Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: New study states that animal protein and animal fat puts low-carbers at risk page 3

  1. #21
    bcbcbc2's Avatar
    bcbcbc2 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    581
    Primal Fuel
    Not sure if they would count pork as red. I think so.
    Either a lot of fatty chicken or fatty pork should push pufa up a lot faster than the data show, shouldn't it?
    I think lean meat/chicken/fish combined with heavy butter use fits best but who eats like that?

    We'll have to have a discussion on aa some time. That's the one Sears harps on isn't it?
    I looked into it once years ago and it seemed like the only way to really cut it back would be to go veg*n.

  2. #22
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    Quote Originally Posted by bcbcbc2 View Post
    Not sure if they would count pork as red. I think so.
    Either a lot of fatty chicken or fatty pork should push pufa up a lot faster than the data show, shouldn't it?
    I think lean meat/chicken/fish combined with heavy butter use fits best but who eats like that?

    We'll have to have a discussion on aa some time. That's the one Sears harps on isn't it?
    I looked into it once years ago and it seemed like the only way to really cut it back would be to go veg*n
    Yes conventional chicken and pork have massive omega 6 content. We have already established that the saturated fat numbers don't add up so I can't really expect the PUFAs to be accurate. Literally, if they are eating all of that animal fat but only 1.3, that is chicken chicken chicken and maybe they don't count pork as red meat, but then again it's a survey and "red meat" is kind of arbitray. And Kurt Harris eats like you mentioned but replaces chicken with bison.

    Arachidonic acid is bad in excess but it isn't like the amount that is found in a good paleo diet is of any concern. I wouldn't go vegan or even low fat, just low AA and sufficient omega 3 since cholesterol is actually very important and low fat vegans have low HDL and high trigs, which is not the least bit desirable.

    The biochem on tissue HUFA is pretty clear. Omega 6 and omega 3 replace each other in the tissues and so the ratio that we eat will determine our tissue HUFAs. More than 4% of dietary fats (approx) will get you to the point where you aren't producing any more inflammatory eicosanoids, but you are reducing your anti-inflammatory eicosanoids, and so people with low omega 3 and high omega 6 are basically on fire inside all the time and it causes nearly every disease to a degree. But if you maintain low omega 6 and equal omega 3 you aren't inflamed any more than anyone on a low fat diet. Here is Bill Lands explaining it. He will say linoleic acid but you can substitute arachidonic acid and it says the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgU3cNppzO0 It is all about the "omega index", the ratio of HUFAs in tissues, and some is perfectly fine, especially if eating high SFA.

    As for diet, beef, lamb, bison, fish for meats. Butter is good and so is coconut. I'm at 2.5% omega 6 including plant sources but I'm eating about 60% fat. Eating more omega 3 balances things out and you really don't see much difference. Stephan at wholehealthsource will tell you that omega 6 causes insulin resistance but SFA and MFA don't, but here insulin resistance can be completely reduced with fish oil. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3303333 as can any heart disease or cancer risk as Lands talks about in his video. It's all about balance and I think keeping omega 6 low, like Grok ate. Inflammation is a good thing to a degree, as well, it just needs to be turned off by the DHA-derived eicosanoids.

    That's all I really have to say about arachidonic acid. Bad in excess, but my paleo diet doesn't include much, and linoleic acid/low fat are by no means good solutions, despite what Sears has to say about linoleic acid. I will take Lands' research over his. Mike Eades wrote "linoleic acid converts to anti-inflammatory eicosanoids if insulin is low" once upon a time but he admitted that he is wrong. Linoelic acid becomes GLA but only in a very small quantity, and as Lands shows linoleic acid kills tissue HUFA balance, so obviously it isn't anti-inflammatory like Sears claimed.

    edit: oh and if you check the mens table, the numbers for vegetables fats in the veggie group don't add up either. I swear on my life, plant fats besides a few like coconut and olive oil in moderation are not healthy. Like maybe if you feed rats lard and then you feed another group canola oil that will look good for canola oil because of superior omega 3, but linoleic acid is a poison, especially in numbers like AHA advocates. I don't like to just come out swinging with slander with but this looks to be an attempt to make plant fats look really good and saturated fats really bad, as is the current AHA/government agenda. More on that at wholehealthsource. They have cherry-picked studies before. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...n-at-door.html

    Prepare the tin-foil hats!
    Last edited by Stabby; 09-15-2010 at 11:12 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  3. #23
    periquin's Avatar
    periquin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    1,367
    Studies! Who needs them?

    The data is manipulated to defend whatever interests the commentator.

    An example----If you will allow that a given population is 50% male and 50% female, I will show you a 'study' and its result.

    In a population of 1000 people, 500 women and 500 men, it was determined that there were 1000 testicles. From this result it should be clear that the average human being has one testicle.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •