79 replies to this topic

[dunbar]

For example there was an example of a woman who wanted to kill herself cause her BF hadn't calledher in 5 days and she was afraid he was cheating on her. This example is a joke. This is nothing like the REAL issues which I have.

That actually sounds like more of a real issue than your deliberations on here...

I still have some doubts if you are not simply trolling, all you write is just SO text book.

You are so rude. Do you know how many diseases I have? No. So don't give me this crap.

[nupi]

You are so rude. Do you know how many diseases I have? No. So don't give me this crap.

From reading your posts here I would say two: GAD and depression...

[Gerrans]

It is not possible that all fats are bad for you, since the body needs fats and makes them. Some fats are bad for you, namely the trans fats cooked up by the frankenfoods industry. All we need to do, in my opinion, is avoid those and avoid overeating. (Obviously, fats, like any foods, cause trouble during calorie overload.)

I have spent much time reading research on fats, and it seems all types of fats get praised or criticised in various places. I have not been able to find an unequivocally safe fat, and so I eat a mix of fats, to be on the safe side. I vary my cooking oils between butter, coconut oil, and good olive and macadamia oils. I cook with them lightly. The reason I vary my oils is because you do not want to rely on one sainted oil only to find out in ten years time that it was, after all, the worst of the bunch. I eat nuts, despite the supposed dangers of the polyunsaturated fats in them, because the research repeatedly identifies nuts with good health outcomes.

As I say, the problem comes with eating too much fat overall, in which case it will flood the system and cause insulin resistance and ectopic deposition.

Edited by Gerrans, 17 February 2014 - 10:52 PM.

[ambivalent]

Any thoughts on the Sinclair study's (on mitochondrial decline triggered by depletion of NAD+) apparent implication that a high-fat diet could/would contribute to mitochondrial decline? Has this been discussed here already?:

"How broadly applicalble might these findings be? High-fat diet feeding increases levels of HIF-1(alpha) in liver and white adipose tissue, the latter of which correlated with a decline in mitochondrial gene expression...."

'Although further work is necessary, this study suggests that increasing NAD+ levels and/or small compounds that prevent HIF-1(alpha) stabilization or promote its degradation might be an effective therapy for organismal decline with age.'

Thanks in advance.

Edited by ambivalent, 01 March 2014 - 01:25 AM.

[Debaser]

It is not possible that all fats are bad for you, since the body needs fats and makes them.

I'm not sure that is logical. It's possible that fats are necessary for the body but still bad for you. For example, eating any food causes oxidative stress, but we need to eat to live. Alternatively, it could be good for you, but bad in large quantities, like vitamin A. Or it could be good in some ways but bad in others, e.g. caffeine could prevent dementia but can also cause irregular heartbeat. Things can have multiple good and bad qualities, and just because the body needs something, doesn't mean it can never be bad for us.

[Chupo]

Any thoughts on the Sinclair study's (on mitochondrial decline triggered by depletion of NAD+) apparent implication that a high-fat diet could/would contribute to mitochondrial decline? Has this been discussed here already?:

"How broadly applicalble might these findings be? High-fat diet feeding increases levels of HIF-1(alpha) in liver and white adipose tissue, the latter of which correlated with a decline in mitochondrial gene expression...."

'Although further work is necessary, this study suggests that increasing NAD+ levels and/or small compounds that prevent HIF-1(alpha) stabilization or promote its degradation might be an effective therapy for organismal decline with age.'

Thanks in advance.

If a high fat diet doesn't make you obese, I wouldn't worry. High fat diets tend to be obesogenic in rodents unless it is a ketogenic diet. They get metabolic syndrome and increased oxidative stress. They don't live very long. When you reduce their calories to a level similar to mice on a low fat diet, the high fat mice live longer.

[Neal Cullum]

If your unsure if food have fungi, herbisides and pesticides then grow your own food.

[Gerrans]

It is not possible that all fats are bad for you, since the body needs fats and makes them.

I'm not sure that is logical. It's possible that fats are necessary for the body but still bad for you. For example, eating any food causes oxidative stress, but we need to eat to live. Alternatively, it could be good for you, but bad in large quantities, like vitamin A. Or it could be good in some ways but bad in others, e.g. caffeine could prevent dementia but can also cause irregular heartbeat. Things can have multiple good and bad qualities, and just because the body needs something, doesn't mean it can never be bad for us.

Well, I agree. I was just saying it is impossible that all fats are bad for us. Certainly some fats are bad for us some of the time.

[REBUILDER]

Red wine plus green olive oil
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18978163
J Am Coll Nutr. 2008 Aug;27(4):448-53.
Postprandial improvement of endothelial function by red wine and olive oil antioxidants: a synergistic effect of components of the Mediterranean diet.

I think that is the key to an ideal diet - synergism between different elements and components of a diet, as opposed to just focusing on single nutrients or single variables/components. Caloric restriction + EVOO + red wine = ?

[Godof Smallthings]

Finding a root cause doesn't change anything. This is just a myth. I can think of many root causes in my past but this changes nothing.

I don't think that psychoanalysis is a myth. It just doesn't work very well for most poeple (although in some cases it can be very powerful). This is why I recommended behavioral therapy (CBT), actually.

But what shall a CBTist say to me to help me? Something like Hey bro, don't worry so much, kay? I have books about CBT. Reading them actually drags me down and scares me cause many of the issues and symptomsthey describe totally fit to me this makes me feel more hopeless. I simply don't feel like the CBT methods can be applied to my case. My issues are simply far too big. I mean the examples in these books are totally differentthan my case. I feel like my case is much more serious than any of the cases in the books which also doesn't makeme feel any better. For example there was an example of a woman who wanted to kill herself cause her BF hadn't calledher in 5 days and she was afraid he was cheating on her. This example is a joke. This is nothing like the REAL issues which I have. I simply don't see how a therapist could help me with a few smart advice. I mean if I cannot reason with myself and come to the conclusion that it's not as bad as I think it is then CBT can't work and I cannot convince myself otherwise.

One simply can not fix a leaking roof by reading books about construction theory or sitting around visualizing the use of a hammer and coming up with ways that the fixing of the roof can go wrong.

I really hope that the suffering you obviously feel will eventually let go, and learn to ignore that fear-ridden mind that keeps coming up with 'what if's' that stop you from taking any kind of action.

[ta5]

dunbar, don't believe everything you read on the internet. The author of that blog is a vegetarian true believer who would like to convert you to her religion.

 

It seems the vegan doctors like Gregor and Esselstyn want to say all oil is bad. But, why? Olive oil is vegan. Why wouldn't they want to promote the benefits of olive oil? It's not hard to find evidence for benefits, and rather hard to find negative studies. The Vogel study that started this thread is one of the few negative studies. Why are the vegans excited about this study? 

 

(I know this is an old thread.)

[TheFountain]

But how do I recognize good quality dark chocolate? I heard that all commerical chocolate sucks even dark chocolate cause the heat destroyed the antioxidants.

Try Montezuma Absolute black. You can literally TASTE the health benefits. 

[TheFountain]

It seems the vegan doctors like Gregor and Esselstyn want to say all oil is bad. But, why? Olive oil is vegan. Why wouldn't they want to promote the benefits of olive oil? It's not hard to find evidence for benefits, and rather hard to find negative studies. The Vogel study that started this thread is one of the few negative studies. Why are the vegans excited about this study? 

 

(I know this is an old thread.)

I call it carbo-logic. They convince themselves that a diet primarily consisting of carbs is the healthiest choice because that's the diet they are left with after all is said and done. 

 

I think it's possible to do Paleo Veganism but it takes a lot of dedication to understanding what you're eating. 

[Juangalt]

I think what's being overlooked here is that foods aren't just bad for you or good for you; much of it is context. Eat some spinach and it's good for you; eat only spinach and you might get a kidney stone from the oxalates. Eating fat in some contexts can be good for you (omega-3s when you've had too many omega-6's, or MCTs in some contexts). But in the context of a high omega-6, high sugar diet, fat can be deadly.

These studies showing fat is bad for you are generally done epidemiologically or on rodents. Rodents have a vastly different digestive tract and epidemiological studies (in my view) have many problems with confounders.

[livelongandprosper]

Everything in moderation, right?

[ta5]

The Vogel article is just an article that references other studies. The full text is available from sci-hub.

 

 

The actual referenced study that included olive oil was:

Effects of dietary fat quality and quantity on postprandial activation of blood coagulation factor VII.

Larsen LF1, Bladbjerg EM, Jespersen J, Marckmann P.

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997 Nov;17(11):2904-9.

The free full text

 

[xEva]

The reason fats are blamed for arterial disease is because many studies have shown that high fat meals increase inflammatory markers. (So it's not just rodents as Juangalt points out above).  And yet it is not fats 'fault'. It has to do with the bacteria and how fats get from the intestines into the circulation. There was an old study, which I linked somewhere here on the forum years ago, and it was very telling.

 

The study was ingeniously simple:They invited a group of healthy volunteers, whom they fed a high-fat dinner. They measured their inflammatory markers before and after and showed that they rose significantly after the meal, indicating inflammation. A week or two later they invited the same cohort for the same kind of high-fat dinner -- but just before that, they gave them a short course of wide-spectrum antibiotics. Lo and behold, this time, there was no inflammation.

 

So, it's not the fats. It's how fats get into the circulation (packed into chylomicrons and via lymphatic vessels). What happens is that, in the process (and many studies have shown it) either the intestinal bacteria, or just their remnants or even metabolites, hitch a ride in chylomoicrons and also get into the circulation (think 'endotoxin' or LPS though of course it's not the only offending agent). This is what causes the inflammation in the arteries -- not the fats themselves! And that's why this study diners had no inflammation after their second high-fat meal: antibiotics had wiped out the bacteria in their intestines.

 

One may say, what's a difference, it's still ingestion of fats that makes this happen -- no one is planning to live on antibiotics. Still, it's good to know. Turns out, the kind of fat is largely irrelevant (except short-chain FAs which are small enough to get absorbed directly). The bacteria that may be coming with your high-fat meal maybe more important.

[QuestforLife]

The reason fats are blamed for arterial disease is because many studies have shown that high fat meals increase inflammatory markers. (So it's not just rodents as Juangalt points out above).  And yet it is not fats 'fault'. It has to do with the bacteria and how fats get from the intestines into the circulation. There was an old study, which I linked somewhere here on the forum years ago, and it was very telling.

 

The study was ingeniously simple:They invited a group of healthy volunteers, whom they fed a high-fat dinner. They measured their inflammatory markers before and after and showed that they rose significantly after the meal, indicating inflammation. A week or two later they invited the same cohort for the same kind of high-fat dinner -- but just before that, they gave them a short course of wide-spectrum antibiotics. Lo and behold, this time, there was no inflammation.

 

So, it's not the fats. It's how fats get into the circulation (packed into chylomicrons and via lymphatic vessels). What happens is that, in the process (and many studies have shown it) either the intestinal bacteria, or just their remnants or even metabolites, hitch a ride in chylomoicrons and also get into the circulation (think 'endotoxin' or LPS though of course it's not the only offending agent). This is what causes the inflammation in the arteries -- not the fats themselves! And that's why this study diners had no inflammation after their second high-fat meal: antibiotics had wiped out the bacteria in their intestines.

 

One may say, what's a difference, it's still ingestion of fats that makes this happen -- no one is planning to live on antibiotics. Still, it's good to know. Turns out, the kind of fat is largely irrelevant (except short-chain FAs which are small enough to get absorbed directly). The bacteria that may be coming with your high-fat meal maybe more important.

 

There's likely even more to it than this, which further undermines the argument that fats are to blame - the composition of your gut bacteria is dependent on your diet, and high carb diets (i.e. standard modern diet) fill you up with yeast and other nasties. Hence those on low carb diets, who get much (or most) of their calories from fat, actually have lower inflammation even accounting for the gut permeability issues you raise..

 

On top of this we know a ketogenic diet leads to lower inflammation for a host of other reasons related to mitochondrial efficiency and anti-oxidant up-regulation.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4124736/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5981249/

[ta5]

The Vogel study also said:

 

"An exception to fats that impair endothelial function is fish oil. Salmon (50g) does not confer any impairment on endothelial function; it also results in half the rise in triglycerides. Other studies show that Omega-3 fatty acids improve endothelial function."

 

I wonder, if the problem with fats is that bacterial junk gets into our arteries, why doesn't the same happen with fish oil?

[xEva]

re 'gut permeability', I think there are two issues here and they are different, even though both could be measured by the plasma level of LPS:

 

1. The first has no relevance to fats. In this case, the LPS gets absorbed with any non-fat meal and, via the portal vein, goes straight to the liver  where it is rapidly removed. If I recall correctly, in a young healthy person, the half life of LPS is measured in minutes. How much LPS gets to the liver does depend on the gut permeability, which can also be affected by inflammation going on in the intestines, including the one caused by the pathogenic microbes (and not just bacteria).

 

 

2. The second issue has to do with how fats are digested (as described above). I thought this has to do with LPS being fat-soluble (-? or at least lipophilic). I thought in this case gut permeability per se is not the issue but rather LPS gets emulsified with fats and so ends up in chylomicrons, no?

 

Edited by xEva, 23 January 2019 - 04:36 AM.