Re: "What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?"
- From: monty1945@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:08:19 -0700
Not sure what your point is, Ron, as I never advocate consuming the
usual "trans fat" subjects, which are often "fast food" or "junk
food." I have pointed out that things like Cool Whip are 100%
saturated, so I will consume that, and also that certain kinds of
items like this are highly saturated, such as Pepperidge Farms'
"Amaretto Milano" cookies, which might contain some trans fatty acids,
but this is irrelevant. It's only when you eat a highly unsaturated
food item that also contains more than a trace amount of TFAs that you
should worry about your health, but this is also true of similar items
with no TFAs. The thing is you won't find items like cookies with a
high fat content and a huge amount of PUFAs (and not much of TFAs,
SFAs, or MUFAs), because it would be a greasy mess. You will find
"fast food" meat items that are rich in PUFAs, possibly TFAs as well,
along with other dangerous substances (especially after high-heat,
exposed-to-air cooking), such as oxidized cholesterol, too much iron,
HCAs, etc. Until these are controlled separately, most of the kinds
of studies people like yourself cite are irrelevant, and possibly
highly misleading. By contrast, I point to studies that demonstrate
that cooking meat with a PUFA-rich oil generates dangerous levels of
HCAs, for example. However, the diet I now consume (since 2001) is
very rich in SFAs, "simple carbs" (sugar-rich items), and salt, but
low in PUFAs, with no animal product cooked at high temperatures while
exposed to air (basically, just pasteurized dairy and boiled eggs).
The point I try to stress to people like yourself is that you can't
say a "high saturated fat diet" because you are not controlling for
several factors that molecular-level evidence demonstrates to likely
be significant. My diet, for example, is very different from a
typical Atkins-style diet, though someone like yourself will classify
both as "high saturated fat," which is really meaningless,
scientifically. Because it's so difficult to control for all factors,
I advocate the formulation of tasty, satisfying diets that can then be
tested to determine which is healthiest. Instead, people like
yourself look for short-term markers, which the molecular-level
evidence sometimes does not support. For example, since only oxidized
LDL is dangerous, any study that claims that a particular diet is
unhealthy because it raises LDL levels (usually temporarily in any
case) should be ignored until oxLDL is controlled in follow-up
experiments, but this is not the case.
.
- References:
- "What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?"
- From: monty1945
- Re: "What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?"
- From: Ron Peterson
- "What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?"
- Prev by Date: Hypocol used for Cholesterol Management adds Online Purchase & Delivery Services to www.hypocol.com
- Next by Date: My response to someone who emailed me a "stone age" diet type of study.
- Previous by thread: Re: "What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?"
- Next by thread: Re: "What if Bad Fat is Actually Good for You?"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
