68 replies to this topic

[Mike C]

T

Edited by Mike C, 04 July 2017 - 01:24 PM.

[Nate-2004]

It's kind of annoying to me when doctors use their credentials to push their single minded agenda. Vegan is just as annoying as paleo, which is just as annoying as anyone else who is stuck in one particular dogmatic position as someone conveying research on nutrition from a position that their special diet is the best diet. I think this is what frustrates me about Dr. Greger is that he overlooks a lot of research that doesn't support his vegan arguments regarding oil or fats. For instance, obscuring or conflating EVOO with data on OO, or talking about omega 6 imbalance when there's only a gram of PUFA, ignoring polyphenols entirely, etc. In my personal opinion I think vegan is missing some essential things and so is LCHF or paleo. I don't know why people pick such fundamentalist positions with their food, but it's making nutrition look like psychology when it comes to science. Soft, contradictory and frustrating for most people who just want to know what to do.

 

The problem with every researcher, interpreter or reviewer having their own dogmatic position is that you miss the whole picture.  I'm concerned about the claim that EVOO may cause hardening of arteries. Is it EVOO or other oils they're talking about because many of the studies on this talk of omega 6 oils like canola. These contain considerably more PUFAs in terms of linoleic acid than EVOO and no polyphenols to my knowledge.

[sthira]

After a lot of time spent pondering and trying to lead a perfect lifestyle, perfect diet day after perfect diet week after perfect diet month after year, then a decade, or two decades, I think we finally exhaust of it and reach a point where we recognize that no amount of healthy lifestyle choices will slow aging. This includes the latest, freshest harvest, best chemistry EVOO available to retail consumers. Buy and consume it all you want, it's healthy, it's not repairing aging damage, though, is it?

This opinion isn't to say it's unimportant to attempt to live a perfect lifestyle (however you reach the definition of perfect lifestyle aimed at "slowing aging"). Doing the basics we all know -- consistent CR with optimal nutrition, fasting, healthy refeeding, attempting to meet RDA, exercising consistently, staying safe in violent culture, wearing a damned seatbelt, staying away from exotic, unproven chemicals, illegal drugs, the sun, all the things "we already know" -- all is important.

Without them we'll certainly "age faster." So do the things we know to do. They're all up for debate. Or nearly all "controversial..." Drink more damed green tea, or stop, eat more purple cabbage, or maybe not, use spices in moderation, what the hell's moderation, hug people, love Mother Earth, be nice, be clean, be happy, damn it, stay the fucking twisting, confusing course that may lead to prevention. Or not. Do all of everything perfectly, and get cancer or clogged arteries anyway.

So we reach a point of recognition that none of these important lifestyle habits will slow or repair aging damage. EVOO is in this category, I believe -- the evidence for its health benefits is overwhelming. Enough with the stale debate. Move on. EVOO is healthy -- deal with it. You don't like or believe the science -- fine, don't consume olive oil -- it doesn't really matter very much because even in the best case scenario of regularly consuming perfect EVOO you're not gonna slow aging by drenching yourself in it or carefully doling out one tablespoon per day. It isn't going to add years to your life and it isn't gonna make you young again.

As far as we know, nothing will slow, stop, or reverse aging. And it's been like that since before the year 5,000 BC -- we have not advanced too far. Yet. Or if we have, not much publicity about it is reaching us the mainstream. Sure, we hear about the expensive dermatology treatments -- like $50,000 a month skin tricks for actresses and Silicon Valley wonder boyz that make them look like they have some younger skin. But they're aging anyway. For example, where are the male pattern baldness cures promised decades ago? Why are cures five years away twenty years ago? Why are these young billionaire males bald? Does Warren Buffet look young? Are Bill Gates and his wife aging? Aubrey DeGray seems like he's aging right on schedule. The diseases of aging are continuing along on their boring old predictable paths for aging billionaires and stars and scientists on only a slightly less diminished curve than for you and me.

The ways to slow and repair the damages of aging have been clearly and plainly laid out for, what, more than 15-years? Either accept and support them, or don't. The choice is ours. Eat the latest harvest, freshest and best chemistry EVOO that you can find, and do it regularly. But expect nothing about EVOO to slow aging or reverse the damages caused to you by aging in time on planet earth.

For that, we NEED SOMETHING ELSE. When will we stop obsessing about diet and start obsessing and pouring research money into the aspects of this young longevity science that matter?

More often I'm treating dietary advice and rodent studies like spam. And the best advice I've heard for dealing with spam is to ignore it. That's part of why I believe the best minds in this pursuit of longevity science have mostly disappeared from these fora. Diet perfection doesn't work.

In my humble opinion, that is.

Edited by sthira, 04 July 2017 - 03:43 PM.

[aconita]

One thing is reversing aging ,another is slowing down aging and another again is not accelerating aging by a wrong lifestyle which include nutrition.

 

Obviously we can't reverse aging (yet), we aren't so sure if we can slow it down but certainly we can avoid accelerating it.

 

Since it is unlikely we'll find a way to reverse aging or get sure answers about slowing it down by discussing on a forum at least we are left with the opportunity of sharing opinions about how not to row against.

[sthira]

One thing is reversing aging ,another is slowing down aging and another again is not accelerating aging by a wrong lifestyle which include nutrition.

Obviously we can't reverse aging (yet), we aren't so sure if we can slow it down but certainly we can avoid accelerating it.

Since it is unlikely we'll find a way to reverse aging or get sure answers about slowing it down by discussing on a forum at least we are left with the opportunity of sharing opinions about how not to row against.

Exactly. Do the best we can do given the pathetic givens, discuss them ad nauseum, don't accelerate aging, but ignoring the huge amounts of clear scientific benefits that EVOO at least isn't unhealthy, and is in fact probably one of the most intensely studied foods we have, is folly. Of course that comes with caveats. Don't buy store bought EVOO harvested god knows when, or what's in it, clear bottled junk food, don't do it.

But properly sourced freshly harvested oils? Do it.

[Nate-2004]

Yeah you're right Sthira. Best I can do is try to slow the accumulation of AGEs best I can and hopefully someone finally puts their billions into research on how to break the crosslinks or enzymes that will devour them completely without damaging collagen. I can't figure out why none of these billionaires are helping with that.

[sthira]

Yeah you're right Sthira. Best I can do is try to slow the accumulation of AGEs best I can and hopefully someone finally puts their billions into research on how to break the crosslinks or enzymes that will devour them completely without damaging collagen. I can't figure out why none of these billionaires are helping with that.

It could be that those billionaires are indeed helping with longevity and life extension research, and we just don't know about their efforts and progress because we're just part of the sad ole 99% that's not been lucky. We could eventually see some trickle down effect from research currently underway that we're ignorant about.

Meanwhile, olive oil. One thing olive oil does for me (freshly harvested, high poly oil) is helps me eat more vegetables. They simply taste better to me with oil than without. But I don't delude myself for two seconds that olive oil, or any other food, beverage or commodity supplement are doing anything to slow aging. I'm practicing CRON, I'm doing the best I can to follow the research (as another ignorant lay person) and I'm aging right on schedule. What else can we do? I feel like we've been having these same conversations and topics of discussion for years and years. When in the hell is actual progress that's translatable, practical, usable going to arrive for us? It's tempting to say -- never -- but that's not right, either. What we're asking -- fountains of youth -- has been what's asked for throughout human history. Nothing new here, other than the internet and its power to focus us upon finding real, practical solutions:

I apologize for ranting off topic. Like you, perhaps, I'm pretty damned impatient. The truth for me is that slowing and reversing aging has become an emotional issue. It's like we've been promised something -- not necessarily promises by researchers who are actually engaged in the professional pursuit, but rather the journalists, bloggers, writers, sellers of fake products. Anyway: olive oil. Yes. Good stuff. Source it with intelligence and presumably consuming the stuff won't accelerate aging.

[normalizing]

i have a very good question. where does one get the most healthy beneficial olive oil there is? ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND GOOD SOURCE! i tried so many places and only end up finding out 90% of marketed olive oil is bogus. do google search on the fake and crappy olive oils sold in stores. impossible question to answer, WHERE DOES ONE FIND GOOD QUALITY OLIVE OIL THAT IS NOT BOGUS??

[maxwatt]

i have a very good question. where does one get the most healthy beneficial olive oil there is? ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND GOOD SOURCE! i tried so many places and only end up finding out 90% of marketed olive oil is bogus. do google search on the fake and crappy olive oils sold in stores. impossible question to answer, WHERE DOES ONE FIND GOOD QUALITY OLIVE OIL THAT IS NOT BOGUS??

 

Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs have both tested olive oils.  Some of the mass-market oils were not even olive oil. 
Hazel nut oil is a frequent adulterant.  Some were from olives, but rated too rancid for human consumption.  Sorry I don't have time to find the links, but from memory Consumer Reports down-rated Whole Foods house brand, liked Costco and California Olive Ranch.  They did not test for polyphenols, nor did they test the favorite mentioned earlier in this thread: De Carlo Torre di Mossa.

 

Fairway market in New York used to have a knowledgeable buyer, and a tasting bar to sample the oil with Italian bread as a sponge,  Sadly, no more; they were bought by a mid-western supermarket chain who fired the buyer and sell cheap oil under the house name.  :(

 

High polyphenol content oils have a sharp flavor, and give a burning sensation in the back of the throat.  Best used raw, drizzled on food or as a dip.

The smooth buttery flavor many confuse with freshness, is a sign of rancidity. 

 

PS: Amphora Nueva is a good source.  They give the polyphenol content of their oils, too. https://amphoranueva...atalog&parent=1

 

 

Edited by maxwatt, 05 July 2017 - 10:47 AM.

[maxwatt]

Until recently studies of fats consumption versus heart disease have failed to account for individuals genetic variability.  APOE4 does best with an Ornish diet, nearly fat free.  APOE2 also has problems with fat, and are prone to hyper-cholesterol blood levels.   APOE3, and can handle fat just fine, thank you. At least not in excess.  Also it does not seem to matter for these folks if the fat is mono-saturated or saturated.

One gets two copies of the gene, so one can be a mix of types.  Most Europeans, around 55%, are E3/E3.

 

I'd recommend getting your genes sequenced, as at 23andme3.com.  Run it through Promethease and/or Nutrahacker for more information.   If you are worried about the data falling into the wrong hands, use an alias.

[Turnbuckle]

Two papers of interest--

 

 

 

Virgin olive oil: a key food for cardiovascular risk protection

 

Olive oil is the primary source of fat in the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet), which is associated with a low mortality for CVD(1). In spite of this, data concerning olive oil consumption and primary end points for CVD, as well as for total mortality, have only been provided recently. Results of large EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) cohorts have shown an inverse relationship between olive oil consumption and CHD mortality and incidence(2–4). Also, results of the Three-City Study have shown an inverse relationship between olive oil consumption and stroke risk in women(5). Recent results of the PREDIMED (Prevention by Mediterranean Diet) study have shown that consumption of extra-virgin olive oil (VOO), within the frame of the MedDiet, reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation in elder, high cardiovascular risk individuals(6). A large body of knowledge exists providing evidence of the benefits of olive oil consumption on secondary end points for CVD. Olive oil consumption has proven to promote benefits on lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, lipid and DNA oxidation, inflammation, endothelial function, thrombotic factors and blood pressure(7) (Fig. 1). Due to this, on November 2004, the Federal Drug Administration of the USA permitted a claim on olive oil labels concerning: ‘the benefits on the risk of CHD of eating about two tablespoons (23 g) of olive oil daily, due to the monounsaturated fat (MUFA) in olive oil’. To achieve this possible benefit, olive oil is to replace a similar amount of saturated fat and not increase the total number of calories you eat in a day’(8).

 

 

 

Risks and safety of polyphenol consumption

 

...some of these supplements may appear safe when isolated from food plants, but the method of extraction used to produce the supplements may influence the nature of the compounds ingested and thus the safety of the product. This occurred with a hydroalcoholic extract of tea buds, sold as a slimming supplement, which was withdrawn from the market because of severe cases of liver toxicity (6).

 

This takes us directly to the problem of risk assessment and safety evaluation. Hazard, risk, and safety are different issues, each of which should be considered (Table 1⇓). A thorough risk assessment for polyphenols is complicated, not only because so many different compounds exist but also because not all necessary tools are currently available. Although hazards may be identified and characterized, no exposure assessment (ie, known/proposed intake) can be made, because of missing food composition data. Assessment of exposure through the measurement of biomarkers has also proved difficult, because metabolic specificity among populations and individuals may exist and techniques for simple measurements of such biomarkers and corresponding validity data are mostly lacking. It is therefore extremely difficult to know whether proposed intakes are safe or what the likely risks are with those intakes. Several undesirable effects of different phenolic compounds have been observed and are described here, as an example of hazard identification 

 

 

 

[Gerrans]

I suscribe to a "first do no harm" approach--and it seems to me that EVOO is likely to be at least neutral as far as doing harm is concerned. In that sense, it is good for us insofar as it saves us from the harm of eating worse fats. And since the body demands that we eat fats, better we eat good ones. A good oil, such as EVOO, is clearly much better for us than eating hydrogenated oils, refined oils, and denatured oils. Research shows that the Mediterranean Diet is definitely good for us, but it is still a mystery quite what components of it are the key. Even if olive oil is only neutral as far as health benefits go, a lifetime of eating it would mean no harm to the system and no obstruction to any healthy parts of one's diets. So I do use good EVOO oil, but without obsessing too much about it or becoming a connoisseur.

[Telo]

OK, if you're basing this on the premiss that you for culinary reasons absolutely have to have added fats in your diet, EVOO is probably your best choice. However, considering that all foods contain fat and the only essential fats are omega 3 and omega 6; someone please explain to me: What exactly is the nutritional or health benefit to consume any added fats or extracted oils whatsoever? 

 

If you eat a whole food source of fat like olives or nuts you get much more nutrients and fiber per calorie and l also read somewhere (by Joel Fuhrman I think) that the fat is absorbed over several hours (rather than minutes in the case of oil) by the body in the same way carbohydrates and sugar contained in whole foods are absorbed much slower than table sugar or white bread. Everybody here probably agrees that eating fruit is much better than just extracting and drinking the juice and discard the rest. Well, the olive is also a fruit...

 

I don't think fats are bad per se. There is lots of data when it comes to the benefits of nuts for example. Walnuts have lots of fats in them but contrary to oils they actually improve endothelial function after ingestion. https://www.ncbi.nlm...ubmed/19880586/

 

 

 

 

[Gerrans]

OK, if you're basing this on the premiss that you for culinary reasons absolutely have to have added fats in your diet, EVOO is probably your best choice. However, considering that all foods contain fat and the only essential fats are omega 3 and omega 6; someone please explain to me: What exactly is the nutritional or health benefit to consume any added fats or extracted oils whatsoever? 

 

I take your point. But eating is also a pleasure and not just a nutrition-getting exercise, so for me oils help many foods taste better. Only if someone were taking off weight need they stint on added oils. Since I don't believe that good EVOO, coconut oil, or butter are bad for us, I see no reason to avoid them as dietary fats. I don't overdo them, and I don't eat cheese at all--because I don't like it (so that balances the books a bit). And I don't eat fatty processed foods, including chocolate, cake, etc.

 

And while I agree with you there is no need to eat added fats at all, the fact they metabolise faster than plant-embedded fats is not all bad. A large part of the fats in nuts may go undigested altogether. And some things--such as tomato paste and turmeric--release more of their goodness when cooked with oil.

Edited by Gerrans, 05 July 2017 - 04:00 PM.

[mccoy]

Mike C wrote:

 

 

McCoy,

How do you really know if your one of the healthy ones. If you are so certain a low fat diet would prevent cad then why not just go with that and reap the benefits. Afterall most of us will die of some form of artery disease e.g., stroke, heart attack, dementia, hear failure etc. why not clean out all the likely plaque that ends up in our brains/ hearts/ legs etc.

 

I believe I'm one of the healthy ones by the latest lipid profile, combined to my blood pressure, fasting glucose and heartbeat. Also, I have no signs associated to vascular diseases although doctor say coronary conditions cannot really be diagnosed without specific exams. I might have those done on me. Also, the above discussion by Maxwatt on APO polymorphism seems pretty relevant. I'm probably an APO3/3 since, even though eating lots of fats with abundant saturated fats, my latest profile was perfect. How people handle that dietary fat seems to be crucial. In one of his podcasts Dr Esseltsyn cited the example of one of his patients who, notwithstanding following an extremely low fat diet, had his total cholesterol in the region of 200 mg/dl. That was an example of an extremely unfavourable metabolism of dietary lipids.

 

Last but not least, I have access to plenty, relatively unexpensive, good EVOO directly from producers. Giving it up only as a preventive measure seems too radical to me. Whereas of course I can moderate its use and try not to overdo.

 

 

Edited by mccoy, 06 July 2017 - 06:26 AM.

[Telo]

 

OK, if you're basing this on the premiss that you for culinary reasons absolutely have to have added fats in your diet, EVOO is probably your best choice. However, considering that all foods contain fat and the only essential fats are omega 3 and omega 6; someone please explain to me: What exactly is the nutritional or health benefit to consume any added fats or extracted oils whatsoever? 

 

I take your point. But eating is also a pleasure and not just a nutrition-getting exercise, so for me oils help many foods taste better. Only if someone were taking off weight need they stint on added oils. Since I don't believe that good EVOO, coconut oil, or butter are bad for us, I see no reason to avoid them as dietary fats. I don't overdo them, and I don't eat cheese at all--because I don't like it (so that balances the books a bit). And I don't eat fatty processed foods, including chocolate, cake, etc.

 

And while I agree with you there is no need to eat added fats at all, the fact they metabolise faster than plant-embedded fats is not all bad. A large part of the fats in nuts may go undigested altogether. And some things--such as tomato paste and turmeric--release more of their goodness when cooked with oil.

 

 

Do you know if the fat has to be mixed with the tomatoes and turmeric while cooking? Or would you get the same "goodness releasing" effect If you cook the tomatoes and turmeric without the oil and then eat some fat-rich foods with your meal? 

I agree that eating is and should be a pleasure. In my case, I don't believe I'm getting any less pleasure now after I've stopped using added fats in my cooking. I feel I have adapted and started to crave and prefer the non-oily food. Plus washing-up afterwards is much nicer without that thin coating of oil covering everything

 

[pamojja]

In my case, I don't believe I'm getting any less pleasure now after I've stopped using added fats in my cooking. I feel I have adapted and started to crave and prefer the non-oily food. Plus washing-up afterwards is much nicer without that thin coating of oil covering everything

 

That was also the mistake in my case started as vegetarian with age 10 for ethical reason (just watching butchering at that time was too much for me..), but with the years also lost taste also in eggs, cheeses and oils and other fats.

 

Can only speak of myself. But I've been a low-fat vegan since age 10. With age 41 got a PAD due to a 80% stenosis at my aorta, and a 60% walking-disability. Reverted it dietary-wise by adding loads of healthy fats, and started to eat eggs, cheese and fish again. Read the rest here.

[dazed1]

IMHO the best oils are rice bran, and red palm. They are by far the most potent overall in regards to price/benefits. OO cant even come close.

[Benko]

IMHO the best oils are rice bran, and red palm. They are by far the most potent overall in regards to price/benefits. OO cant even come close.

 

 

From wikipedia: Rice bran oil:

 

Fatty acid Percentage C14:0 Myristic acid 0.6% C16:0 Palmitic acid 21.5% C18:0 Stearic acid 2.9% C18:1 Oleic acid (an Omega 9 fatty acid) 38.4% C18:2 Linoleic acid (LA, an Omega 6 fatty acid) 34.4% C18:3 α-Linolenic acid (ALA, an Omega 3 fatty acid)

2.2%

 

Olive OIl:

 

Fatty acid Percentage ref. Oleic acid 55 to 83% ^[80][81] Linoleic acid 3.5 to 21% ^[80][81] Palmitic acid 7.5 to 20% ^[80] Stearic acid 0.5 to 5% ^[80] α-Linolenic acid 0 to 1.5% ^[80]

 

 

Why rice bran oil?  RIce bran oil has less monounsaturates (55 to 83% vs 38.4%) and more palmitic i.e. saturated fat (21.5% vs 3-21%).  Olive oil has beneficial polyphenols vs gamma oryzenol  in rice bran oil which has more animal studies than human studies.

[aconita]

...and good luck with the palmitic acid content in red palm oil!

[dazed1]

 

IMHO the best oils are rice bran, and red palm. They are by far the most potent overall in regards to price/benefits. OO cant even come close.

 

 

From wikipedia: Rice bran oil:

 

Fatty acid Percentage C14:0 Myristic acid 0.6% C16:0 Palmitic acid 21.5% C18:0 Stearic acid 2.9% C18:1 Oleic acid (an Omega 9 fatty acid) 38.4% C18:2 Linoleic acid (LA, an Omega 6 fatty acid) 34.4% C18:3 α-Linolenic acid (ALA, an Omega 3 fatty acid)

2.2%

 

Olive OIl:

 

Fatty acid Percentage ref. Oleic acid 55 to 83% ^[80][81]Linoleic acid 3.5 to 21% ^[80][81]Palmitic acid 7.5 to 20% ^[80]Stearic acid 0.5 to 5% ^[80]α-Linolenic acid 0 to 1.5% ^[80]

 

 

Why rice bran oil?  RIce bran oil has less monounsaturates (55 to 83% vs 38.4%) and more palmitic i.e. saturated fat (21.5% vs 3-21%).  Olive oil has beneficial polyphenols vs gamma oryzenol  in rice bran oil which has more animal studies than human studies.

 

 

Rice brain and red palm oil have around 60 - 100mg of toctrienols per 100 grams. Which is huge amount considering how much there is in other sources. RPO also has 1 ton of carotenoids, and coq10 as well. It does not matter what kind of fat is, if there are so much tocos in it, the fat is very stable.

Edited by dazed1, 09 July 2017 - 10:48 PM.

[aconita]

Red palm oil tocotrienols content is the highest available but it is still quite low for a therapeutic use (considering the amount of oil one can eat), tocotrienols compete with each others therefore it might be possible for therapeutic use isn't that effective (supplements being a better choice) .

 

In the other hand palmitic acid content is among the highest available too (43,5%) and palmitic acid leads to muscle insulin resistance, maybe not the smartest choice for a diabetic....

 

By the way I like red palm oil and regularly consume it...I just think it might not be YOUR (or everybody) best choice, especially as therapeutic.

[dazed1]

From my research, in the end it turns out that tocotrienols and tocepherols does not inhibit each other, and adding sesame seeds/sesamin with the RPO/supplement, increase absorption by quite a bit. I felt amazing when i stared the RPO, maybe even better then the toco sorb formula i use jarrows/dr's best.

[aconita]

I am all for the "natural" and against extracts (when possible), interactions between components, both positive and negative, are hard to research and well behind in our understanding.

 

If it works for you go for it, no doubt...just be aware of the insulin resistance caused by the palmitic acid, if you'll do an informed research about it and find something interesting posting it here would certainly be appreciated. .

[Benko]

From my research, in the end it turns out that tocotrienols and tocepherols does not inhibit each other, and adding sesame seeds/sesamin with the RPO/supplement, increase absorption by quite a bit. I felt amazing when i stared the RPO, maybe even better then the toco sorb formula i use jarrows/dr's best.

 

I don't know much about tocotrienols, but an abstract that I found and posted in another thread today suggests that they work via PPAR:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/19866471

 

tocotrienols within palm oil functioned as PPAR modulators. Specifically, both alpha- and gamma-tocotrienol activated PPARalpha, while delta-tocotrienol activated PPARalpha, PPARgamma, and PPARdelta in reporter-based assays.

 

and IIRC sesamin also may work via PPAR which might work synergistically (if delta activating all 3 PPAR doesn't muck up things).  

 

I'm really not fond of the taste of olives and would love to find some other healthy fat to replace olive oil , but I agree I suspect tocotrienols might be better as supps. 

[dazed1]

I'm huge fan of tocos, first time i used it, i never noticed the carpal tunnel i have vanished in just 2 days, later on i run out, and it came back again. So later on few months later, i again order the tocos, and again the CT went away in just few days. But AGAIN i didnt notice it was the tocos, so i run out for a 3rd time, and again the same thig happned, but this time 1-2 months after, so the last time when i bought new pack, AND AGAIN the CT was gone in only 2-3 days, i then realize it was the tocos all this time! they are incredible, im sold. Also my prostate issues (i think its clogged up - inflamed abdominal aorta) also elevate in insane manner just after few days, its really sick.

 

http://www.wellnessr...ancer_research/

 

http://www.drpasswat...bierenbaum.html

Edited by dazed1, 10 July 2017 - 01:35 AM.

[mccoy]

To get back to the original question, I suggest to read Michael Rae's exhaustive illustration on the predimed study in the CRsociety forum. Post # 15. He lucidly describes how the predimed study suggest an high degree of probability that EVOO beneficial effects on health (true EVOO, of the high polyphenols variety) is equal to nuts and in some aspects even superior to nuts .

 

That has been one of the most detailed and precisely carried out studies on EVOO, and the objections based on studies with no information on the source 'olive oil' are ludicrous to say the list.

[Nate-2004]

OK, if you're basing this on the premiss that you for culinary reasons absolutely have to have added fats in your diet, EVOO is probably your best choice. However, considering that all foods contain fat and the only essential fats are omega 3 and omega 6; someone please explain to me: What exactly is the nutritional or health benefit to consume any added fats or extracted oils whatsoever? 

 

If you eat a whole food source of fat like olives or nuts you get much more nutrients and fiber per calorie and l also read somewhere (by Joel Fuhrman I think) that the fat is absorbed over several hours (rather than minutes in the case of oil) by the body in the same way carbohydrates and sugar contained in whole foods are absorbed much slower than table sugar or white bread. Everybody here probably agrees that eating fruit is much better than just extracting and drinking the juice and discard the rest. Well, the olive is also a fruit...

 

I don't think fats are bad per se. There is lots of data when it comes to the benefits of nuts for example. Walnuts have lots of fats in them but contrary to oils they actually improve endothelial function after ingestion. https://www.ncbi.nlm...ubmed/19880586/

 

One of the first reasons that pops into my head is that a lot of vitamins, D especially, and other polyphenols and spices (curcumin, etc) are highly reliant on fat as a transport. So many supplements or even vegetables need fat to transport the nutrients within. Bioavailability goes up substantially. Green tea extract is probably the only thing I can think of that one should only take in a fasted state. Water soluble vitamins like B are fine without fat but also fine with it. Monounsaturated fat, of which olive oil consists, is probably the best transporter for these. I'm on vacation in Croatia right now but having looked at how they store and provide olive oil here I probably wouldn't trust it, despite being right by Italy and Greece.

[dazed1]

Saturated far is far better for curcumin/turmeric absorption.

[Telo]

 

OK, if you're basing this on the premiss that you for culinary reasons absolutely have to have added fats in your diet, EVOO is probably your best choice. However, considering that all foods contain fat and the only essential fats are omega 3 and omega 6; someone please explain to me: What exactly is the nutritional or health benefit to consume any added fats or extracted oils whatsoever? 

 

If you eat a whole food source of fat like olives or nuts you get much more nutrients and fiber per calorie and l also read somewhere (by Joel Fuhrman I think) that the fat is absorbed over several hours (rather than minutes in the case of oil) by the body in the same way carbohydrates and sugar contained in whole foods are absorbed much slower than table sugar or white bread. Everybody here probably agrees that eating fruit is much better than just extracting and drinking the juice and discard the rest. Well, the olive is also a fruit...

 

I don't think fats are bad per se. There is lots of data when it comes to the benefits of nuts for example. Walnuts have lots of fats in them but contrary to oils they actually improve endothelial function after ingestion. https://www.ncbi.nlm...ubmed/19880586/

 

One of the first reasons that pops into my head is that a lot of vitamins, D especially, and other polyphenols and spices (curcumin, etc) are highly reliant on fat as a transport. So many supplements or even vegetables need fat to transport the nutrients within. Bioavailability goes up substantially. Green tea extract is probably the only thing I can think of that one should only take in a fasted state. Water soluble vitamins like B are fine without fat but also fine with it. Monounsaturated fat, of which olive oil consists, is probably the best transporter for these. I'm on vacation in Croatia right now but having looked at how they store and provide olive oil here I probably wouldn't trust it, despite being right by Italy and Greece.

 

Yes, certainly you're not what you eat, you are what you absorb.

But consider these three alternatives:

A)  salad (only mixed vegetables)

B)  salad with 1 tsp EVOO

C)  salad with no oil but avocado, nuts or seeds (amount of fat = the EVOO) 

 

Question 1: Which alternative is healthier?

Question 2: Is there any difference in nutrient bioavailability between B) and C) ?

 

My answers:

1: If the answer to question 2 is "No" then alternative C) should be the healthiest, right? After that A) or B)? Maybe the increased absorption of several health promoting substances in B) compensates for the detrimental effects of the oil. Maybe 1 tsp EVOO is not enough to decrease endothelial function especially together with the protective antioxidants of the vegetables. In the Vogel study mentioned earlier they used 50 g (about 3.6 tbsp) EVOO which seems a bit much to be 100% relatable to normal use.  

2: I have no Idea, probably "No"