPLE AT SELECTED YEARS OF AGE"]

From that table:
In the period 1901-1910, remaining years of life for a 25 year old male = 40.6 years
In the period 2007-2009, remaining years of life for a 25 year old male = 55.2 years

So, taking only the figures for males(thereby eliminating death from childbirth from the equation), and using the years 1901-1910 (which is the decade you have selected for dietary comparison), the average 25 year old male (which eliminates infant mortality) has seen about 15 years added to their total lifespan during the past century.

Edited by Brett Black, 02 April 2014 - 02:57 AM.

  • like x 2

#10 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 April 2014 - 03:09 AM

I'm not sure where people get the idea that people were so much healthier in the past and model their diets after them. Since then we have researched what people need to eat (they barley knew about vitamins back then), how much is in what food, and a good idea at how much we need.


Life expectancy in most countries has been continuously rising for the past century or more too and there are no signs of it stopping.

#11 bracconiere

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Az
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2014 - 03:26 AM

I'm not sure where people get the idea that people were so much healthier in the past and model their diets after them. Since then we have researched what people need to eat (they barley knew about vitamins back then), how much is in what food, and a good idea at how much we need.


Life expectancy in most countries has been continuously rising for the past century or more too and there are no signs of it stopping.


?

medical technology to keep unhealthy people alive longer?

and, what countries are you referring to? I don't understand your point......Trickle down of medicine to third world to cure disease?

Edited by bracconiere, 02 April 2014 - 03:31 AM.


#12 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 April 2014 - 04:08 AM

Plant based Omega 3s come exclusively in the form of ALA,


Actually, algae contains DHA and vegetarian/vegan-suitable refined extracts are commercially available.

which is converted by humans in into EPA and DHA (which are useful to Humans), but is done so at a very inefficient rate, as little as 5% for non vegetarian males. One can come close to balancing their Omega ratios if they are vegan only because their consumption of Omega 6 is so small, that the low serum Omega 6 concentration does not compete so significantly for the enzymes needed to convert ALA to DHA and EPA. If one is an omnivore, eating plant foods high in Omega 3 such as flax or nuts is not an effective means of balancing one's Omega ratios.


I recall(but cannot find the references currently) that there is some experimentally-supported dispute regarding the nature (or even existence?) of enzymatic competition between Omega 3 and Omega 6.

#13 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:09 PM

Plant based Omega 3s come exclusively in the form of ALA,


Actually, algae contains DHA and vegetarian/vegan-suitable refined extracts are commercially available.

Interesting. I did not know that. But, I doubt there are many people eating algae as a regular part of their diet, They sure do not sell it at the whole foods near me, other than in pill form.

#14 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2014 - 10:07 PM

That is absolutely not true. The idea that little or no extra human lifespan has been gained other than by way of a reduction in infant mortality is a common myth


Not entirely true, but solving infant mortality was probably what really gave humans an increased life-expectancy. Sure, curing infectious diseases, famines, and doing less dangerous manual labor would help to increase the life-expectancy too.

#15 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 April 2014 - 01:49 AM


That is absolutely not true. The idea that little or no extra human lifespan has been gained other than by way of a reduction in infant mortality is a common myth


Not entirely true, but solving infant mortality was probably what really gave humans an increased life-expectancy.


I don't think the life exectancy data, at least for Australians, supports that view. Young adult males, a group at peak health, still gained a full two-thirds of the increase in life-expectancy seen in infants. You seem to be under estimating the improvements made in life-expectancy other than those due to infant mortality.

Life expectancy at birth, for a male, increased by ~25 years between 1910 and 2009.
Life expectancy at age 25, for a male, increased by ~15 years during the same period.

See the data in this table:
http://abs.gov.au/AU...tures10Mar 2011
(under the heading "LIFE EXPECTANCY (ADDITIONAL YEARS OF LIFE) FOR PEOPLE AT SELECTED YEARS OF AGE")



Edited by Brett Black, 03 April 2014 - 02:14 AM.


#16 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:59 AM

Posted Image
  • like x 1

#17 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:06 AM

I don't think the life exectancy data, at least for Australians, supports that view.






I agree that modern technology has made major advances in lifespan, but that is the main reason we have increased lifespan, not because we are eating healthier now than in 1909. Sure people didn’t eat perfect back then, but it was sure healthier than people do today (in terms of the type of food).
  • like x 1

#18 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:45 AM



I don't think the life exectancy data, at least for Australians, supports that view.






I agree that modern technology has made major advances in lifespan, but that is the main reason we have increased lifespan, not because we are eating healthier now than in 1909. Sure people didn’t eat perfect back then, but it was sure healthier than people do today (in terms of the type of food).


You're changing the subject. I was discussing (and proving incorrect) your claims that life expectancy gains are explained entirely (or overwhelmingly - you changed your wording in a subsequent post) by a reduction in infant mortality.

#19 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:47 AM

You think that life expectancy is increasing because we are eating a healthier diet, or what?

Edited by misterE, 03 April 2014 - 03:48 AM.

  • like x 1

#20 Brett Black

  • Guest
  • 353 posts
  • 174
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 April 2014 - 04:03 AM

You think that life expectancy is increasing because we are eating a healthier diet, or what?


I'm not sure.
  • dislike x 1

#21 bracconiere

  • Guest
  • 129 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Az
  • NO

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:32 PM

You think that life expectancy is increasing because we are eating a healthier diet, or what?



I think life expectancy went up because we have medicines for pneumonia, and the other top killers before heart disease, stroke.
I think most people eat about the same crap as always, and then the doctor will operate to keep them alive longer when their heart gives out, or a clot goes to their brain.

#22 Jeoshua

  • Guest
  • 662 posts
  • 186
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:44 PM

Think about it. Even as far back as before the birth of Christ, we had holy books talking about how God has given us all "4 score and 10". That's 70 years. That's still about the average, barring disease or accident. So how is it that a tribe of wandering shepherds in the desert had a life expectancy of 70+ years? Was it because they were special, as they seemed to think? Or is it much much more likely that when you take disease and accident out of the equation, people just generally live to around 70+ years?

Edited by Jeoshua, 03 April 2014 - 02:46 PM.


#23 Methodician

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 5
  • Location:SoCal
  • NO

Posted 01 May 2014 - 04:19 PM

I love egg yolks and avocados which are a primary source of n6 for me. They're both extremely healthy foods.

 

From what I have gathered there are two possibilities:

 

1) increasing n6 consumption and/or total PUFA consumption (even if balanced) has a slightly detrimental effect on maximum life span which may be offset by the nutrients found along side them

2) increasing n6 consumption (and to some extent total PUFA consumption) has a significant impact on health, longevity, and mortality markers which cannot be offset by the abundant nutrients often found along side them...

 

Either way, it seems pretty clear from the data I've observed that omega 6 is bad news bears except in quantities barely sufficient to meet your dietary requirements. The question is just how big of a deal is it, and is it worth fretting over n6 if that means you'll eat less of good foods like avocado, almond, and egg yolk? Personally, I've been see-sawing on my n6 consumption as I gather this info over the past couple years.

 

I'm quite certain that pumping your body full of fish oil to offset excessive n6 is not a good idea because n3 is even more highly oxidizable than n6. Balancing the ratio might help reduce systemic inflammation, but not oxidative stress.

Eating lots of plant-derived n3 is even more pointless because you're getting lots of highly oxidizable HUFA's and only converting a small fraction of it to a usable form.

 

I eat a relatively high fat diet (roughly splitting calories between carbs and fat, with a slight preference for fat) so this topic is of particular interest to me.



#24 misterE

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,035 posts
  • -76
  • Location:Texas
  • NO

Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:00 PM

Methodican, from what I can tell you... The lower the TOTAL fat intake is, the easier it is to manage your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio. Also, the lower the total-fat content, obviously the lower polyunsaturated-fats you will be storing within your body. I find (using cron-o-meter) that a diet based on grains, beans, fruits, vegetables and flaxseeds can give you that perfect balance along with a low overall polyunsaturated-fat intake.


  • like x 1

#25 Methodician

  • Guest
  • 45 posts
  • 5
  • Location:SoCal
  • NO

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:11 AM

I'm not ready to go vegan given my current knowledge of nutrition and longevity but I'm not beyond changing my mind if new information persuades me.

 

I'm currently avoiding most grains and legumes. I eat white rice in moderation and plan to re-introduce carefully prepared (soaked/fermented/sprouted) legumes in moderation.

 

I'd rather get my n3 from fish than flaxseeds at the moment.

 

The type of fiber found in flax and most grains/seeds irritates my gut beyond justification so I doubt I'll ever go back to a whole grain heavy diet. I get my fiber from fruits and certain veggies for now.

 

I have seriously considered going back to a carb-heavy diet, mainly to make PUFA's more managable. It's expensive and challenging to get lots of fat in without getting too much PUFA/n6, I must admit.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: pufa, arachidonic acid, saturated fat, metabolic syndrom, inflammation, american diet

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users