Re: What "saturated fat" actually is.

From: Wolfbrother (rangerhasten_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: 29 Jun 2004 11:27:09 -0700

"monty" <spamorama@spamville.net> wrote in message news:<kW5Ec.1424$Wd.4002@ord-read.news.verio.net>...
> As far as scientific rigor is concerned, you might as well ignore the phrase
> ?saturated fat.? This phrase has been used to describe (in the
> pronouncements of ?experts? as well as in ?scientific? experiments and
> studies) lard, which is less than 40% SFAs, as well as coconut oil, which is
> 92% or more SFAs. Not only that, but the kinds of saturated fatty acids in
> lard and coconut oil are quite different, and each fatty acid has unique
> physiological effects. However, only if you bombard cells in a test tube
> with massive amounts of one kind of fatty acid does one usually see any
> measurable effect (with the major exception of arachidonic acid, discussed
> below). ?Saturated fat? got a bad name because some of the common saturated
> fatty acids tend to raise total serum cholesterol levels (but not
> necessarily overall cholesterol in the body) a small amount (especially in
> those with levels below 200 orso), though other common saturated fatty acids
> tend to lower serum TC. Considering how people usually eat a variety of
> foods, the differences are not often important in the TC context. What?s
> worse, however, is that it is now clear (to anyone keeping upwith the
> scientific literature) that it is oxidized cholesterol (perhaps oxidized LDL
> most of all) that is actually causing the problems (such as
> atherosclerosis ? a chronic inflammatory process). The reason is that the
> highly reactive polyunsaturated fatty acid, known as arachidonic acid (20
> carbons long, but with 4double bonds ? super unstable, for those of you
> unacquainted with biochemistry), that is in the LDL of most people (in the
> sn-2 phospholipid position, to be precise). Arachidonic acid is easily
> disturbed and oxidized in the body (and is the reason why so many people are
> taking drugs to knock out the COX-2 pathway, as well as 5 LOX,which produces
> LtB4, another major problem-child of arachidonic acid). Now the good news is
> that if you go on a real ?Mediterranean? diet, with fat coming from eggs,
> whole milk dairy, high quality olives and olive oil, and small amounts of me
> at from animals that eat grass, not grain, then you will get the arachidonic
> acid out of thesn-2 position (it will be replaced by the much more stable
> monounsaturated called Mead acid). It takes about 2 years, give or take
> several months, but you will then be much more likely to avoid ?chronic
> disease.? In general, saturated fatty acids block biochemical reactions.
> Unless you are growing or pregnant, this is what you want. There will be
> less genetic transcriptional activity, meaning less to go wrong, such as
> cancerous growths. This is why antioxidants are being pushed on you, because
> these substances limit biochemical reactions (to be precise, they are
> electron donors, so they ?quench? free radicals). A traditional Asian diet,
> high in coconut oil, or a traditional African diet, high in palm products
> (such as palm kernel oil)are also healthy in this context, though you?ve got
> to be moderate with the foods that contain polyunsaturated fatty acids.
> While not all of these kinds of fatty acids are as unstable as arachidonic
> acid, they are also very susceptible to free radical degradation in your
> body (?in vivo,? as they say), so don?t eat a ton of fatty fish thinking
> that this is healthy. A little unpolluted fish with a lot of coconut or palm
> product makes the most sense, if you feel you must eat fish (shellfish make
> the most sense). Another interesting product is tahini (made from sesame
> seeds) because, although high in omega 6 polyunsaturates, it has
> antioxidants that prevent arachidonic acid from being created (metabolized)
> in your body. I would suggest small amounts of tahini for taste purposes,
> but not as a dietary staple. So if anyone can find a scientific paper that
> can distinguish all the fatty acids in the diets of at least a few hundred
> people, then follow the health of those people for several decades, I?d like
> to see it. Most of the ?studies? are based on questionnaires, and make all
> kinds of assumptions about what is ?saturated fat? and how much a person
> ate. This is the realm of a statistician?s fantasy, nothing more. While it
> may be interesting on some abstract level, it?s close to, if not absolutely
> worthless in the context of what an individual (with a unique family history
> and personal history) should do. For example, it?s clear from recent
> biochemical studies that cholesterol is protective against cancer and
> viruses. In recent Russianstudies, those with high HDL, low LDL, and low TC
> are the ones dying of heart attacks. And of course almost everyone has heard
> of the ?French Paradox? by now. If you asked my advice, and I learned that
> your family had a history of cancer but n o history of heart disease, I
> would tell you that keeping your cholesterol levels high (such as my last
> blood test, which was 209 TC, 63 HDL, and 123 LDL), would be best, in light
> of the recent scientific papers, as long as you don?t let it get oxidized,
> either before you eat it, or after it is circulating in your body. That?s
> what the evidence suggests, and that?s all science is, namely, what the
> evidence suggests at a given point in history. You can do your own research
> on sites like www.pubmed.comand come to your own conclusions, but don?t be
> fooled by studies that begin with assumptions about concepts that are not
> even defined, which brings us back to the fact that ?saturated fat? really
> doesn?t mean anything. I guess you could argue that it means a food that has
> some amount of at least one saturated fatty acid in it, butby this
> definition, almost any food that has some fat content would be called a
> ?saturated fat.? Some on this newsgroup have said that lard is healthy
> because it is only about 39% saturated, but that?s precisely why it?s not
> healthy. It?s got plenty of polyunsaturates, and these are the molecules
> that are susceptible to free radical degradation (called lipid peroxidation
> in the body). If you look at the scientific papers on the products generated
> in your body from lipid peroxidation you had better be wearing adult
> diapers, because the stuff damages just about everything it touches, and in
> major ways). Since few Americans are eating coconut oil these days, there
> are very few foods that are very high in saturated fatty acids, so the
> statistical, or ?epidemiological? studies, don?t make much sense at all. In
> most of these kinds of studies, if you ate lard (39% SFAs), you be a
> ?saturated fat?person, but if you eat the equal amount of fat from Brazil
> nuts (24% SFAs), you would be classified as a ?non-saturated fat? person,
> even if you made up the 15% SFAs difference in other foods. Often, nobody,
> even other scientists, is allowed to know exactly how the numbers are
> crunched. It?s a total scam. In one of these ridiculous studies, pasted
> below, they say that animal fat was not correlated with AD, but that
> ?saturated fat? was. Now these are old people in Minnesota or wherever. Are
> some of them eating massive amounts of coconut oil? I contacted the Rush
> Institute and spoke to a secretary, who said she would get an explanation
> for me. After the second attempt, I gave up ? they must have known that what
> they wrote was ludicrous, and just hoped I wasn?t a big-time journalist who
> would make them look stupid in a major newspaper. When you eat lard, you
> cook it, and it?s been lying around for who knows how long before you even
> purchased it. There is little if any antioxidant protection in it. When it
> gets into your body, unless you eat a big bowl of blueberries (or something
> similar) with it, you?re going to have plenty of lipid peroxidation in your
> body. In fact, experiments designed to see how good a particular herb or
> spice is in terms of its antioxdant power use pork sausage, because
> peroxidation of these kinds of foods is so quick and massive. Try the samex
> experiment with coconut oil and you?d have to wait years, not minutes or
> hours, to determine the differences, because all those saturated fatty acids
> in coconut oil don?t allow free radical reactions to occur. Free radical
> science has made leaps and bounds lately, leaving ?medicine? and ?nutrition?
> in the dust, and what?s great isthat you can now come to your own
> conclusions, if you?re willing to investigate thoroughly, and with an open
> mind, the way I did starting a few years ago. What that study below suggests
> is that free radical exposure is the key, though unless they are willing
> disclose exactly what they did, there is no way to be sure. So stop
> listening to ?experts? who have more conflicts of interest than the number
> of stars you can count in the night sky and you?ll be well on your way to
> avoiding ?chronic disease.?

Awsome post. Very informative and full of rationality and logic
unlike most others. All I can say is what took you so long? There
are so many ignorants posting rubbish here its about time someone else
came along to spell it out for them in such a definitive way. You
gave me some new things to consider as well, many thanks.

I agree 100% with your view of modern medical research. That is why I
appreciate so much the work of honest and ethical scientists like Mary
Enig and Uffe Ravnskov and others affiliated with THINKS who are
working for the benefit of the public and not their own pocket book.
One thing you did not mention is anything about Trans fat and your
thoughts about it as far as biochemical affects as well as its role in
research on "saturated fat" From my understanding much of the
research on saturated fat is flawed in the ways that you said but also
because much of it involves trans fat that is not fully disclosed or
distinguished by the researchers as different than other animal fats.
What you said about cholesterol and coconut oil is also right in line
with the views of Uffe Ravnskov and Mary Enig. Mary Enig is also
currently doing some interesting work on coconut oil. What are your
thoughts on that if you are familiar with it.

    It is truely amazing what the modern medical industry can get away
with in their cholesterol campeign. Most people have no clue about
how flawed their information about colesterol dangers are. I have
found that if you truely look at the "risk factors" high cholesterol
is really only a risk factor for about 10% of the population or less.
It is not even a risk factor at all in the elderly and for most women,
in fact those with HIGH cholesterol end up living longer than those
with low!! And when you consider that 90% or so of all heart attack
patients are elderly it toaly shatters the "cholesterol theroy" Yet so
many of them are taking statins. It is truely despicable.

http://coconutoil.com/

Quantcast