Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, he means it as fact. Since everyone knows, the sun rises and sets on Ray Peat's whim. Ray Peat and Chuck Norris got into a fight once. Ray Peat's website is still up. Nuff said.
The whole "healthy fat" thing has become absurd. Now people are claiming that every fat of type is healthy....though ironically the only fats that are essential (polyunsaturated fats) often viewed the most negatively.
There are only 2 types of EFAs, linoleic acid and alpha-linoleic acid. The only one some people view negatively is linoleic acid. It's practically impossible to have a linolec acid deficiency, and there is some question as to the effects of the extremely high and historically-unprecedented consumption of linoleic acid in modern diets (from corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, etc.). I wouldn't consider linoleic acid "bad," since that is completely dependent on the amount, but it seems likely that there is far too much omega 6 in Western diets (and not enough omega 3).
Quote:
Abstract
Several sources of information suggest 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 15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and have excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences. These studies indicate that the optimal ratio may vary with the disease under consideration. This is consistent with the fact that chronic diseases are multigenic and multifactorial. Therefore, it is quite possible that the therapeutic dose of omega-3 fatty acids will depend on the degree of severity of disease resulting from the genetic predisposition. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well as in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of the world.
"Healthy fats" has just become a marketing gimmick. Coconut oil doesn't provide any healthy fats, coconut oil is almost entirely composed of saturated fat. The least "healthy" fat and one that is entirely unessential for one to consume, your body can create it.
Coconut oil is about 50% lauric acid, which greatly increases HDL and results in an improved total cholesterol/HDL ratio.
I don't think coconut oil is a miracle food, but there is absolutely no evidence that it has negative implications for heart disease.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 03-28-2013 at 01:26 PM..
The key thing for anyone is whether the nutrition program you use gets you the results you want, AND whether it is something that you can stick with as a lifestyle change. Too often people go on "diets" that are like holding your breath. You can do it for a while....but eventually you go out and gulp air...or down a box of donughts.
After trying out many different nutrtion programs over several decades of being athletically fit, it seems to me that there is no one perfect system that works for everyone. There are 6 billion people in the world and there are vast differences in the way different groups eat. In short, there are lots of ways to be fit and healthy. But...
There appear to be a few things that have a powerful impact on how much body fat people in the US seem to accumulate.
I've had great success with paleo for the past few years, and must admit that it has evolved to include some sugars - though of course not NEARLY as much as I would eat before. The thing that makes me wonder is that I have actually GAINED weight since being on paleo, going from an underweight 105 lbs at 5'6" to quite normal at 118 lbs (albeit years later). Now I am quite comfortable and think I'm digesting my food much better so that may have a bit to do with the accumulation of body fat.
There are only 2 types of EFAs, linoleic acid and alpha-linoleic acid. The only one some people view negatively is linoleic acid. It's practically impossible to have a linolec acid deficiency, and there is some question as to the effects of the extremely high and historically-unprecedented consumption of linoleic acid in modern diets (from corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, etc.).
Its hard to be deficit in linolec acid in America today, but its not hard to be deficit in general. But still, we have the greatest need for linoleic acid yet its being labeled a "bad fat" by some....its just a bit ironic given that its absolutely essential to consume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
Coconut oil is about 50% lauric acid, which greatly increases HDL and results in an improved total cholesterol/HDL ratio.
It doesn't "greatly" increase HDL, there is a mild association with increased HDL. But increased HDL, in itself, doesn't mean much. Increased fat consumption will in most cases increase HDL....its one of the ways your body deals with dietary fat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
but there is absolutely no evidence that it has negative implications for heart disease.
That isn't true, there is plenty of evidence implicating saturated fat intake with heart disease and there has yet to be any serious studies that show that coconut oil is somehow immune from this.
Its hard to be deficit in linolec acid in America today, but its not hard to be deficit in general. But still, we have the greatest need for linoleic acid yet its being labeled a "bad fat" by some....its just a bit ironic given that its absolutely essential to consume.
Anyone who says it's a "bad" fat is ignorant. The question is not whether it's a "good" or "bad" fat, the question is what is the optimal amount in the diet. According to Paracelsus "all things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison." Too much or too little are both bad, and there is some evidence to suggest that Americans on average are consuming far too much.
"Essential" just means the body lacks the enzymes to synthesize it from other lipids. Vitamin A cannot be produced by the body either, but if you take 200,000 IUs a day it's toxic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
It doesn't "greatly" increase HDL, there is a mild association with increased HDL. But increased HDL, in itself, doesn't mean much. Increased fat consumption will in most cases increase HDL....its one of the ways your body deals with dietary fat.
I would not call it a slight association.
Quote:
Lauric acid markedly increases cholesterol, whereas stearic acid lowers it somewhat when it is used to replace carbohydrates. However, the picture reverses if one looks at total:HDL cholesterol: both lauric and stearic acid are now more favorable than carbohydrates. Lauric acid—a major component of tropical oils such as coconut and palm kernel fat—has the largest cholesterol-raising effect of all fatty acids, but much of this is due to HDL cholesterol. As a result, lauric acid had a more favorable effect on total:HDL cholesterol than any other fatty acid, either saturated or unsaturated.
According to William Castelli, former director of the Framingham Heart Study, total cholesterol:HDL ratio is the best predictor of heart disease, and he's hardly alone in this thinking.
Quote:
Well see, LDL is not going to help you identify those people the best. In fact, you're going to have to go to this ratio of the total (cholesterol) divided by the HDL, which is the best predictor. And see in the early, in the mid '70s when we finally did get outcome data on what we had measured starting in the mid '60s in Framingham, we had the best statisticians from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. And one of them, Tavia Gordon, of course, went and looked at all these different measures - LDL and total cholesterol and HDL and triglycerides and that ratio - to find out which one would predict the best. Well, see it wasn't LDL like our guidelines would have you believe. And HDL way out-predicted LDL. But it was actually that total (cholesterol):HDL ratio. And you know not everyone wanted to accept that. And Ernie Schaefer's group at Tufts once took the 44,000 people that had been in all the most recent trials lowering cholesterol and lipids and changing the lipids and so on, and asked the question, "Which lipid change explained the fall in the heart attack rate the best?" Was it the total cholesterol, the fall in total cholesterol? Well, no, but it helped. Was it the fall in the LDL like the majority of our lipid experts would say? No, and it wasn't quite as good as the fall in total (cholesterol). The fall in triglycerides helped, but it wasn't the best. The rise in HDL out-predicted the fall in LDL by a lot,
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
That isn't true, there is plenty of evidence implicating saturated fat intake with heart disease and there has yet to be any serious studies that show that coconut oil is somehow immune from this.
Actually, there isn't. There are a lot of studies showing that saturated fat intake increases LDL compared to PUFAs, and to a much lesser extent, MUFAs. But the LDL increase comes from Apo-A particles, it does not increase the smaller and much more dangerous Apo-B particles, and it also increases HDL. So the total effect on the most relevant lipid markers (total:HDL and LDL particle size) is pretty neutral and similar to MUFAs.
There is a very good interview with Ron Krauss here about this:
Ron Krauss is "Senior Scientist and Director of Atherosclerosis Research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Medicine at UCSF and in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at UC Berkeley, and Guest Senior Scientist in the Department of Genome Sciences of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory."
And these are just markers. CVD and CHD are not very well understood diseases. The link between saturated fat and actual CHD/CVD events is actually fairly weak, with a lot of studies and meta-analyses failing to show a link.
Furthermore, there is a wide range of saturated fatty acids, with carbon chains ranging from 3 to 36, that have wildly varying effects in the body. They cannot all be lumped into a single category when it comes to effects in the body just because they all have no double-bonded carbon atoms.
I suspect that the same people telling you coconuts are bad for you are the same people who 20-30 years ago were telling you avocados and nuts were bad for you.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 03-29-2013 at 01:10 AM..
As far as the paleo diet goes, I disagree with the reasoning behind certain things and with the exclusion of some foods, but it's a major improvement over a typical American diet. At least it excludes what is far and away the biggest problem with typical western diets- refined carbohydrates and sugar. That alone makes it a lot better than a typical American diet. I couldn't do without nightshades though (and not all exclude these anyway).
"Essential" just means the body lacks the enzymes to synthesize it from other lipids. Vitamin A cannot be produced by the body either, but if you take 200,000 IUs a day it's toxic.
Yes, and lacking the enzymes makes it essential that you consume it. Vitamin A can be produced by the body from beta-carotene, humans unlike some other animals (e.g., carnivores) cannot detoxify Vitamin A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
According to William Castelli, former director of the Framingham Heart Study, total cholesterol:HDL ratio is the best predictor of heart disease, and he's hardly alone in this thinking.
It is a well know biomarket for heart disease, but that doesn't conflict with anything I said. The people in the Framingham heart study all have pretty similar diets, in that context the ratio may be really predictive but that doesn't mean its predictive in general (i.e., when you consider a larger range of eating patterns). Also, the fact that its predictive doesn't tell you about whether manipulating the variable will be effective. That is, just because the total cholesterol/HDL ratio is predictive of heart disease doesn't mean that manipulating the ratio by eating more of a certain fat or by taking a drug that you'll achieve the same risk profile.
The study that you're quoting doesn't say much, they are looking at what happens when you swap those fats for "carbohydrates" (undoubtedly refined carbohydrates and refined sugar....). This recent competition between junk carbs and junk fat is amusing though....
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
There are a lot of studies showing that saturated fat intake increases LDL compared to PUFAs, and to a much lesser extent, MUFAs. But the LDL increase comes from Apo-A particles, it does not increase the smaller and much more dangerous Apo-B particles, and it also increases HDL. So the total effect on the most relevant lipid markers (total:HDL and LDL particle size) is pretty neutral and similar to MUFAs.
Nobody dies off lipid markers, they die of heart disease. If you want to know the effects of eating a lot of saturated fat you need to look at health outcomes not lipid markers. There are numerous studies that link saturated fat intake with increase rates of heart disease, mentioning studies that show some "positive" shifts in lipid profiles don't refute these studies.
The only reason people think nuts and avocados are "healthy" today is due to successful marketing campaigns, the underlying science hasn't changed much.
Regardless, there is nothing healthy about coconut oil. Its almost entirely saturated fat and contains very few nutrients, its isolated grease.....
I couldn't do without nightshades though (and not all exclude these anyway).
That's actually not part of the paleo plan. Those people are following the autoimmune protocol, it just so happens that it kind of goes hand in hand for people using paleo to alleviate autoimmune conditions, since nightshades can really irritate their stomachs.
It is a well know biomarket for heart disease, but that doesn't conflict with anything I said. The people in the Framingham heart study all have pretty similar diets, in that context the ratio may be really predictive but that doesn't mean its predictive in general (i.e., when you consider a larger range of eating patterns). Also, the fact that its predictive doesn't tell you about whether manipulating the variable will be effective. That is, just because the total cholesterol/HDL ratio is predictive of heart disease doesn't mean that manipulating the ratio by eating more of a certain fat or by taking a drug that you'll achieve the same risk profile.
I agree to an extent here, but since the process of the disease is poorly understood, that is the primary method that doctors use to try to limit the disease, and it is at least somewhat effective. There is some debate over whether these markers are more a symptom of the disease rather than an underlying cause, but doing things that produce more favorable markers tends to be fairly effective in reducing negative outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The study that you're quoting doesn't say much, they are looking at what happens when you swap those fats for "carbohydrates" (undoubtedly refined carbohydrates and refined sugar....). This recent competition between junk carbs and junk fat is amusing though....
That study did not only look at swapping SFAs for carbohydrates, it also looked at cis-monounsaturated (omega 9) fats and cis-polyunsaturated (omega 6) fats. The only "junk fat" is trans fats. The rest are only bad when consumed in excess of the correct amounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Nobody dies off lipid markers, they die of heart disease. If you want to know the effects of eating a lot of saturated fat you need to look at health outcomes not lipid markers. There are numerous studies that link saturated fat intake with increase rates of heart disease, mentioning studies that show some "positive" shifts in lipid profiles don't refute these studies.
The bold part is correct. But the link between saturated fat and lipid profiles is usually what is used to argue that saturated fats are harmful because the evidence regarding health outcomes is mostly weak and inconsistent. I've been reading the scientific literature regularly for years and the evidence does not say what you think it does.
Here's a recent example.
Quote:
But in the new analysis, which combined the results of 21 previous studies, researchers found no clear evidence that higher saturated fat intakes led to higher risks of heart disease or stroke.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may sound like good news for steak lovers, but a past AHA president cautioned against "over interpreting" the results.
"No one is saying that some saturated fat is going to harm you...people should enjoy their food," said Dr. Robert H. Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver. But, he pointed out, many studies have shown that dietary saturated fat can raise people's cholesterol
No link found between saturated fat and cardio health outcomes, but it still raises total cholesterol.
Here are some more examples:
Quote:
Results Strong evidence supports valid associations (4 criteria satisfied) of protective factors, including intake of vegetables, nuts, and “Mediterranean” and high-quality dietary patterns with CHD, and associations of harmful factors, including intake of trans–fatty acids and foods with a high glycemic index or load. Among studies of higher methodologic quality, there was also strong evidence for monounsaturated fatty acids and “prudent” and “western” dietary patterns. Moderate evidence (3 criteria) of associations exists for intake of fish, marine ω-3 fatty acids, folate, whole grains, dietary vitamins E and C, beta carotene, alcohol, fruit, and fiber. Insufficient evidence (≤2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat; α-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk. Among the dietary exposures with strong evidence of causation from cohort studies, only a Mediterranean dietary pattern is related to CHD in randomized trials. Conclusions The evidence supports a valid association of a limited number of dietary factors and dietary patterns with CHD. Future evaluation of dietary patterns, including their nutrient and food components, in cohort studies and randomized trials is recommended.
Quote:
Abstract
Given the large social impact of dietary advice, it is important that the advice have a solid scientific basis. Evidence-based dietary advice should be built on results from all studies available, according to a given methodology. Conclusions should be a valid representation of the summarized results. The association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease was examined. Results from three reports of leading U.S. and European advisory committees were compared with results as they were presented in the articles referred to. Findings were put into perspective with results not included in these reports. Different lines of evidence were included in the different reports. No overlap whatsoever was found in the articles included. Most results from the scientific literature were lacking for most different lines of evidence in all reports. All three reports included the effect of saturated fat on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the evidence linking saturated fat to cardiovascular disease, but the effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was systematically ignored. Both U.S. reports failed to correctly describe the results from the prospective studies. Results and conclusions about saturated fat intake in relation to cardiovascular disease, from leading advisory committees, do not reflect the available scientific literature.
Quote:
Current dietary recommendations advise reducing the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but recent findings question the role of SFAs. This expert panel reviewed the evidence and reached the following conclusions: the evidence from epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies is consistent in finding that the risk of CHD is reduced when SFAs are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). In populations who consume a Western diet, the replacement of 1% of energy from SFAs with PUFAs lowers LDL cholesterol and is likely to produce a reduction in CHD incidence of ≥2–3%. No clear benefit of substituting carbohydrates for SFAs has been shown, although there might be a benefit if the carbohydrate is unrefined and has a low glycemic index. Insufficient evidence exists to judge the effect on CHD risk of replacing SFAs with MUFAs. No clear association between SFA intake relative to refined carbohydrates and the risk of insulin resistance and diabetes has been shown. The effect of diet on a single biomarker is insufficient evidence to assess CHD risk. The combination of multiple biomarkers and the use of clinical endpoints could help substantiate the effects on CHD. Furthermore, the effect of particular foods on CHD cannot be predicted solely by their content of total SFAs because individual SFAs may have different cardiovascular effects and major SFA food sources contain other constituents that could influence CHD risk. Research is needed to clarify the role of SFAs compared with specific forms of carbohydrates in CHD risk and to compare specific foods with appropriate alternatives.
Quote:
Abstract
Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased. Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect the limitations or controversies in the science. An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The only reason people think nuts and avocados are "healthy" today is due to successful marketing campaigns, the underlying science hasn't changed much.
Are you saying they aren't healthy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Regardless, there is nothing healthy about coconut oil. Its almost entirely saturated fat and contains very few nutrients, its isolated grease.....
The bold part, you could say the same about extra virgin olive oil or fish oil. It's better to consume fish rather than fish oil, or coconut milk rather than coconut oil, or olives rather than olive agree. I agree there.
Since you say only health outcomes matter, can you provide some studies showing negative health outcomes associated with (unhydrogenated) coconut oil?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
