saturated fat confusing

Alzheimer's, cardiovascular, and other chronic diseases; biomarkers, lifestyle, supplements, drugs, and health care.
User avatar
Russ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:33 am

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Russ » Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:27 pm

MarcR wrote:
Tincup wrote:My wife and I just decided to err on the more cautious side.

I too have decided to err on the more cautious side. Of course, that causes me to eat much more saturated fat from animal sources than Tincup, since he and I have different views regarding what is more cautious! :-)


:-). Me Too.

... but I humbly acknowledge the uncertainty of which @TinCup speaks. There is no safety (yet) in any "cautious" position.

Perhaps I might add that central in my thinking is not just fat (saturated or otherwise), but the (possibly vital) importance of fat-soluble vitamins. Speculating now, but (as might be implied from recent Bit K2 discussions) what if the optimal state for APOE involves high concentrations of blood lipids as long as the ample amounts fat soluble vitamins (especially A/D/K2) are also present?

Russ
Russ
E3/4
Eat whole, real, flavorful food - fresh and in season... and mix it up once in a while.

User avatar
MarcR
Mod
Mod
Posts: 1797
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:28 pm
Location: Camas, Washington, US

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby MarcR » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:40 am

Tincup wrote:In my view, the worst case is that Gundry's approach is more restrictive than necessary.
Seems plausible. Certainly your ongoing experience of feeling energetic, strong, and happy shows that Gundry's diet is consistent with good health.
Also think diet may not be the most important variable in this whole exercise...
If by that you mean that there is a broad range of effective dietary patterns and that the results yielded by them vary only modestly, I agree wholeheartedly. Once one has a reasonable diet, I think the other interventions you promote like movement, strength training, sleep hygiene, meditation, stress reduction, multi-day fasts, natural light, exposure to temperature extremes, etc. offer much more benefit than dietary tweaking.

That said, epidemiologically, I think today it likely is the most important variable. In my view, diet is the primary cause of the worldwide epidemic of chronic disease that has afflicted industrialized societies over the past 40 years. It's certainly not the only cause - sedentarism and environmental toxins are key secondary factors - but I think as a species we are proving collectively the old saw that you can't outrun a truly bad diet.

In my view, demonization of traditional foods is the foundation of that diet. I think humans have been persuaded to make three critical substitutions:

  1. Replace fat with sugar.
  2. Replace saturated fat with chemically refined oil.
  3. Replace nose-to-tail consumption of pastured animals eating traditionally with muscle meats from animals eating non-traditionally in confined animal feeding operations.
Sugar, refined oil (corn, soy, canola, peanut, safflower, cottonseed, sunflower), and sick meat (grain, soy, and sugar-fed cows, chickens, and pigs) are the building blocks of the hyper-palatable processed food which has swept the planet. I believe these substitutions are subtle and pernicious. Instead of directly encouraging us to eat lots of sugar, refined oil, and cheap protein, we are told that the traditional foods that fueled our species' rise to preeminence are harmful. And then when we replace those demonized foods, the gears of commerce deliver addictive processed food that makes us sick.

The substitution effect created by declaring traditional, proven foods harmful is powerful - it hits us from our blind side. When we agree to avoid or reduce consumption of entire classes of nourishing food, we're left with narrower, more challenging paths to avoid being tempted by the foods that make us sick.

Around here, the sentiment against sugar and chemically refined oil and the comfort with eating more high-quality fat is strong. I don't think those valuable correctives to the world's "truly bad diet" need more support.

Saturated fat, on the other hand, especially from animals and even from pastured animals eating traditionally, still makes us edgy. We know that the guidelines advising us to choose canola oil and authorizing us to eat 2-3 tablespoons of added sugar daily are not right, but we still believe in lipid panels and the artery-clogging superpowers of saturated fat.

That's why I regularly stick up for saturated fat and especially why suggestions that avoiding saturated fat is "playing it safe" often inspire me to comment. Once we decide to "play it safe", we subject ourselves to a potent substitution effect by narrowing our path to a healthful dietary pattern.

Surfrank57
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:17 pm

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Surfrank57 » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:53 am

I agree with your assessments Marc, Russ and Tincup. However, I lean heavily toward the Marc camp and the more research I do into this topic, the more convinced I am that saturated fat is not our enemy. Nobody can say they have the definitive answer to this dilemma and like I have said many times on these boards: I have seen CVD and heart attacks come from every different eating mode on this planet, including the very fit, vegan, paleo, vegetarian, keto only, high carb, low carb, SAD, high fat and low fat.

As a research student at UCI Med school it was shocking to me to see people in the ER with perfectly normal BMI's, BP, normal lipid panels ( or at least what was considered normal then) and very few other risk factors having heart attacks. The diversity / culture was mixed, educational level was mixed, economic means ( high, low, and middle class). I heard some of the best theories on earth from top docs in all fields, as to why people have CVD, and besides the obvious risk factors; smoking, excessive drinking, major family history, high stress levels, high blood pressure , the jury was still out.

It is just very hard to nail down all variants in the human body. What works for one person may cause a vascular problem in another, so you have to go with what medicine has to offer. Blood markers, calcium scores, stress tests, echograms, inflammatory tests, and angiograms if you are brave and have a doctor willing to rule out artery disease if you are symptomatic.

Finally like George has stated; how do you feel and what can you do. He follows a lifestyle and diet that allows him to do physically do what he enjoys. If you do all that we are told by a doctor, a government, your peers, friends, family, etc. and feel like crap and have limitations in your daily life, I would question your choices. Bottom line, quality of life will always be more important than longevity if you can not do what you want to enjoy your life. I have seen plenty of people live to a ripe old age and some have a terrible quality of life. The ones I try to mimic are those that live long, stay active, and enjoy their good health.

If you have ever spent time in or around a hospital like Sandy and I have in the medical field you will know what I am talking about. Like others have stated I do not know what the magic bullet is, but my OPINION and research tells me "quality" saturated fat is not the evil bogey man.

Frank

Searcher
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:42 am

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Searcher » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:00 am

Interesting discussion.

This information might be helpful, despite its limitations and caveats:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2. ... 60fig1.jpg

from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5081717/

Saturated fats are a heterogenous group, with varying (and sometimes opposing) actions. They come from various sources, including notably a person's own liver in response to high doses of carbohydrates or alcohol.

As knowledge grows about their action on cells and ceramide production, decisions about this heterogenous group can become better informed.

User avatar
Russ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:33 am

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Russ » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:23 pm

MarcR wrote:
Tincup wrote:In my view, the worst case is that Gundry's approach is more restrictive than necessary.
Seems plausible. ... [body details deleted]

That's why I regularly stick up for saturated fat and especially why suggestions that avoiding saturated fat is "playing it safe" often inspire me to comment. Once we decide to "play it safe", we subject ourselves to a potent substitution effect by narrowing our path to a healthful dietary pattern.


^^^What he said + I think the place we really go wrong as thinking of food as just some mix of component macros we currently understand. Whole food is a rich array of macro and micronutrients. Even the fat soluble vitamins that we currently understand are but a part of the bigger story.

Thus, I actually do see some risk in Gundry's approach beyond over-restriction, and that is removing from the input mix this complex array of nutrients that is at best tricky and possibly even detrimental to try to cover from supplements. Our bodies evolved to be healthy when use food produced by nature, and I think that is the truly safest place to start.

Russ
Russ
E3/4
Eat whole, real, flavorful food - fresh and in season... and mix it up once in a while.

Searcher
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:42 am

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Searcher » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:55 pm

Russ wrote:Our bodies evolved to be healthy when use food produced by nature, and I think that is the truly safest place to start.


Perhaps the question faced by many people is:

Are some foods produced by nature more beneficial or harmful to health than others, in terms of quality of life, disability or premature death?

Most people would settle for restriction on some natural foods and emphasis on others, if they could gain a longer healthspan in exchange.

But in general the less processing of food the better, for the reasons you highlighted. In a similar vein, the more emphasis on health outcomes (vs only biomarkers) the better because the biomarkers are only a subset of the relevant ones.

User avatar
Russ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:33 am

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Russ » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:16 pm

Searcher wrote:
But in general the less processing of food the better, for the reasons you highlighted.


I'm guessing most here would agree we want to minimize "processing." But it's also about production method as much processing. A food can look very similar on the outside, but be very different on the inside (at levels we only somewhat comprehend presently). And even with lightly processed supplements like fish oils, I think they have added risks outside of their natural, whole packaging. So I eat sardines instead of take fish oil pills - perhaps ironically, a tip from my one call w Gundry.
Russ
E3/4
Eat whole, real, flavorful food - fresh and in season... and mix it up once in a while.

User avatar
seaweed
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:15 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby seaweed » Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:36 pm

Russ wrote:Our bodies evolved to be healthy when use food produced by nature, and I think that is the truly safest place to start.



But are certain bodies better suited to eat certain types of food, based on our heritage and/or genes aside from ApoE? For example, I just found out I'm homozygous for every FADS1 and all but two FADS2 genes. So now I am really starting to wonder how my body is actually doing with fats.
4/4 & CIRS (lyme + mold)

User avatar
KellyS
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:53 pm
Contact:

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby KellyS » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:14 pm

seaweed wrote:
Russ wrote:Our bodies evolved to be healthy when use food produced by nature, and I think that is the truly safest place to start.



But are certain bodies better suited to eat certain types of food, based on our heritage and/or genes aside from ApoE? For example, I just found out I'm homozygous for every FADS1 and all but two FADS2 genes. So now I am really starting to wonder how my body is actually doing with fats.


Hey, Seaweed,

I'm just jumping on for today so I apologize for the tardiness. I am in full agreement, I think that we are now at a place in history where a one-size-fits-all dietary plan just isn't feasible, mainly due to the variant SNPs and our heritage. Good point!

Kelly
Holistic Healthcare Practitioner
Functional Medicine Health Coach - Candidate
apoe4.info intern

User avatar
Russ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:33 am

Re: saturated fat confusing

Postby Russ » Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:56 pm

KellyS wrote:
seaweed wrote:
Russ wrote:Our bodies evolved to be healthy when use food produced by nature, and I think that is the truly safest place to start.



But are certain bodies better suited to eat certain types of food, based on our heritage and/or genes aside from ApoE? For example, I just found out I'm homozygous for every FADS1 and all but two FADS2 genes. So now I am really starting to wonder how my body is actually doing with fats.


Hey, Seaweed,

I'm just jumping on for today so I apologize for the tardiness. I am in full agreement, I think that we are now at a place in history where a one-size-fits-all dietary plan just isn't feasible, mainly due to the variant SNPs and our heritage. Good point!

Kelly


I also completely agree. Very plausible if not likely that the optimal real food varies for each person - not only by genetics, but state of current reality that's a result of one's history.

Russ
Russ
E3/4
Eat whole, real, flavorful food - fresh and in season... and mix it up once in a while.


Return to “Prevention and Treatment”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 35 guests