Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Dingo Jellybean

Polyunsaturated, monounsaturated fats = bad fats

My general health has not been great for the past 13-14 months. While my acne has gotten much better, my overall health has gone down the tank. But I do want to say something about a huge misconception about fats. Often we're told that saturated fats cause insulin resistance, heart disease, etc...but if we've been told to avoid it for so long...why is heart disease still the #1 killer? Even in the case of aspirin and high blood pressure medications as well as statins?

The biggest bullshit has got to be that high cholesterol crap. Isn't the a big part of the brain's mass made of cholesterol? Anyone ever realize that people with the highest cholesterol had the lowest incidence of heart disease? Heck, even pharms tell you on the label that reducing cholesterol does not reduce risk of a heart attack or stroke.

But enough venting, I've done a lot of research by MAry Enig (an alum of my famed University of Maryland) who was one of the first people to warn against consumption of trans fats. She's basically your lipid expert. What's even more disturbing is that meat is continously becoming more unsaturated since animals are fed corn and soy. Additionally, I never understood partially hydrogenated coconut oil: pure virgin coconut oil remains stable for at least a year, there is no need to hydrogenate it since it is so rich in saturated fats. Even products that use butter can last for at least a year. When I saw that Lay's commercial about "100% sunflower oil, and only 1g of saturated fat with 0g trans fat" I just couldn't help but cry. Too many people fall for these bogus claims. Take Lay's Barbeque flavor, it does contains trans fat...but as we all know it goes around that notion because it has less than 500mg per serving. Personally I'd rather eat partially hydrogenated coconut oil instead of polyunsatured oil. While the body can make saturated fat from polyunsaturates, that's like saying you can take ALA instead of EPA/DHA.

Oh well...I'd be happy to debate the doubters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay please explain how monosaturated fats and all polyunsaturated fats are bad and tell me the link from trans fats to them. I agree with trans fats and saturated fats to a point but there is a lot of ranting and raving here and I don't quite understand the correlation between your title and your actual content.

please explain the link to heart disease and a high monounsaturated fat diet. I, and many nonagenarians around the Meditrranean would like to know.

please explain how omega 3 and GLA are bad for you? Explain how ALA is bad for you?

maybe you should learn to balance your polyunsaturated fats instead of telling everyone certain whole groups of fatty acids taht are essential to life are bad. It's not my fault you are taking in excessive omega 6 and blaming it on all polyunsaturated fats.

The reason virgin cocunt oil is so good is because it's saturated fats is mainly in the form of medium chain triglycerides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well your brain is supposed to have the highest concentrations of omega 3s

saturated fats are only bad in excess and in the absence of omega 3s.

Its really the absence of omega 3s and the excessive omega 6s that are gonna do it

Biomed Pharmacother. 2006 Nov;60(9):502-7. Epub 2006 Aug 28. Links

Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio and genetic variation: nutritional implications for chronic diseases .Simopoulos AP.

The Center for Genetics, Nutrition and Health, 2001 S Street, NW, Suite 530, 20009 Washington, DC, USA. [email protected]

Anthropological and epidemiological studies and studies at the molecular level indicate that human beings evolved on a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is 15/1 to 16.7/1. A high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promotes the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (a lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio), exert suppressive effects. Increased dietary intake of linoleic acid (LA) leads to oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), platelet aggregation, and interferes with the incorporation of EFA in cell membrane phospholipids. Both omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids influence gene expression. Omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory effects, suppress interleukin 1beta (IL-1beta), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), whereas omega-6 fatty acids do not. Because inflammation is at the base of many chronic diseases, dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids plays an important role in the manifestation of disease, particularly in persons with genetic variation, as for example in individuals with genetic variants at the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LO). Carotid intima media thickness (IMT) taken as a marker of the atherosclerotic burden is significantly increased, by 80%, in the variant group compared to carriers with the common allele, suggesting increased 5-LO promoter activity associated with the (variant) allele. Dietary arachidonic acid (AA) and LA increase the risk for cardiovascular disease in those with the variants, whereas dietary intake of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) decrease the risk. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is needed for the prevention and management of chronic diseases. Because of genetic variation, the optimal omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio would vary with the disease under consideration.

if there is anything that your are gonna modify in your diet, managing your fat intake may be the most important as it has a powerful effect on the body and many genes. go to pubmed and read up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, your black and white thinking mentality in the thread subject just adds disinformation to the equations.

What Legend said is about the truest thing in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, your black and white thinking mentality in the thread subject just adds disinformation to the equations.

What Legend said is about the truest thing in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't address anything I said.

How is poly and monounsaturated fats bad? I don't think you realize it's the ratio that's important. Much like many other things like potassium/sodium.

tens of millions of people in southern Europe eat a diet very high in monounsaturated fats and they live a very long time.

Nobody said saturated fats were bad you just made about 5 stupid blanket statements and haven't bothered to back any of them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay please explain how monosaturated fats and all polyunsaturated fats are bad and tell me the link from trans fats to them. I agree with trans fats and saturated fats to a point but there is a lot of ranting and raving here and I don't quite understand the correlation between your title and your actual content.

please explain the link to heart disease and a high monounsaturated fat diet. I, and many nonagenarians around the Meditrranean would like to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever wondered why we need partially hydrogenated soybean oil and peanut oil? Soy is high in PUFA and peanut is high in MUFA. If we don't hydrogenate them, they become rancid and oxidize very quickly. People look at Canola oil as healthy, but up to 4g per 14g tablespoon serving can become trans fat during cooking because it becomes rancid easily. Even if you ingest canola oil raw it quickly ozidizes within your body due to heat and oxygen.

As far as the MEditerranean diet goes, have you compared that diet to the traditional diet? Heart disease rates are even lower.

??? Are you agreeing with me about the lower heart disease incidence of the Mediterranean diet? Because it is very high in monounsaturated fats.

Fats are safe to cook with until they hit the smokig point. The saturated fats have a high heat tolerance yes but the fats that are high in oleic acid, MONOSATURATED FATS, have the highest smoking point by far. Much higher than lard, much higher than butter. Even the refined oils that are high in imega 6 are much higher than animal fats for cooking. I have no clue where you got your numbers from.

Although EFAs like EPA and DHA are good for you, I should have excluded them from conversation. But look at ALA, it can become trans fat when exposed to heat and becomes rancid when exposed to oxygen...that's why for flaxseed oil you always have to refrigerate them. ALA is so poorly converted to DHA and EPA and ALA becomes rancid so easily that you shouldn't even bother taking it. Even one tablespoon of cod liver oil is enough for the day in terms of unsaturate intake.

As far as Gamma LA is concerned, it is a polyunsaturate. It becomes rancid very quickly and often when consumed you have a lot of unnecessary PUFA along with it. The most abundant source is borage oil, but even then it makes up only 1/5 to 1/4 of the total FA content at the most.

Of all the 5 types of fats, PUFA just behind trans fats as the worst fats you can have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
??? Are you agreeing with me about the lower heart disease incidence of the Mediterranean diet? Because it is very high in monounsaturated fats.

Fats are safe to cook with until they hit the smokig point. The saturated fats have a high heat tolerance yes but the fats that are high in oleic acid, MONOSATURATED FATS, have the highest smoking point by far. Much higher than lard, much higher than butter. Even the refined oils that are high in imega 6 are much higher than animal fats for cooking. I have no clue where you got your numbers from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must "filter" whatever the weston price claims association because they're just a group with an agenda. The biggest problem of Westonprice foundation, Enig, Colpo and the others is what I call "half truths"

In other words what they say is not fundamentally wrong but the conclusions and their magnitute is. For example the westonprice foundation wrote an article saying how they found out that it's not less calories that increase longevity but less oxidation and that increased saturated fat intake decrease oxidation by activating certain "eloganse" enzymes. That would be all good if such effect wouldn't just been observed in animal studies (rat that have nothing to do with humans) and if the magnitude of the effect of the elongase enzyme is so little in human in normal conditions to be negligeable. That's like those that say that the human body can indeed turn sugar into fat forgetting that such a metabolic pathway is so awkaward and complex that the body does it only when there's a significant excess of calories

The idea that PUFA becomes rancid in our organism because the environment in your organism is the same at which fats become rancid is another HALF TRUTH ... actually it's pure nonsense

THERE'S NO STUDY EVER that found that even VERY HIGH PUFA consumption increase oxidation nor that fish oil increases oxidation (althought I do agree that several seeds oils are at an high risk for oxidation and it's always best to consume whole foods rich in PUFA than oils)

So let me repeat this again so it is clear enough. There's no evidence that high intake of dietary PUFA increase oxidation and oxidative stress in anyway. There's a small evidence as far as easily go rancid oils are concerned (and their shelf life is an important variable) but there's none as far as nuts, seeds, olives, avocados and fatty fish consumption are concerned.

Also the idea that there's a very BIG CHANGE in fat profiles of grass feed animals vs farm industry animals is another HALF TRUTH. Because the studies found the difference is not so big to allow people like Enig and Colpo to say what they're saying.

I don't have a stable connection right now but I'm going to ask you to check the actual studies yourself to see that

1) it's not true that a diet high in PUFA or MUFA (especially nuts, seeds, olives and fish) increase the in vivo oxidation or increase the level of oxidative stress

2) it's not true that the fat profile of grass feed vs. intensive farm is so drastic to allow (poorly-scientific) arguments that were consuming more saturated fat once and the increase in non-saturated fats is killing us. Pure pseudoscientific hallucination

What I'm going to say about the connection between cholesterol and saturated fat and heart disease is that

- Whoever claims there's any lipid between sat fats, cholesterol and heart disease is IGNORING half of the scientific literature

- Whoever claims that saturated fats and cholesterol are the only thing that matters as far as heart disease is concerned is IGNORING the other half

Zealots like westonprice, colpo or like willet and ornish are both as wrong as it gets

First of all heart disease is caused by inflamation and oxidation

Cholesterol needs to be oxidized to start an inflamatory atherogenic process

The higher the amount of cholesterol in the diet the higher the chances of oxidation

Saturated fats DO effect cholesterol levels by influencing the liver metabolism. It's a fact that saturated fats have an high cholesterolemic action. So if dietary cholesterol under most conditions (but not only) doesn't significatively influence serum cholesterol saturated fats do influence serum cholesterol

Not all saturated fats are the same. There are saturated fats that increase serum cholesterol by influencing liver metabolism. Stearic and oleic acids DON'T influence liver metabolism and don't therefore influence serum cholesterol and they're the most abundant fats in coconut oil

Hence what coconut oil and other kind of saturated fats do is not an argument to be extrapolated to all saturated fat and all saturated fat rich food

Saturated fats are pro-inflamatory. I don't know where the zealots get their fat that saturated fats are non-inflammatory but that may true in rats and other animals, saturated fats are

pro-inflamatory in humans. The PPARS in the nucleous of cells have different effects

The effects of PPARS-gamma are mostly negative

The effects of PPARS-alpha are of epatic nature and are positive

The effects of PPARS-beta are of muscle nature and are positive

Saturated fat (as well as an excess of n-6) mostly stimulated PPARS-gamma

Did I mention that what the folks at westonprice love to do is to lump together excess n-6, n-3 intake and saturated fat intake to come to very flawed conclusions?)

Insulin stimulates the synthesis of HMG-CoA reductase enzymes which control the epatic cholesterol synthesis. So chronically high insulin levels (which are not caused by carbs but according to insulin sensitivity levels of different people by diets too heavy on refined sugars and lacking in protein and essential fats) do are atherogenic

A well known condition when dietary cholesterol DO begins to effect serum cholesterol is when there's very little saturated fat in the diet. The higher the amount of saturated fats in the diet the lower the potential of dietary cholesterol to influence serum cholesterol, the lower the amount of saturated fats in the diet the higher the potential of dietary cholesterol to influence serum cholesterol

If that wasn't enough there's the forgotten "interaction" between factors

So that when you sum one factor with the other (for example unadequate protein, high fat cell saturation because of overweight, high inflamation because of obesity, high saturated fat intake from mostly palmitic acid, bad EFA intake and ratio too (because they do compete for the cell membrane fats unless you mean acid in your membranas, but it's n-3 the good one) high tryglicerides and so on ....) you get the worst scenario possible and multifacorial perspective that are hard to fully control and study

This is actually the tip of the iceberg

There's the underestimated effect of "stress" and cortisol production during digestion to the point that several stress relief means are known to decrease all the risk markers and decrease serum cholesterol level too

This is also another important point about those "paradox" countries (outside of the 6 country that Keys cherry picked in his study) that have high fat consumption and yet low obesity and heart disease incidence. To extrapolate this and say that this is just that evidence that we need to gulp down ton of saturate fat to be healthy otherwise we would be diet and WORSE DIET that saturate fat itself is the reason these people are healthy is hallucinated.

But the low-stress factor, leasure eating, lack of fast eating and eating in social context is definitely a big factor in their "paradox" especially on their weight since it's a matter of portions and you eat MORE when you're stressed than when you eat slowsly and at peace chatting about interesting and light topics with friends or family

The biggest errors made by the SatFat crow like Enig and company are

1) lumping all variables and factors together to reach the same conclusion

2) comparing poor diet of one kind with the best diet of the opposite kind

(this is typical of vegetarian comparing great vegetarian diets with terrible omnivores diets or of omnivores comparing great omnivorous diet with terrible vegetarian diets)

3) ignoring the importance of interaction between causes and con-causes

Most of their arguments besides are based on EPIDEMIOLOGY (which at best proves correlation not causation) but also to cherry picked epidemiology since they always point out to the epidemiological evidence that prove their point but never to the HALF ONE that contradict their point

The most important example is the flawed argument about serum cholesterol levels

They can "prove" that lower serum cholesterol levels are associated with greater mortality by comparing healthy people with high serum cholesterol levels (mostly genetics, let's not forget that there's a difference between genetically high serum cholesterol levels that remain the same no matter what you do and serum cholesterol levels that suddenly go up) to very sick people with low serum cholesterol levels.

This is ridicolous because most health conditions are conductive to lower cholesterol levels

This is especially seen in pathologies like cancer and tumors where the loss of weight, of immune system functions and of appetite is always conductive to lowering cholesterol levels

All of this is done by "ignoring" the sick people with "high cholesterol levels"

The logical flaw here is comparing two group inherently different: healthy vs diseased

Few studies that didn't do this but compared healthy with healthy found no greater morbidity, risk or mortality in the low cholesterol group compared to high cholesterol group BUT they didn't even find higher risk, mortality and morbidity in the high cholesterol group

Which just tells to us how extremely naive and flawed is to determine "healthy levels" through epidemiology (what the sat-fat crow does) rather than specific physiology evidence

Which leads to the most important counfonding factor among them all: BODY FAT

The most important factor in lowering risk markers (oxidation, inflammation) is losing excess BODY FAT. High saturated fats diet IMPAIR lipid profile and metabolism as long as they are hypo or hypercaloric. When they induce weight loss they also improve blood lipids

And again this leads to another "trick" loved by the straw-mans/women I have mentioned: comparing diets that cause fat loss by being hypocaloric to diet that are not designed to cause fat loss or even are increasing weight in the people consuming them

And again: when you eat "clean" you naturally consume more calories

It's not easy to get excessive calories without throwing up from meat or brown rice compared to how easy it is with chocolate candies

So the factor that most definitely interact with the other is body fat and body weight

Make your argument by cherry picking studies that show the effect of something in the face of fat loss and the effect of its opposite in the face of fat gain/maintenance and you've already created an argument wich is INHERENTLY AND DANGEROUSLY FLAWED but looks correct scientifically, hence the half-truth

If I hade to take all of this, all of the facts, the half-facts, the plain lies, the flawed comparisons, the poor epidemiology and had to summary what is known in two simple "rules of the thumb" I would say that

1) High cholesterol and high saturated fat intake in the face of pro-inflammatory diet, overweight, high level of oxidations and sedentary and refined crap nutrition ARE DANGEROUS

2) High cholesterol and high saturated fat intake in the face of low-imflammation diet and lifestyle, good weight composition, very anti-oxidative nutrition, proper level of activity and a diet balanced/clean enough ARE NOT AN ISSUE

Whatever Enig, Colpo, Willet, Ornish say are just extreme and flawed stances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×