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.
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 at 06:09 AM.
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 at 08:58 AM.
You misread. The study says
This does not mean that all-cause mortality remained the same. It means it was not reduced. All-cause mortality actually increased for those eating fish. The actual numbers are:All-cause mortality was not reduced by either form of advice
Those advised to eat fish: 141 deaths out of 764 people, or 18.5%
Those advised to eat fish and fruit/oats: 142 deaths out of 807 people, or 17.6%
The control group: 109 deaths out of 764 people, or 14.3%
Those eating fish had a higher mortality rate.
Yes, those taking fish oil had a higher mortality rate than those eating whole fish. But both experienced elevated mortality rates relative to the control group. The numbers are:
Those assigned to eat whole fish: 198 deaths out of 1109, or 17.85%
Those assigned to take fish oil: 85 deaths out of 462, or 18%
Can you show me this beneficial effect? I know a 2014 meta-analysis concluded that fish oil has no significant effect on mortality:The research is more than clear on the beneficial effects of EPA and DHA
For people suffering from inflammatory diseases, fish oil may provide some relief, but at a cost. I think, rather than eating more fish oil, it would be healthier to eat less omega-6. Eating fish oil to treat inflammation is trading one problem for another.I know, correlation =/= causation, but the repeated finding that long-chain PUFAs are anti-inflammatory (because of their oxidized metabolites!) isn't correlational.
Last edited by Elliot; 04-26-2014 at 09:17 AM.
You know that "the research" comprises more than meta-analyses of dietary intervention trials, right? Giving someone fish oil or magnesium or vitamin C or whatever the hell in addition to their usual diet and lifestyle isn't going to generate interesting results one way or another, which is why if the only research I cared about was meta-analyses, I wouldn't rightly believe in anything. Most of the time (at least for me) preclinical mechanistic studies are more enlightening than clinical trials.
There is a LOT of hand wringing, worry, unnecessary, and unhealthy stress associated with all of this obsession concerning the minutia of the molecular structures contained in foods. It might ultimately result in scientific 'proof' of a particular whole food's effect on overall health. But at this point in time the most advanced scientific methods are still unable to completely model and understand the complete metabolic processes of human beings in general. And even less able to model individuals.
Thus - as individuals in search of answers regarding vibrancy and longevity - the more precisely controlled the study is regarding individual elements the less likely it is to have practical merit to those in search of the answer as to what to eat.
Even though they are correlational and impossible to tie to specific nutrients/foods I find that it is more logical to consider the epidemiological and historical data related to particular foods, and more importantly, entire dietary patterns. As it at least provides us with some information (although vague) with regards to proportions of the various types of foods to consume.
As one who has been reading and learning about nutrition for the past 30 years, I find it hard to see how anyone could miss the fact that today's 'latest findings that will revolutionize human health worldwide' are often destined to be proven to be seriously flawed later. The current thinking regarding PUFAs being the perfect example of just this sort of 'swinging' in between extremes.
Given the fact that the science regarding nutrition is still woefully incomplete...I can see no other course of action than to hedge my bets by eating a wide variety of whole foods. Further I try to emphasis those of which I have reason to believe my particular ancestors would have thrived on.
As I have done both my genealogy and dna testing regarding my haplogroup I know that my ancestors were of northern European descent as well as Native American. So I look to these particular ancestral diets in search of primary foods to consider.
In my particular case I know for a fact that my ancestors have long consumed the locally available nuts.
Further, my personal experience in regards to how 'seasonal' nut eating might have been I note:
Having lived in the middle of a naturally occurring stand of black walnut trees during my ten years of living on a farm. I can assure you that a very small area (less than 10 acres) of black walnut trees provided our family of four with so many walnuts that we sold off a couple of pick up beds full of walnuts in the husk every fall. And still ate all the walnuts we could stand from fall until spring. I have absolutely no reason to believe that my ancestors did any differently.
Further, until the Chestnut blight around the turn of the 20th century, there were massive amounts of calories available to the locals throughout the forests of the eastern seaboard and Appalachians. This source of nutrient dense calories is said to be among the primary reasons that the Cherokee and the Creeks (among my ancestors) migrated to the Appalachian forests during the fall and winters. (The other reason being the abundant deer who lived on the same Chestnuts.)
Thus I summarily and completely reject the notion that nuts are unhealthy because current scientific studies have noted particular issues of individual elements IN ISOLATION from the total food.
Unscientifically proven? Yes. Logical, yes (at least to me).
EAT SOME NUTS! ENJOY THEM! FEEL GOOD! WORRY LESS!
Last edited by gdot; 04-26-2014 at 09:37 AM.
The study mentioned in my previous post?Do you have any evidence showing even the slightest correlation between whole food PUFA consumption and ill health?
Chestnuts are starchy, not fatty.Further, until the Chestnut blight around the turn of the 20th century, there were massive amounts of calories available to the locals throughout the forests of the eastern seaboard and Appalachians.
Last edited by Elliot; 04-26-2014 at 09:40 AM.