Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

confusion about nuts

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

  • #91
    That's hardly the sort of evidence required to convince people to reduce their PUFA consumption to the level of deficiency.
    This brings up an important point. When animals eat little to no PUFA, they experience some radical benefits. But it seems to have a sort of plateau effect, such that eating more PUFA has a strongly negative effect up to a certain point, after which eating more PUFA has a weaker effect. But if people could get PUFA consumption down to "deficiency" levels they might see great benefits.
    My opinions and some justification

    Comment


    • #92
      Letting nut consumption go to the way side since we are saying "PUFA"....what evidence do you have that fish is toxic due to the excessive PUFA content? Like costal societies with severe mortality rates? Cause what I've seen seems to indicate the opposite. I.e. costal societies thrive and living the longest. Surely PUFA overload from all that fish would override any other healthy activities!

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Elliot View Post
        But if people could get PUFA consumption down to "deficiency" levels they might see great benefits.
        Based on what data? Human? I'm assuming that the word "might" indicates that you understand your views are purely hypothetical.

        Comment


        • #94
          Looking at coastal societies is observational, so it's hard to conclude anything. That being said, the Inuits ate lots of fish and they famously aged quickly. So that is some evidence.

          Regarding RCT's of fish oil, we had two big ones that really helped promote fish oil - DART and GISSI-PREVENZIONE. But both were flawed. DART was short. My claim is that PUFA are gradually harmful over a long period of time. 2 years is not long enough to see that. GISSI-PREVENZIONE was 3.5 years, which is slightly better, but it was also open-label, which is weird.

          Later studies of fish oil were unable to get the same results. A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that fish oil has an insignificant effect on mortality:
          http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...458-14-204.pdf

          But most of these studies are not long enough to see a difference. The effect is gradual.

          However, if you want one that really makes fatty fish look bad, here you go:
          European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Abstract of article: Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial

          EDIT:
          Based on what data? Human?
          Unfortunately, most of the evidence regarding "essential fatty acid deficiency" is done with animals. But it seems like similar mechanisms exist in humans, so I'm willing to assume that we would experience something similar.
          Last edited by Elliot; 04-25-2014, 09:12 PM.
          My opinions and some justification

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Elliot View Post
            My claim is that PUFA are gradually harmful over a long period of time. 2 years is not long enough to see that.
            How many years does it take? And what's the precise mechanism? Last time I asked, you wrote "Probably something to do with oxidation."

            Which, again, isn't the level of conviction I would expect from someone who believes we should reduce PUFA to deficiency level.

            Comment


            • #96
              Polyunsaturated fats can oxidize in a variety of ways. It's a random process so it varies. But one example would be acrolein. Acrolein is a product of lipid oxidation and it is generally recognized as toxic. Another example would be 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal. Accumulating these over time is probably not good.

              I think Alzheimer's disease is a good example. Alzheimer's involves decreased glucose metabolism in the brain, which would probably explain its symptoms. Maybe people with Alzheimer's can't think properly because their brain can't generate enough energy. Acrolein inhibits glucose metabolism and people with Alzheimer's disease tend to have more acrolein in their brains than regular people. So the acrolein probably contributes to the Alzheimer's and polyunsaturated fat provides the acrolein. But how long does it take to develop Alzheimer's disease? If they wanted to prove this with a randomized trial it would need to last decades.

              EDIT:
              PUFA also depress the metabolic rate. This would impair healing and repair, so it probably contributes to declining health.
              My opinions and some justification

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                I think Alzheimer's disease is a good example. Alzheimer's involves decreased glucose metabolism in the brain, which would probably explain its symptoms. Maybe people with Alzheimer's can't think properly because their brain can't generate enough energy.
                And here I was thinking that Alzheimer's was caused by the development of plaques and tangles in the brain.

                Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                  Looking at coastal societies is observational, so it's hard to conclude anything. That being said, the Inuits ate lots of fish and they famously aged quickly. So that is some evidence.

                  Regarding RCT's of fish oil, we had two big ones that really helped promote fish oil - DART and GISSI-PREVENZIONE. But both were flawed. DART was short. My claim is that PUFA are gradually harmful over a long period of time. 2 years is not long enough to see that. GISSI-PREVENZIONE was 3.5 years, which is slightly better, but it was also open-label, which is weird.

                  Later studies of fish oil were unable to get the same results. A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that fish oil has an insignificant effect on mortality:
                  http://www.biomedcentral.com/content...458-14-204.pdf

                  But most of these studies are not long enough to see a difference. The effect is gradual.

                  However, if you want one that really makes fatty fish look bad, here you go:
                  European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Abstract of article: Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial

                  EDIT:

                  Unfortunately, most of the evidence regarding "essential fatty acid deficiency" is done with animals. But it seems like similar mechanisms exist in humans, so I'm willing to assume that we would experience something similar.
                  Eating fish and supplementing with fish oil are two different things.

                  Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Eating fish and supplementing with fish oil are two different things.
                    In the Diet and Angina Randomized Trial (mentioned above), the group instructed to eat more fatty fish had a higher mortality rate.
                    My opinions and some justification

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                      Polyunsaturated fats can oxidize in a variety of ways. It's a random process so it varies. But one example would be acrolein. Acrolein is a product of lipid oxidation and it is generally recognized as toxic. Another example would be 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal. Accumulating these over time is probably not good.

                      I think Alzheimer's disease is a good example. Alzheimer's involves decreased glucose metabolism in the brain, which would probably explain its symptoms. Maybe people with Alzheimer's can't think properly because their brain can't generate enough energy. Acrolein inhibits glucose metabolism and people with Alzheimer's disease tend to have more acrolein in their brains than regular people. So the acrolein probably contributes to the Alzheimer's and polyunsaturated fat provides the acrolein. But how long does it take to develop Alzheimer's disease? If they wanted to prove this with a randomized trial it would need to last decades.

                      EDIT:
                      PUFA also depress the metabolic rate. This would impair healing and repair, so it probably contributes to declining health.
                      Dr. Perlmutrer has a hypothesis on that. He is a neurologist and his father suffered this disease.

                      Comment


                      • I believe ketogenic diets tend to relieve Alzheimer's symptoms. This would support the idea that impaired glucose metabolism causes Alzheimer's, since ketone bodies provide an alternative fuel source. So things that impair glucose metabolism probably promote Alzheimer's.
                        My opinions and some justification

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                          In the Diet and Angina Randomized Trial (mentioned above), the group instructed to eat more fatty fish had a higher mortality rate.
                          That consisted of only men and only those in the population with a pre existing heart condition.

                          Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • Elliot: You're presenting a very oversimplified view of and metabolic disease (and Alzheimer's qualifies). Everything I read boils down to two main causative factors in chronic disease: inflammation and oxidative stress. You can't banish PUFAs from phospholipids. They serve important functions in our bodies, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Antioxidants - endogenous as well as exogenous - affect lipid peroxidation. Unhealthy lifestyle habits tend to increase ROS, but there's no good evidence that PUFAs are the most important factor in oxidative stress. If they were, dietary interventions for heart disease would show more of an effect.

                            Having said that, I'm all for a low-fat diet where PUFA restriction wouldn't even be an issue, but you have a completely indefensible position. The research is more than clear on the beneficial effects of EPA and DHA, and it's always been conflicted regarding omega-6. This no-PUFA nonsense is a Ray Peat fantasy, nothing more.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                              And here's the abstract for your listed study.

                              Objective: To see whether mortality among men with angina can be reduced by dietary advice.

                              Design: A randomized controlled factorial trial.

                              Setting: Male patients of general practitioners in south Wales.

                              Subjects: A total of 3114 men under 70 y of age with angina.

                              Interventions: Subjects were randomly allocated to four groups: (1) advised to eat two portions of oily fish each week, or to take three fish oil capsules daily; (2) advised to eat more fruit, vegetables and oats; (3) given both the above types of advice; and (4) given no specific dietary advice. Mortality was ascertained after 3–9 y.

                              Results: Compliance was better with the fish advice than with the fruit advice. All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice, and no other effects were attributable to fruit advice. Risk of cardiac death was higher among subjects advised to take oily fish than among those not so advised; the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.00, 1.58; P=0.047), and even greater for sudden cardiac death (1.54; 95% CI 1.06, 2.23; P=0.025). The excess risk was largely located among the subgroup given fish oil capsules. There was no evidence that it was due to interactions with medication.

                              Conclusion: Advice to eat more fruit was poorly complied with and had no detectable effect on mortality. Men advised to eat oily fish, and particularly those supplied with fish oil capsules, had a higher risk of cardiac death. This result is unexplained; it may arise from risk compensation or some other effect on patients' or doctors' behaviour.

                              Sponsorship: British Heart Foundation, Seven Seas Limited, Novex Pharma Limited, The Fish Foundation.

                              So - we can conclude what from this abstract?

                              1.) All cause mortality - no effect.
                              2.) In men under the age of 70 with angina - those who took fish oil capsule had a higher incidence of cardiac death.
                              3.) In the same study group those who were advised to eat oily fish had a higher incidence of cardiac death than the groups that did not specifically consume fish oils at all. Yet the abstract makes it clear that particularly the fish oil capsule group had a higher risk of cardiac death than those who ate whole fish. A review of the complete study contents in detail would be required to understand this difference.

                              So again - ALL CAUSE MORTALITY - NO EFFECT and this in a group controlled for cardiac conditions.

                              Hardly damning of ANYTHING.

                              Then I note you go on in subsequent posts to state that the study concluded this:

                              "In the Diet and Angina Randomized Trial (mentioned above), the group instructed to eat more fatty fish had a higher mortality rate. "

                              Again - you have mistakenly summarized the study. The study indicates not a higher mortality rate but a higher risk of cardiac death specifically. But....one more time since you seem to have reading comprehension problems.

                              ALL CAUSE MORTALITY - NO EFFECT!
                              Last edited by gdot; 04-26-2014, 05:09 AM.
                              What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                              Comment


                              • Regarding Alzheimer's, I'm tempted to say it's more complicated than lipid peroxidation and oxylipins...

                                Why Pleiotropic Interventions are Needed for Alzheimer's Disease

                                Plasma fatty acid lipidomics in amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.

                                I know, correlation =/= causation, but the repeated finding that long-chain PUFAs are anti-inflammatory (because of their oxidized metabolites!) isn't correlational. But we should avoid them because they... oxidize? "PUFAs oxidize" has been a tired meme in the paleo community for a long time (and I went along with it for a while myself), and Ray Peat's influence put it into overdrive. Time for the madness to stop, eh?
                                Last edited by Timthetaco; 04-26-2014, 07:58 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X