Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EFAs and their essentiality

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    My grandmother is a huge seafood fan. She loves shrimp, crabs, scallops and whitefish like tilapia and flounder. She doesn't like salmon, bluefish, tuna, mackerel or any of those "fishy" fish. I happen to enjoy all seafood without discrimination. My dad, however, doesn't like any of it. The texture is the biggest turnoff. I don't get it, but some people just truly don't like it. And I think that's fine. Seafood is generally healthy, I think it's delicious but completely unnecessary for health.
    I do think it's good to change up your protein sources both for the sake of not getting bored and for the sake of broad spectrum nutrient gathering. Some people have a bad experience with badly cooked fish early in life and then just close off their minds to it permanently. (Like school cafeteria fish sticks.) Seems rather a waste to me.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
      The b12 in yeast is not the b12 in meat, so is that true for the other B vitamins?
      I didn't think yeast had B12 at all. Just going by what nutritiondata.com says.

      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      Both.

      You don't need them, and it's impossible not to get them.
      Hope I don't get spears thrown at me for this...

      What about the eicosanoids produced from EPA and AA? A diet of only saturated fat apparently favours AA's prostaglandins. Supplementing with omega 3 apparently utilises more of the delta 5 desaturase enzymes so that we don't enter a state where only the 2 & 4 series prostaglandins are produced (pro-inflammatory). If we have some of the D5D being used to produce some of the 3 series PGs (less inflammatory) from EPA it apparently helps to make sure acute inflammation doesn't become chronic. I mean there's plenty of science that shows EFAs are beneficial for this disease and that disease... If they really were that bad I think there would be more evidence other than what a few bloggers express as their opinion (no offence). It just sounds like you've adopted this radical opinion that EFAs are bad and you're trying to hold on to it. First it was the "flawed" Burr study (not accounting for B5 & B6 deficiency that was being used to reinforce "EFAs are bad", clearly they were wrong as I said in my first post... I think I'm guna lean more towards what the majority of the science says unless MORE people can provide proof not just the usual 2 people (choco and paleobird), again not wishing to offend, they provide a lot of interesting info but it seems whenever something big is discussed on this forum it's always only those 2 that chime in with their opinion but not many others... If EFAs are so bad why do you eat meat and nuts? they contain PUFAs that are going "oxidize" in our warm bodies. I guess when I consider I've had an inflammatory problem between one or 2 of my ribs and sternum that started as acute in November 2012 when I stretched and something in my chest went click followed by pain, since then it hasn't gone away and has become chronic despite being pro paleo/anti PUFA & EFA since March. Maybe strictly paleo with sat. fat, no PUFA isn't working as well in me as others.

      Comment


      • #18
        Thank you all for this thread. Decision made, from this point forward I'm ditching any fish/krill oils and getting my goodness from seafood, which I love.

        Sweet, slowly all my supps have been ditched.. the only one I'm taking now is a Mag glycinate

        Much appreciation
        I don't believe there is one correct way of eating for everybody, and I don't believe there is one correct way of eating for a person through every stage of their life

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by danhaych View Post
          I didn't think yeast had B12 at all. Just going by what nutritiondata.com says.

          Hope I don't get spears thrown at me for this...

          What about the eicosanoids produced from EPA and AA? A diet of only saturated fat apparently favours AA's prostaglandins. Supplementing with omega 3 apparently utilises more of the delta 5 desaturase enzymes so that we don't enter a state where only the 2 & 4 series prostaglandins are produced (pro-inflammatory). If we have some of the D5D being used to produce some of the 3 series PGs (less inflammatory) from EPA it apparently helps to make sure acute inflammation doesn't become chronic. I mean there's plenty of science that shows EFAs are beneficial for this disease and that disease... If they really were that bad I think there would be more evidence other than what a few bloggers express as their opinion (no offence). It just sounds like you've adopted this radical opinion that EFAs are bad and you're trying to hold on to it. First it was the "flawed" Burr study (not accounting for B5 & B6 deficiency that was being used to reinforce "EFAs are bad", clearly they were wrong as I said in my first post... I think I'm guna lean more towards what the majority of the science says unless MORE people can provide proof not just the usual 2 people (choco and paleobird), again not wishing to offend, they provide a lot of interesting info but it seems whenever something big is discussed on this forum it's always only those 2 that chime in with their opinion but not many others... If EFAs are so bad why do you eat meat and nuts? they contain PUFAs that are going "oxidize" in our warm bodies. I guess when I consider I've had an inflammatory problem between one or 2 of my ribs and sternum that started as acute in November 2012 when I stretched and something in my chest went click followed by pain, since then it hasn't gone away and has become chronic despite being pro paleo/anti PUFA & EFA since March. Maybe strictly paleo with sat. fat, no PUFA isn't working as well in me as others.
          The B-12 in yeast is added to make vegans less likely to keel over from a deficiency.

          I think you misunderstood Choco. He wasn't saying that naturally occurring PUFAs are bad (although he does go a bit far on the nut phobia at times). His post was about not taking the extracted form in a pill. The Peatarians do go a bit far in demonizing any and all PUFA, IMO. They do the same thing they accuse LC eaters of doing, demonizing a sweet potato in the same category as a twinkie. A piece of fish and some nuts do not belong in the same category as soybean oil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
            So many of these people popping fish oil are going to have a rude awakening in the future. Remember - the reason why omega 6 is so problematic is because it's so highly prone to rancidity and oxidation.
            The term "oxidized" keeps being used as the reason supp. PUFA 3 & 6 oils are bad. But, now I'm not a biochemist or anything, just a student studying but it seems, if I've understood correctly there is another area of research about these oils aside from the pro-inflam eicosanoids from AA and the less-inflam eicosanoids from EPA and they are referred to as isoprostanes and I think isoPs from AA according to this article equals BAD but the isoPs from EPA down regulate the former and equals GOOD. These isoprostanes (F2 from AA and F3 from EPA) are not produced via the cyclooxygenase pathway but from "free radical oxidation" of the substrates. So maybe all this talk about these oils being so susceptible to oxidation is beside the point except in the case if the diet is mainly composed of AA producing foods. Free radical oxidation of EPA may better.

            The above article and also this article from this year might be worth a read, but a little difficult to understand.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              The B-12 in yeast is added to make vegans less likely to keel over from a deficiency.

              I think you misunderstood Choco. He wasn't saying that naturally occurring PUFAs are bad (although he does go a bit far on the nut phobia at times). His post was about not taking the extracted form in a pill. The Peatarians do go a bit far in demonizing any and all PUFA, IMO. They do the same thing they accuse LC eaters of doing, demonizing a sweet potato in the same category as a twinkie. A piece of fish and some nuts do not belong in the same category as soybean oil.
              I don't blanketly hate PUFA.

              Fish oil =/= fresh, wild fish.
              Nut and seed oils =/= fresh, raw nuts and seeds.

              However, I don't encourage nut consumption because they are extremely high calorie and deliver little nutrition per calorie. They have a higher caloric density than chocolate, making nuts more fattening than a good chocolate bar per weight. They are incredibly easy to overconsume, contain ten times the phytic acid of whole wheat flour and are a very potent allergen. If you are like me and responsible with your nut consumption - I really only eat them in homemade ice cream or homemade chocolates and the very rare salad topping making them maybe a handful a week on average - it's fine. If you're eating them every day, I'd reconsider my goals.

              What I am vehemently against is the use of nut meals for baking "paleo breads/cakes/cookies/etc." If you're going to grind your nuts into a meal/flour and expose them to oven temperatures, now you're highly oxidizing all that PUFA. That is ill-advised, and you're creating super high calorie junk food made of damaged, poor quality fats. Starch-based flours like masa harina, tapioca starch, potato starch and coconut flour are all far safer, far healthier options and have a lower calorie density as well. AND THEY ARE ALL A FRACTION OF THE COST!

              Make no mistake about it, meat, eggs, dairy, fruits and vegetables are pretty much always better than nuts and seeds, but if walnuts and pumpkin seeds are the worst thing in your diet, you're doing a pretty great job.
              Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-17-2013, 08:16 AM.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • #22
                People have been consuming cod liver oil for thousands of years. I know there are benefits beyond Omega 3's, but that packaging seems to have worked well.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by miata View Post
                  People have been consuming cod liver oil for thousands of years. I know there are benefits beyond Omega 3's, but that packaging seems to have worked well.
                  Considering that cod liver oil is a food-like product and not a food, I strongly doubt that. People may have eaten cod sporadically and may have consumed the liver, but to believe it was consumed in any regularity is insanity. Cod liver oil has been shown to promote cancer in dogs. I'll pass, thanks.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by danhaych View Post
                    The term "oxidized" keeps being used as the reason supp. PUFA 3 & 6 oils are bad. But, now I'm not a biochemist or anything, just a student studying but it seems, if I've understood correctly there is another area of research about these oils aside from the pro-inflam eicosanoids from AA and the less-inflam eicosanoids from EPA and they are referred to as isoprostanes and I think isoPs from AA according to this article equals BAD but the isoPs from EPA down regulate the former and equals GOOD. These isoprostanes (F2 from AA and F3 from EPA) are not produced via the cyclooxygenase pathway but from "free radical oxidation" of the substrates. So maybe all this talk about these oils being so susceptible to oxidation is beside the point except in the case if the diet is mainly composed of AA producing foods. Free radical oxidation of EPA may better.

                    The above article and also this article from this year might be worth a read, but a little difficult to understand.
                    Both are definitely interesting but that last article is from 2006, not this year.

                    Anyhow, I do like seeing those two magical words...in vivo . Showing that a fat susceptible to oxidation outside of the body at high heat really does nothing for me. How does it react in a live organism. Kind of like the saturated fat haters would point out that butter is solid at room temp so it MUST just behave the same way in the body clogging up all those pipes!

                    Not a statement for or against PUFA or anything. But lets keep things in perspective when we look at the data.
                    Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-17-2013, 11:48 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      I don't blanketly hate PUFA.
                      Fish oil =/= fresh, wild fish.
                      Nut and seed oils =/= fresh, raw nuts and seeds.
                      You do realize I was defending you and agreeing with you? Right?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        You do realize I was defending you and agreeing with you? Right?
                        Yes. I was agreeing with you and further explaining my position for danhaych's benefit so he understands it fully.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          Yes. I was agreeing with you and further explaining my position for danhaych's benefit so he understands it fully.
                          OK. Gotcha. Good. We just have an unfortunate tendency to jump on each other's post's assuming adversarial stances. Sometimes we actually agree on things.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X