95 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

http://www.mprize.or..._feinman_a.html

To me, this is stunning. Just stunning. Makes me doubt MR's past work now.

Edited by DukeNukem, 30 January 2010 - 11:37 PM.

[kismet]

Makes me doubt MR's past work now.

Ouch. Talking about ad hominem.

[DukeNukem]

Makes me doubt MR's past work now.

Ouch. Talking about ad hominem.

True, but he's so off-base with his view on PUFAs and SFAs, it really has me concerned. I will be far more suspicious of anything he writes in the future. One of our best thought-leaders has taken a mighty fall, IMO. I'm kinda devastated.

Edited by DukeNukem, 24 January 2010 - 12:37 AM.

[Jay]

I think almost everybody that is knowledgable agrees at this point that a moderately high fat diet of any sort is superior to a high sugar diet.

Replacing other calories with PUFAs can have role in preventing cardiovascular disease for the average westerner (eating shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner). That much is clear from the epidemiological evidence. The preventative effect is slight.

However, I think it takes a failure of imagination to review all the evidence and not realize that far better results are very likely achievable by (i) restricting omega 6s about to 2-3% of energy and (ii) ensuring a somewhat balanced intake with omega 3s. Under this approach, the preventative effect is probably dramatic (as in almost total prevention). Plus, you get to eat saturated fat to your hearts content. This is a happy place to be.

Edited by Jay, 24 January 2010 - 01:14 AM.

[oehaut]

Makes me doubt MR's past work now.

Ouch. Talking about ad hominem.

True, but he's so off-base with his view on PUFAs and SFAs, it really has me concerned. I will be far more suspicious of anything he writes in the future. One of our best thought-leaders has taken a mighty fall, IMO. I'm kinda devastated.

Whereas I certainly wish MR would consider SFAs healthier than PUFAs, instead of doubting what he does, should'nt you doubt also Taubes, Eades, etc, etc?

How can we know who is right? On both side we have bright people with a good understanding of biochemistry/nutrition (maybe not Taube at a fundamental level) and the scientific litterature & method.

Personnally, i'm more and more clueless. But i'm always left with this question : And if MR et al. were right and Eades et al. were wrong?

Eades et al. are certainly very convincing, but it puts a big question mark on all of this when I see someone like MR thinking SFAs should be kept low (again, he could be wrong... but also be right)

So... why are Taubes et al worthy of 100% trust whereas you should doubt what MR writes?

[1kgcoffee]

I'm not for high fat (>35%), but I agree in principle with MR. MUFA are great for you, and PUFA are ok un-oxidized and in the right ratio (ie adequate omega-3s). SFA should be kept to a minimum and preferably shorter chain.

Problem is that people are eating too many junk fats and not enough healthy ones.

Edited by 1kgcoffee, 24 January 2010 - 01:10 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Makes me doubt MR's past work now.

Ouch. Talking about ad hominem.

True, but he's so off-base with his view on PUFAs and SFAs, it really has me concerned. I will be far more suspicious of anything he writes in the future. One of our best thought-leaders has taken a mighty fall, IMO. I'm kinda devastated.

Whereas I certainly wish MR would consider SFAs healthier than PUFAs, instead of doubting what he does, should'nt you doubt also Taubes, Eades, etc, etc?

How can we know who is right? On both side we have bright people with a good understanding of biochemistry/nutrition (maybe not Taube at a fundamental level) and the scientific litterature & method.

Personnally, i'm more and more clueless. But i'm always left with this question : And if MR et al. were right and Eades et al. were wrong?

Eades et al. are certainly very convincing, but it puts a big question mark on all of this when I see someone like MR thinking SFAs should be kept low (again, he could be wrong... but also be right)

So... why are Taubes et al worthy of 100% trust whereas you should doubt what MR writes?

MR practically dismissed Taubes for not being a doctor, yet I do not think MR is one, either. Maybe I'm wrong, but googling him didn't show me otherwise. So, that's a wash. And besides, it's rather unimportant. Often, those within the forest have the most trouble seeing it for what it is. It often takes an unbiased outsider to reassemble the picture in a more orderly fashion. Besides, Taubes is a seasoned, rigorous journalist of scientific topics. Practically one-third of his GCBC tome is research citings.

There are simply far too many extremely smart doctors who have broken away from conventional wisdom (a very hard thing to do unless the evidence is quite convincing) who now strongly believe that SFAs are not only safe, but desired in the diet. And they continue to point to new studies that back up this belief.

Finally, it just doesn't make sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, that SFAs would be harmful to humans or our recent (going back 2 million years) ancestors. After all, with ALL mammalian meat eaters, this activity does NOT lead to heart disease.

We now know why SFAs got painted with the "bad fat" brush: It was because they raised LDL during a time when we did not know that LDL could be both good and bad -- we thought LDL was always the "bad lipoprotein." We now know (hopefully MR too!) that there is good and bad LDL, and SFAs only raise the good kind. MR missed this memo, I guess. He also missed the memo that PUFAs are inflammatory beyond a very small percentage of total fat intake. This appears to finally be widely accepted knowledge in the longevity community by now. And again, from an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense because, as with fructose (another killer), our ancestors had very little exposure to PUFAs.

Edited by DukeNukem, 24 January 2010 - 01:25 AM.

[Nootropic Cat]

However, I think it takes a failure of imagination to review all the evidence and not realize that far better results are very likely achievable by (i) restricting omega 6s about to 2-3% of energy

So is it the 2-3% omega 6 level that is responsible for the apparent effect in <4% total PUFA diets?

[Jay]

However, I think it takes a failure of imagination to review all the evidence and not realize that far better results are very likely achievable by (i) restricting omega 6s about to 2-3% of energy

So is it the 2-3% omega 6 level that is responsible for the apparent effect in <4% total PUFA diets?

It depends on how much 3 you have. The chart in the study I cited recently is an extrapolation based on a number of known inputs. It seems based on that chart that having about 2-3% of your calories from 6s and about 1-2% from 3s gets you in a pretty good spot. Bear in mind that you have to do it for a few years for it to have a significant effect as tissue HUFA has a long half life.

[niner]

It depends on how much 3 you have. The chart in the study I cited recently is an extrapolation based on a number of known inputs. It seems based on that chart that having about 2-3% of your calories from 6s and about 1-2% from 3s gets you in a pretty good spot. Bear in mind that you have to do it for a few years for it to have a significant effect as tissue HUFA has a long half life.

Jay, what does the "H" in HUFA stand for? Hosingly? Inquiring minds and all...

[rwac]

Jay, what does the "H" in HUFA stand for? Hosingly? Inquiring minds and all...

I believe it's Highly Unsaturated Fatty Acid.

[tunt01]

After all, with ALL mammalian meat eaters, this activity does NOT lead to heart disease.

http://www.google.co...t heart disease

[TheFountain]

our ancestors had very little exposure to PUFAs.

So now you are saying our ancestors selectively avoided nuts with specific fatty acid profiles too? lol! *cough* gee Duke our ancestors are getting smarter by the day *cough* are you sure our ancestors aren't the ones who are conducting all these studies? Maybe they were so smart they found the key to immortality and are thus walking among us now? Will those of you who are our ancestors please stand up and say 'aye'?

Edited by TheFountain, 24 January 2010 - 10:05 AM.

[TheFountain]

After all, with ALL mammalian meat eaters, this activity does NOT lead to heart disease.

http://www.google.co...t heart disease

I know but somehow Duke (along with Gary Taubes) knows better than everybody. I guess we should just trust Dukes strong footed words (and blogs, I might add) over such studies, as well as studies saying meat and dairy consumption raise IGF-1 levels (pro-growth=pro-aging) and prostate cancer risk.

*NOTE THE EXTREME LEVEL OF SARCASM IN ABOVE STATEMENT*

[rwac]

So now you are saying our ancestors selectively avoided nuts with specific fatty acid profiles too? lol! *cough* gee Duke our ancestors are getting smarter by the day *cough* are you sure our ancestors aren't the ones who are conducting all these studies? Maybe they were so smart they found the key to immortality and are thus walking among us now? Will those of you who are our ancestors please stand up and say 'aye'?

Well, wild almonds are toxic, and cashews need a fair bit of processing to become separated from the fruit and edible.
Those two would not be edible until agriculture.

It's doubtful whether H-Gs would have gathered enough nuts to make a dent in their diet.

[TheFountain]

So now you are saying our ancestors selectively avoided nuts with specific fatty acid profiles too? lol! *cough* gee Duke our ancestors are getting smarter by the day *cough* are you sure our ancestors aren't the ones who are conducting all these studies? Maybe they were so smart they found the key to immortality and are thus walking among us now? Will those of you who are our ancestors please stand up and say 'aye'?

Well, wild almonds are toxic, and cashews need a fair bit of processing to become separated from the fruit and edible.
Those two would not be edible until agriculture.

It's doubtful whether H-Gs would have gathered enough nuts to make a dent in their diet.

right, you just know it all man. lol
*cough*

wrong. Our closest relative in the animal queendom (simians) have always widely consumed nuts and seeds. Why then wouldn't Paleo humans? I mean there are several nuts that are easily accessible by merely breaking the shell. Oh I get it, they simply tasted them and their scientifically attuned minds noted the toxicity and/or PUFA profile and spat them out. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And let us not forget they probably didn't consume ANY fruits high in fructose as their perfectly designed neural structures allowed them to weed out the high fructose from the low fructose! Let us not forget, in furtherance of this, that they were rich in resources, allowing them to never resort to having to eat when they were merely hungry, but only selectively choosing their foods as they would mosey through the glade gleefully knowing how perfect their amazing diet was..

You guys get funnier by the day! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by TheFountain, 24 January 2010 - 10:53 AM.

[kismet]

I am wondering what is the strongest evidence against PUFA anyway? (i.e. no in vitro crap, no hypotheses) I've seen a few interesting studies, but I hope the proponents of low-PUFA  can give a more comprehensive list.

From what I gathered MR has been anti-SFA for at least one decade so that's no surprise.  However, not so long ago he recommended keeping PUFA as low as possible (IIRC) or at least emphasising MUFA. I am not sure if that is part of the whole "different recommendations for CRONies vs ad lib people" thing, but recommending PUFA now seems pretty iconoclastic to me.
The results for MUFA are rather surprising when seen in light of clinical evidence showing vastly improved biomarkers compare to SaFa and similar effects to PUFA (sometimes superior, sometimes inferior). The potential for confounding is interesting, but second-guessing results based on speculation is not the most scientific approach.

BTW, no one dissed Taubes for not being a doctor. This is a valid criticism of their methods, not their persona, not an ad hominem: "(Ravnskov, Taubes, etc) ... spend most of their efforts bitching about the limitations of what IS available, beating dead horses, and emphasizing *lower* -quality studies while breezing over even better data."

[DukeNukem]

After all, with ALL mammalian meat eaters, this activity does NOT lead to heart disease.

http://www.google.co...t heart disease

And just as we once linked LDL to heart disease, these reports are all flawed. The reason why these reports are flawed has been explained numerous times. I'm sure your google fu will help you find these explanations.

[DukeNukem]

BTW, no one dissed Taubes for not being a doctor.

MR did, in the original link I posted leading to April's blog.

[Shepard]

MR put some time and effort into that post. A respectable character assassination should at least do the same.

[DukeNukem]

MR put some time and effort into that post. A respectable character assassination should at least do the same.

I'd prefer to assassinate his key points about PUFA and SFA. But, in time, the overwhelming evidence against his stance will do that for me.

[DukeNukem]

Good posts (both within last few days) that relate to this thread:

As a matter of fact, most of the papers claiming "saturated fat causes this or that in rodents" are actually studying omega-3 deficiency. The "saturated fats" that are typically used in high-fat rodent diets are refined fats from conventionally raised animals, which are very low in omega-3. If you add a bit of omega-3 to these diets, suddenly they don't cause the same metabolic problems, and are generally superior to refined seed oils, even in rodents (12, 13).
http://wholehealthso...ii-dietary.html

And...

One of my patients, Louis, brought in a recent Time Magazine article called Save the Planet: Eat More Beef (January 25, 2010). Sounded good to me. But there is the concern that red meat raises the risk of colon cancer. Well here is the problem with beef. Beef in the US is mostly GRAIN FED (corn and soybeans). Yet, cows naturally eat grass which contains Omega 3 fatty acids. Corn and soybeans consist of Omega 6 Fatty acids. Problem? Absolutely! Omega 6 fatty acids are pro-inflammatory where as omega 3 are more anti-inflammatory. Therefore feeding an unnatural food source to cows is not only bad for them but also ourselves. What then happens? We as humans have to consume more Fish Oil (omega 3 fatty acids) to counter balance the increase in Omega 6 intake from grains, vegetable oils, and omega 6 laden beef.

Ancient humans had an Omega 6 to 3 ratio of 2:1. With modern Western humans, the ratio is around 18:1. This is definitely causing a higher risk of disease such as vascular disease. So look at the equation Omega 6/3. To lower the ratio there can only be two options. One, increase the intake of Omega 3 fatty acids and eventually deplete our oceans of fish. Or decrease the intake of Omega 6 fatty acids by cutting out grains, vegetable oils, and grain fed beef. We actually may need to do a combination of both. But in order to save our oceans, the omega 6 intake needs to be cut down.
http://nephropal.blo...t-they-eat.html

And...

Edited by DukeNukem, 24 January 2010 - 07:17 PM.

[woly]

MR put some time and effort into that post. A respectable character assassination should at least do the same.

Quoted for truth. Duke, your posts are all the same. You preach the low carb diet while chastising anyone who differs from your views. You rarely provide any studies or data and when you do its from a blog or a book.

[Sillewater]

Metabolic fate of saturated and monounsaturated dietary fats: The Mediterranean diet revisited from epidemiological evidence to cellular mechanisms

Audrey Bergouignana, Iman Momkena, Dale A. Schoellerb, Chantal Simonc and Stéphane Blanca, ,
aInstitut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, Département d’Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie, UMR CNRS 7178, 23 rue Becquerel, 67087 Strasbourg Cedex 02, France
bDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin – Madison 1415, Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
cUniversité de Strasbourg-Medical School EA 1801, 67085 Strasbourg, France
Received 28 May 2008; revised 27 January 2009; accepted 23 February 2009. Available online 9 March 2009.
Abstract
Increasing evidence indicates favourable effects of the Mediterranean diet, partly associated to its monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) content on both obesity and diabetes. However, neither the underlying mechanisms by which the Mediterranean diet exerts its protective effect, nor the interplay with other environmental factors (i.e. physical activity), are fully characterised. In this review, we examined recent data on how the metabolic fate of MUFA and saturated fatty acids (SFA) differs. Because of differential packaging into lipoproteins, hydrolysis of triacylglycerol-rich lipoproteins by lipoprotein lipase and transport into oxidative tissues, MUFA are oxidised more than SFA. This high MUFA oxidation favour lipid oxidation and according to the oxidative balance concept reduces the risk of obesity. It also improves the intra-muscular triacylglycerol turnover, which mitigates the SFA-induced accumulation of diacylglycerol and ceramides, and thus protects the insulin sensitivity and cell viability. Finally, physical activity through its action on the energy turnover differentially regulates the metabolism of SFA and MUFA. The putative combined role of AMP-activated kinase and mitochondrial glycerol-3-phosphate transferase on the intra-muscular partitioning of MUFA and SFA provides new areas of research to better understand the beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet and physical activity on obesity and diabetes.
Keywords: Oleate; Palmitate; Fatty acid oxidation; AMPK; GPAT; Physical activity; Obesity; Diabetes

So is the "benefits" of PUFA/MUFA due to how our boy treats oxidized lipids?

Could someone PM me this paper.

[kismet]

They're likely talking about beta-oxidation, though. Controlled oxidation for energy; I am not sure this bears much relevance to pathologic oxidation.

[goatz]

ah! I see many others have TheFountain on their ignore list too what a great function.

[eternaltraveler]

To me, this is stunning. Just stunning. Makes me doubt MR's past work now.

Not to say that MR's thoughts are exempt from criticism. They are certainly open for it. However if you're going to do it can you at least try to support your view with something other than pop sci books and blogs and your gut feeling that your version of paleo dieting must be optimal for human longevity (despite the fact that if you really were a paleo man eating a paleo diet you would very likely be dead by now and spend much of the short life you did have starving, eating rotten food and otherwise doing lots of things that you would never do). Do you have any evidence for your repeated claims that utilizing your diet and exercise routine one can expect to live to be over 100 despite there being no evidence for such a claim... anywhere? Would you care to address how you think the meta analysis MR references is flawed and provide alternative evidence? (if you want to debate on that level blogs really don't cut it).

Not to be overly critical. Your recommendations for the most part are admittedly much better than most western diets, and probably better than my own current diet. Your advocation for grass fed vs grain fed meat is warranted. But your stoic support of your beliefs, any evidence to the contrary that might exist be damned attitude, is not very scientific.

Address contrary evidence. Don't dismiss it.

[Jay]

Whole health source blog, hyperlipid, animal pharm, nephropal, heartscan blog, panu....

It's not like the ideas that Duke is expressing aren't developed (and available for FREE) with all the supporting arguments, explanations, and studies you could want, in an interactive format where the authors often respond to questions.

Having a discussion in this forum would be very worthwhile, but I don't think Duke's arguments are only backed up by instinct or popular science. His arguments are well-supported and available to anyone who wants to take the time to read through a treasure trove of nutritional research.

I would love to engage in a critical discussion of the theses of these blogs as I have spent a lot of time trying to verify that I agree with them and, after concluding that I do, have based my diet on their message. If I am wrong, I would love to know it.

Most of what I hear on these forums is repetition of epidemiological studies - and mostly all studies of populations that don't approximate the diet plans advocated on these blogs. It's interesting to me to know that more PUFAs slightly lower the risk of CVD in people already eating high PUFA/high sugar diets. However, why would I base my diet on that evidence when there is evidence of almost complete prevention among people who eat very low sugar and PUFA diets (with balanced intake of omega 3s)?

I'm talking about the Lyon diet heart study and the various studies of "primitive" peoples, which, contrary to what I have seen claimed here, are not in my opinion weak evidence. If a culture has stumbled on a diet/lifestyle that prevents heart disease and potentially cancer, shouldn't we try to get within the four corners of that diet/lifestyle? Shouldn't that be the focus of intense research and not studies of thousands of nurses all doing pretty much the same thing? We spend untold billions trying to tease small differences out of population studies instead of trying to simulate what has already been shown to work.

And, lastly, I note that even on a horrible western diet, saturated fat isn't bad for you! See here and here.

Edited by Jay, 25 January 2010 - 03:59 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

His arguments are well-supported and available to anyone who wants to take the time to read through a treasure trove of nutritional research

so everyone here should be expected to read all of those blogs, mine them for their secondary sources, mine those for their primary sources and fact check the primary sources they do or don't reference.

Out of the question.

Secondary, tertiary, or quaternary sources just aren't good sources in any kind of a debate. Ever.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 25 January 2010 - 04:08 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

And, lastly, I note that even on a horrible western diet, saturated fat isn't bad for you! See here and here.

primary sources. thank you