Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 I eat roughly 4 times the recommended maximum of saturated fat. Sheesh, from raw milk alone, I get a good 50 grams or so, vs. the USRDA MAXIMUM of 20!!! My main problem is that I don't have _enough_ fat on me, and I seem utterly unable to gain any. I think it would be impossible to eat healthily while getting more monos than sats, because that would have to mean ceasing to use butter and milk, which are like 80% saturated. Olive oil is my main oil, but I'm not going to drink a glass of it to try to balance my fats! I think we're doing ok So far as I can tell, we should have a majority saturated fats, a significant minority monounsaturates, as little omega 6 polys as we can, and as much omega-3s as we can, without supplements (even rich sources like salmon or cod liver oil have tiny amounts, so if it's all from food sources I wouldn't worry about excess). And hey, if your not fat, you don't really need to lose any weight, right? Peace, Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2002 Report Share Posted July 26, 2002 Well, I haven't seen any evidence that there is a danger in too many omega-3s. There is, of course, a danger in too much of anything, but certainly Americans are severely deficient in omega-3s and get WAY too much omega-6s. While I'm far from an expert-- nay, barely literate in the field-- still, I've seen piles of evidence for the need for large quantities of omega3s (that is, long-chain omega-3s), and no evidence to avoid them. Studies show mental patients have significant improvement by eating salmon 3-5 times a week, for example. Barry Sears, whatever his faults, I think has demonstrated well the importance of omega-3s to proper hormonal balance. I use small amounts of flax oil, but get most of my omega-3s from eggs that have been fed flax or omega-3-rich algae, which comes in the form of DHA when it gets to the egg, and cod liver oil, which is mostly DHA and EPA, along with occasional salmon. Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 Well I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe Dr. Schwarzbein needs to read Enig's book, " Know Your Fats " . I would love to hear Sally Fallon and Dr. Schwarzbein debate, or at least discuss nutrition, especially about fats. Now that would be very interesting! Thanks for your reply, Sheila .. > I eat roughly 4 times the recommended maximum of saturated fat. Sheesh, from > raw milk alone, I get a good 50 grams or so, vs. the USRDA MAXIMUM of 20!!! > My main problem is that I don't have _enough_ fat on me, and I seem utterly > unable to gain any. > > I think it would be impossible to eat healthily while getting more monos than > sats, because that would have to mean ceasing to use butter and milk, which > are like 80% saturated. Olive oil is my main oil, but I'm not going to drink > a glass of it to try to balance my fats! > > I think we're doing ok > > So far as I can tell, we should have a majority saturated fats, a significant > minority monounsaturates, as little omega 6 polys as we can, and as much > omega-3s as we can, without supplements (even rich sources like salmon or cod > liver oil have tiny amounts, so if it's all from food sources I wouldn't > worry about excess). > > And hey, if your not fat, you don't really need to lose any weight, right? > > > > Peace, > Chris > > ____ > > " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a > heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and > animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of > them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense > compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to > bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. > Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the > truth, and for those who do them wrong. " > > --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 Chris- >So far as I can tell, we should have a majority saturated fats, a significant >minority monounsaturates, as little omega 6 polys as we can, and as much >omega-3s as we can, without supplements (even rich sources like salmon or cod >liver oil have tiny amounts, so if it's all from food sources I wouldn't >worry about excess). Right on, except for one small point. It's possible to consume too much omega-3 fat, just not quite as easy as it is to eat too much omega-6 because of the nature of our food supply. Omega-3 and omega-6 fats should both amount to about 1.5-2% percent of our diet, though some people believe we should get a little more omega-6 than omega-3. I'd also add that there's a significant difference between animal omega-3 fats and vegetable sources, as the animal fats tend to be the elongated acids which we have great difficulty forming from the shorter plant form, such as that found in flax seed oil. As to the monounsaturated fats, I expect we probably get more or less enough from animal sources. There's some in dairy, plenty in marrow, and some in all animal fat. I'm not saying olive oil is bad -- far from it -- but I don't think it's something we should necessarily eat tons of. Coconut oil is probably a healthier cooking fat, and lard and tallow too for that matter. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 Sheila- >Do you think Dr. S is off base with >this reply? Maybe she hasn't read Dr. Price's research. Yes, I think she is off base, particularly since saturated fat is _more_ effective for weight loss (on a low or reduced-carb regimen) than any kind of unsaturated fat. The more unsaturated a fat is, the more it tends to depress the metabolism. We require certain unsaturated fats (DHA, for example) but we shouldn't have any more than necessary. From what I can tell, I think we can get all the monounsaturated fat we need from healthy saturated fat-rich animal foods. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 >>>>>>>>As to the monounsaturated fats, I expect we probably get more or less enough from animal sources. There's some in dairy, plenty in marrow, and some in all animal fat. I'm not saying olive oil is bad -- far from it -- but I don't think it's something we should necessarily eat tons of. ****our bodies manufacture them as well. same with all other fats except n-3s and n-6s. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 >>>>>Well, I haven't seen any evidence that there is a danger in too many omega-3s. There is, of course, a danger in too much of anything, but certainly Americans are severely deficient in omega-3s and get WAY too much omega-6s. While I'm far from an expert-- nay, barely literate in the field-- still, I've seen piles of evidence for the need for large quantities of omega3s (that is, long-chain omega-3s), and no evidence to avoid them. Studies show mental patients have significant improvement by eating salmon 3-5 times a week, for example. Barry Sears, whatever his faults, I think has demonstrated well the importance of omega-3s to proper hormonal balance. *******chris, excess polyunsaturated fats (omega 3s are the *most* UNsaturated, and hence the most UNstable) is associate with cancer and other degenerative diseases. the reason is that the more double bonds a fatty acid has, the more unstable it is (prone to oxidation). free radical damage (including lipid oxidation) has been linked to just about every degenerative disease known, and there is ample evidence that it's what causes ageing. our need for n-3s is quite small. don't believe all the hype about consuming large amounts of fish oil. it's about as reliable as the low-fat paradigm that was shoved down our throats for decades. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 At 11:19 PM 7/26/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Sally said middle aged women(that would certainly be me) >can gain weight on olive oil. Other than a teeny amount of ground >flax seed, and of cousre the oils in the vegetables I eat, that is >all the monounsaturates I take. Do you think Dr. S is off base with >this reply? Maybe she hasn't read Dr. Price's research. Compared to coconut oil, olive oil is more fattening, which is how I took Sally's comment. But I think the research now is leaning toward starches being more fattening, which is pretty much where Dr. S. is at. And that has to do with how the appetite works. I would agree with that, based a lot on working with animals -- my goats, for instance, can eat grass all day and do fine. But if they are left alone with a bucket of oats, they will eat themselves (possibly literally) to death. I hear the same from owners of horses and other animals, except birds, which can handle carbs just fine. Me, it's popcorn: I don't ever seem to have an " off " switch for the stuff. But if I eat a good hunk of protein and fat with a meal, and measure how much carb to eat, then I'm fine. We (at least some of us!) seem to be hard-wired to scarf down as much carbohydrate as is available, which, in nature, isn't very much. Or maybe we get addicted to the seratonin levels or opiates in grains. Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 > Compared to coconut oil, olive oil is more fattening, which is > how I took Sally's comment. *** Yes, but coconut oil doesn't go well on salad like olive oil (-: > But I think the research now is leaning toward starches > being more fattening, which is pretty much where Dr. S. is > at. And that has to do with how the appetite works. I would > agree with that, based a lot on working with animals -- my goats, > for instance, can eat grass all day and do fine. But if they are > left alone with a bucket of oats, they will eat themselves (possibly > literally) to death. I hear the same from owners of horses and Yes, true. We weigh food for our horses, especially since they are retired (-: (at least they don't have to worry about their 401K). We don't want to feed them too much. But if you can graze your horses in pasture they usally don't over eat. > other animals, except birds, which can handle carbs just fine. > Me, it's popcorn: I don't ever seem to have an " off " switch > for the stuff. I don't have an off switch for popcorn or pistachio nuts. But, I have recently found out that pistachio nuts are very high in Omega-6 vs. Omega-3. Walnuts have a better Omega-3 ratio, but I just don't care to eat that many of them. But if I eat a good hunk of protein and fat with > a meal, and measure how much carb to eat, then I'm fine. > > We (at least some of us!) seem to be hard-wired to > scarf down as much carbohydrate > as is available, which, in nature, isn't very much. Or maybe > we get addicted to the seratonin levels or opiates in grains. I just started reading Sugar Blues. Very interesting how the author had withdrawal symptoms trying to give up sugar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 I think Dr. Schwarzbein was probably not familiar with Dr. Price's work, " The Cholesterol Myth " , etc., so she's following the standard line that monounsaturates are good sources of fats. If I were on the ball I would write her a letter, as I just read her book and have been working at restricting the CHO in our meal. Right now the garden in more important. That kind of letterwriting takes TIME! Peace, Kris , gardening in northwest Ohio If you want to hear the good news about butter check out this website: http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html ----- Original Message ----- From: " h2ocolor1937 " <h2ocolor@...> < > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 7:19 PM Subject: Schwarzbein and fats > HI Everyone, > Thanks to Mike in the previous post I checked out Dr. Schwarzbein's > web site. In among the FAQ's section there was this one: > > " 8. Don't I have to limit saturated fats? > Saturated fats can be a part of a healthy diet and should be included > with monounsaturated fats. Remember we are not promoting excessive > fat but rather a balance of carbohydrate, protein and fat. People > that are trying to achieve weight loss should include more > monounsaturated fats than saturated fats. " > > At least she does include saturated fats in the same sentence with > the words " healthy diet " . It's the part about eating more > monounsaturated fats that sort of stopped me in my tracks. I know I > eat more saturated fats than monounsaturated fats. A lot more! Do > you? I don't have a weight problem. > > Where are all these monounsaturated fats she is talking about > supposed to come from? Olive oil is my main oil and I use that very > moderately. Sally said middle aged women(that would certainly be me) > can gain weight on olive oil. Other than a teeny amount of ground > flax seed, and of cousre the oils in the vegetables I eat, that is > all the monounsaturates I take. Do you think Dr. S is off base with > this reply? Maybe she hasn't read Dr. Price's research. > Be Well, > Sheila > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 Suze- >don't believe all the hype about consuming large amounts of fish oil. it's >about as reliable as the low-fat paradigm that was shoved down our throats >for decades. Exactly! The medical establishment has an extremely simplistic mindset. It gets hold of an idea -- omega 3 fats are good, in this case -- and just runs it into the ground. I imagine that for some conditions huge doses can be very helpful in the short term, but only in the short term. In the long term, the best remedy will always be the best diet. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 In a message dated 7/26/02 7:16:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > *******chris, excess polyunsaturated fats (omega 3s are the *most* > UNsaturated, and hence the most UNstable) is associate with cancer and other > degenerative diseases. the reason is that the more double bonds a fatty acid > has, the more unstable it is (prone to oxidation). free radical damage > (including lipid oxidation) has been linked to just about every degenerative > disease known, and there is ample evidence that it's what causes ageing. our > need for n-3s is quite small. > > don't believe all the hype about consuming large amounts of fish oil. it's > about as reliable as the low-fat paradigm that was shoved down our throats > for decades. But the amounts of omega-3s in our foods are tiny. I probably consume 100 grams of fat a day... 1 gram of omega3s, which is tens, maybe a hundred, times the average American's intake, is only 1% of that amount. If I made a substantial effort to acquire large amounts of omega-3s, without taking fish oil supplements, I wouldn't be able to exceed 2%, probably, of my fat intake. If omega-3s are more unstable than omega-6s, and I doubt it is a _whole_ lot, but you would know better than me, the fact that Americans consume 10s or 100s of times as many omega-6s as omega-3s would indicate it is probably the omega6s contributing to cancer. Just a tablespoon of corn oil has like 10 grams of polys, hardly any of which are omega-3s. Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 >>>>>But the amounts of omega-3s in our foods are tiny. I probably consume 100 grams of fat a day... 1 gram of omega3s, which is tens, maybe a hundred, times the average American's intake, is only 1% of that amount. If I made a substantial effort to acquire large amounts of omega-3s, without taking fish oil supplements, I wouldn't be able to exceed 2%, probably, of my fat intake. ---------->human's daily requirement for LNA (omega 3 precursor to all other omega 3s) may be anywhere from .5% daily calories up to 2.5% according to Udo Erasmus in " Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill. " most other sources i've read are somewhere in that general ballpark, but it depends a lot on an individual's LNA status (low=needs more) and on the amount of LA and other omega 6s in the diet. scientists/researchers can't seem to agree on the 'optimal' ratio of omega 6s/omega 3s in the human diet, but it's generally thought to be somewhere in the ballbark of 4:1 or lower. i *think* sally recommends 2:1, but don't recall exactly...anyone? according to erasmus, human's dietary requirement of LNA (omega 6, precursor to all other omega 6s) is probably around 3-6% of daily calories. again, this is a general ballpark figure that's not universally agreed upon, but is in the neighborhood. as you said, americans tend to consume far too many omega 6s and not enough omega 3s. however, for those of us consuming more traditional/primitive diets that include grass-fed meat/organs, grass-fed milk products, maybe some cod liver oil or fatty fish, and some veggies, with minimal grains, imbalances are much less likely than those consuming SAD. considering price's studies of traditional cultures for a moment, the masai subsisted primarily on pastured milk, with some blood and some meat. very little in the way of veggies and fruits. the remote swiss villagers subsisted primarily on rye bread and milk products from pastured cows and goats, with just a little bit of meat and seasonal veggies. neither of these groups were taking fish oil capsules or flaxseed oil and were apparently none the worse for it. americans, it seems, would rather keep loading up on omega 6s (in many of our processed foods and veggie oils), but just supplement with fish oil caps to balance out the 6/3 ratio. i know a number of pet owners do this with their homemade diets because it's easier to ADD a little something than to try to balance out the diet in the first place. the problem with this is that we are increasing the overall UNsaturated oil content of our diets by doing this, and the long-term consequences are not considered. >>>>>>>If omega-3s are more unstable than omega-6s, and I doubt it is a _whole_ lot, but you would know better than me, --------->yes, as a whole, omega 3s have the most double bonds, which makes them the least chemically stable. i believe DHA (omega 3) has 6 double bonds - the most of any fatty acid. the omega 6 that americans consume the most of - linoleic acid - has 2 double bonds. omega 3s start at 3 double bonds and go up to 6 double bonds. >>the fact that Americans consume 10s or 100s of times as many omega-6s as omega-3s would indicate it is probably the omega6s contributing to cancer. --------->yes, omega 6s are also linked to cancer, but for a different reason (although the number of double bonds is an additional factor). it's because they are (with the exception of DGLA, i believe) pro-inflammatory. americans tend to overconsume Linoleic Acid (LA, omega 6) and this omega 6 has pro-inflammatory effects. depending on a number of factors in our individual health, we may not all be able to convert this omega 6 to longer chain omega 6s efficiently, either. however, pro-inflammatory is not a *bad* thing, because inflammation is a necessary and normal function of the body at certain times, such as when we need to heal a wound. it's just in *excess* that it's a problem, and americans generally DO consume excess pro-inflammatory omega 6s. this is main the reason omega 6s have been linked to cancer and other inflammatory diseases. omega 3s, while generally being anti-inflammatory, are, as i mentioned, the least chemically stable, which means they are more prone to oxidation which causes free radical damage, and over time can lead to degenerative diseases such as cancer. as an aside, high doses of fish oil have been used as *pro-oxidants* in cancer treatment. that means that free radical damage to cancer cells was induced by feeding high doses of omega 3s. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 >>>>>>>--------->yes, as a whole, omega 3s have the most double bonds, which makes them the least chemically stable. i believe DHA (omega 3) has 6 double bonds - the most of any fatty acid. the omega 6 that americans consume the most of - linoleic acid - has 2 double bonds. omega 3s start at 3 double bonds and go up to 6 double bonds. -------> oh, and i should mention that the double bond peroxidation value increases exponentially with each addtional double bond. so, the most consumed omega 6 has a double bond peroxidative index of 8, whereas the omega 3 with the *least* double bonds (3) has a double bond peroxidative index of 16. see: crsociety/files/VCO/OilAnalysis291201.gif for a detailed chart of the peroxidation value of various oils. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:06:25 -0400, you wrote: >Suze- > >>don't believe all the hype about consuming large amounts of fish oil. it's >>about as reliable as the low-fat paradigm that was shoved down our throats >>for decades. > >Exactly! The medical establishment has an extremely simplistic >mindset. It gets hold of an idea -- omega 3 fats are good, in this case -- >and just runs it into the ground. I imagine that for some conditions huge >doses can be very helpful in the short term, but only in the short >term. In the long term, the best remedy will always be the best diet. This is so true... yesterday I read on a bicycle list a discussion about diet, losing weight and performance. Subject of low carb diets came up, all the popular one were name. Resident MD said " let me turn my degrees around to face the wall " man what an attitude! Dr Schwarzbein said during her radio interview that she had a one hour class in nutrition in all the years she went to school, I am sure this guy had no more. Second, here in Marin county, we have a breast cancer rate that is off the scale. Rich, white county and are women are the sickest in the whole world. I've always felt that is was because of our affluence, we went to the doctor more often and the cancer was discovered, and therefore reported. I was close. Now it looks like all the women that were prescribed hormone replacement therapy. According to the newspaper article I read in the weekly rag yesterday, there were promises made that sounded a bit like the fountain of youth if you went along with the program. Now, horror or horrors, it appears that this very prescription of hormone therapy is the cause of the cancer, as well as increased risk of some other serious ailment that i can't think of right now. Going to the doctor was the problem. But when a culture looks at childbirth as a medical issue, then the end of that cycle would be one too. The art of individuality is lost, the art of thinking, realizing cause and effect is mostly lost. Sad times we live in, or has it always been like this? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 Suze, you mention Udo Erasmus' " Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill. " Have you read SF's thumbs-down review of that book? I bought it from my local health food store on the rec of the manager, and was vastly disappointed when I read SF's review of it. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Suze Fisher Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:32 AM Subject: RE: Schwarzbein and fats >>>>>But the amounts of omega-3s in our foods are tiny. I probably consume 100 grams of fat a day... 1 gram of omega3s, which is tens, maybe a hundred, times the average American's intake, is only 1% of that amount. If I made a substantial effort to acquire large amounts of omega-3s, without taking fish oil supplements, I wouldn't be able to exceed 2%, probably, of my fat intake. ---------->human's daily requirement for LNA (omega 3 precursor to all other omega 3s) may be anywhere from .5% daily calories up to 2.5% according to Udo Erasmus in " Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill. " most other sources i've read are somewhere in that general ballpark, but it depends a lot on an individual's LNA status (low=needs more) and on the amount of LA and other omega 6s in the diet. scientists/researchers can't seem to agree on the 'optimal' ratio of omega 6s/omega 3s in the human diet, but it's generally thought to be somewhere in the ballbark of 4:1 or lower. i *think* sally recommends 2:1, but don't recall exactly...anyone? according to erasmus, human's dietary requirement of LNA (omega 6, precursor to all other omega 6s) is probably around 3-6% of daily calories. again, this is a general ballpark figure that's not universally agreed upon, but is in the neighborhood. as you said, americans tend to consume far too many omega 6s and not enough omega 3s. however, for those of us consuming more traditional/primitive diets that include grass-fed meat/organs, grass-fed milk products, maybe some cod liver oil or fatty fish, and some veggies, with minimal grains, imbalances are much less likely than those consuming SAD. considering price's studies of traditional cultures for a moment, the masai subsisted primarily on pastured milk, with some blood and some meat. very little in the way of veggies and fruits. the remote swiss villagers subsisted primarily on rye bread and milk products from pastured cows and goats, with just a little bit of meat and seasonal veggies. neither of these groups were taking fish oil capsules or flaxseed oil and were apparently none the worse for it. americans, it seems, would rather keep loading up on omega 6s (in many of our processed foods and veggie oils), but just supplement with fish oil caps to balance out the 6/3 ratio. i know a number of pet owners do this with their homemade diets because it's easier to ADD a little something than to try to balance out the diet in the first place. the problem with this is that we are increasing the overall UNsaturated oil content of our diets by doing this, and the long-term consequences are not considered. >>>>>>>If omega-3s are more unstable than omega-6s, and I doubt it is a _whole_ lot, but you would know better than me, --------->yes, as a whole, omega 3s have the most double bonds, which makes them the least chemically stable. i believe DHA (omega 3) has 6 double bonds - the most of any fatty acid. the omega 6 that americans consume the most of - linoleic acid - has 2 double bonds. omega 3s start at 3 double bonds and go up to 6 double bonds. >>the fact that Americans consume 10s or 100s of times as many omega-6s as omega-3s would indicate it is probably the omega6s contributing to cancer. --------->yes, omega 6s are also linked to cancer, but for a different reason (although the number of double bonds is an additional factor). it's because they are (with the exception of DGLA, i believe) pro-inflammatory. americans tend to overconsume Linoleic Acid (LA, omega 6) and this omega 6 has pro-inflammatory effects. depending on a number of factors in our individual health, we may not all be able to convert this omega 6 to longer chain omega 6s efficiently, either. however, pro-inflammatory is not a *bad* thing, because inflammation is a necessary and normal function of the body at certain times, such as when we need to heal a wound. it's just in *excess* that it's a problem, and americans generally DO consume excess pro-inflammatory omega 6s. this is main the reason omega 6s have been linked to cancer and other inflammatory diseases. omega 3s, while generally being anti-inflammatory, are, as i mentioned, the least chemically stable, which means they are more prone to oxidation which causes free radical damage, and over time can lead to degenerative diseases such as cancer. as an aside, high doses of fish oil have been used as *pro-oxidants* in cancer treatment. that means that free radical damage to cancer cells was induced by feeding high doses of omega 3s. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 > > This is so true... > > yesterday I read on a bicycle list a discussion about diet, losing > weight and performance. Subject of low carb diets came up, all the > popular one were name. > Resident MD said " let me turn my degrees around to face the wall " > man what an attitude! > Dr Schwarzbein said during her radio interview that she had a one > hour class in nutrition in all the years she went to school, I am > sure this guy had no more. I think she started practice around 1990. It isn't like she went to medical school in the 1950s. Not much has changed. > Second, here in Marin county, we have a breast cancer rate that is > off the scale. Rich, white county and are women are the sickest in > the whole world. I've always felt that is was because of our > affluence, we went to the doctor more often and the cancer was > discovered, and therefore reported. I was close. Now it > looks like all the women that were prescribed hormone replacement > therapy. My mother was advised by a doctor nearly 40 years ago never to take hormone replacements. But when she went to a new HMO doctor a few years ago she was being pressured into taking them. The doctor even called her at home several times. She stood her ground and changed doctors. Now after all this fall out doctors are telling their patients that if they stop the HRT they WILL get osteoporosis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2002 Report Share Posted July 27, 2002 > i *think* sally > recommends 2:1, but don't recall exactly...anyone? Sally or recommends a 1:1 ratio, somewhere on the WAPF site. > as you said, americans tend to consume far too many omega 6s and not enough > omega 3s. however, for those of us consuming more traditional/primitive > diets that include grass-fed meat/organs, grass-fed milk products, maybe > some cod liver oil or fatty fish, and some veggies, with minimal grains, > imbalances are much less likely than those consuming SAD. considering > price's studies of traditional cultures for a moment, the masai subsisted > primarily on pastured milk, with some blood and some meat. very little in > the way of veggies and fruits. the remote swiss villagers subsisted > primarily on rye bread and milk products from pastured cows and goats, with > just a little bit of meat and seasonal veggies. neither of these groups were > taking fish oil capsules or flaxseed oil and were apparently none the worse > for it. I don't see what we're disagreeing on... I said that we should try to get as many omega-3s as we can without taking supplements such as fish oil capsules. The way to do that? Eat free-range eggs high in DHA, eat seafood high in EPA, take some cod liver oil, which has almost a gram a tsp of omega-3s, between EPA and DHA, etc. I specifically said that I think we _shouldn't_ take fish oil to supplement omega-3s. By the way, Dr. Price noted in N & PD that one of the primary characteristics almost univeral to the groups he studied was their preference for seafood. The only exceptions were inland groups that had no access, but all groups that had access but a high premium on seafood, and often went to great lengths to acquire large amounts of it. Seafood, of course, being a high source of omega-3s. > >>>>>>>If omega-3s are more unstable than omega-6s, and I doubt it is a > _whole_ > lot, but you would know better than me, > > --------->yes, as a whole, omega 3s have the most double bonds, which makes > them the least chemically stable. i believe DHA (omega 3) has 6 double > bonds - the most of any fatty acid. the omega 6 that americans consume the > most of - linoleic acid - has 2 double bonds. omega 3s start at 3 double > bonds and go up to 6 double bonds. My understanding is that saturated fats and other nutrients in diets such as we are trying to eat are necessary to protect these delicate nutrients from oxidization. If they are high-oxidizers when supplementing a poor diet but beneficial nutrients when part of a good diet, it seems to me we should try to get liberal quantites (from food, to avoid excess by supplementation) while eating a good diet, rather than avoid them because people eating a poor diet can get harmful effects from them. Peace, Chris ____ " What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for those who do them wrong. " --Saint Isaac the Syrian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2002 Report Share Posted July 28, 2002 Mike- >The art of individuality is lost, the art of thinking, realizing cause and >effect is mostly lost. Sad times we live in, or has it always been like this? I think it's more or less always been like this. Conformism is just part of our nature. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2002 Report Share Posted July 28, 2002 >>>>Suze, you mention Udo Erasmus' " Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill. " Have you read SF's thumbs-down review of that book? I bought it from my local health food store on the rec of the manager, and was vastly disappointed when I read SF's review of it. -------->yep, read it. i agree there are some problems with it. i took the trouble to double check their claim about the predominant fatty acid in coconut oil (lauric, not palmitic as he claims). however, he does cover some interesting territory that mary never gets into, in " Know Your Fats " (and vice versa). i generally do not quote from it, but since i checked mary's book first to find specific EFA recommendations and didn't see it readily listed, i decided to snag udo's recommendation since they're generally in the same ballpark, IIRC. whatever anyone's specific recommendation, they're all quite low in terms of percent of daily calories, which was basically my point i do think it would be interesting to know what the typical daily EFA content of paleo shore-dwellers might have been. or even WAP's maori...is there a certain melanin/EFA balance and antioxidant status that provides a good dose of EFAs, yet enough factors to protect from sun damage? Are we currently experiencing more sun damage due to ozone depletion, or not? how do those of us with little melanin adjust PUFA consumption and sun exposure to maintain optimal amounts of EFAs, yet protect our skin from PUFA oxidation...? always more questions than answers! Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2002 Report Share Posted July 28, 2002 >>>>>>>>My understanding is that saturated fats and other nutrients in diets such as we are trying to eat are necessary to protect these delicate nutrients from oxidization. If they are high-oxidizers when supplementing a poor diet but beneficial nutrients when part of a good diet, it seems to me we should try to get liberal quantites (from food, to avoid excess by supplementation) while eating a good diet, rather than avoid them because people eating a poor diet can get harmful effects from them. ------->PUFAs are chemically unstable and prone to oxidation...period. doesn't matter whether you get them from food or supplements. i don't recall reading that saturated fats protect unsaturates from oxidation...can you elaborate on this more, or direct me to a reference? i do recall somewhere on the WAPF site, or perhaps in NT it's mentioned that saturated fats help improve absorption of unsaturates, or something to that effect. i haven't read a biochemical explanation yet, which i'd like to do. as far as oxidation, *anti-oxidants* protect us from excessive lipid peroxidation. in that way, i can see how saturated fats that contain vit e, for example, would help protect us from the damaging effects of peroxidized unsaturates. i'm still not convinced we (humans in general) need *liberal* quantities of unsaturates (EFAs, in particular - we can manufacture the rest) even from dietary sources. regardless of the source of PUFAs, higher concentrations in our tissue put us at higher risk of oxidative damage. our cell membranes maintain a certain homeostasis between saturated and unsaturated fatty acids that is so necessary for regulating normal cellular functions and the transport of nutrients in/wastes out. if i were getting lots of sun exposure (which i am now) i would not want to be loading up on PUFAs - too much oxidation potential from the sun if my skin membranes have a high PUFA content. Nature has protected plants and mamals from sun-induced lipid oxidation by concentrating plants high in saturated fats near the equator (tropical plants such as coconut and palm, for example) and UNsaturated fats farther away from the equator (plants in colder climates tend to have a higher unsaturate/saturate ratio). carotenoids also help protect plants from sun-induced oxidation, as does melanin in humans. antioxidants do the same. you are right about WAP's traditional/primitive groups prizing seafood and that includes those close to the equator. fortunately, these folks had a good amount of melanin to protect their skin from sun oxidation, and i imagine local plant oils tended to be high in saturates offering further balance. but it would be interesting to know what the EFA content of the maori or dinka diets were...being of european ancestry, i don't have melanin going for me though, so i tend to go light on the PUFAs during the summer months. *winter* here in maine, is a whole other story though! Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2002 Report Share Posted July 28, 2002 Hi Suze, Not so very long ago when I was eating a lot of PUFA's, in canola and other main line recommended oils, and I noticed my pale skin getting very spotty and wierd looking when I got a little summer sun. Since I have changed to a more paleo diet, with mostly saturated fats, the spottiness has diminished dramatically. Surprise, suprise! I doubt if the ozone layer had much to do with that. It is the dietary changes and maybe the coconut oil I slather on my arms every day that must be making the difference. Sheila > >>>>Suze, you mention Udo Erasmus' " Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill. " Have > you read SF's thumbs-down review of that book? I bought it from my local > health food store on the rec of the manager, and was vastly disappointed > when I read SF's review of it. > > > -------->yep, read it. i agree there are some problems with it. i took the > trouble to double check their claim about the predominant fatty acid in > coconut oil (lauric, not palmitic as he claims). however, he does cover some > interesting territory that mary never gets into, in " Know Your Fats " (and > vice versa). i generally do not quote from it, but since i checked mary's > book first to find specific EFA recommendations and didn't see it readily > listed, i decided to snag udo's recommendation since they're generally in > the same ballpark, IIRC. whatever anyone's specific recommendation, they're > all quite low in terms of percent of daily calories, which was basically my > point > > i do think it would be interesting to know what the typical daily EFA > content of paleo shore-dwellers might have been. or even WAP's maori...is > there a certain melanin/EFA balance and antioxidant status that provides a > good dose of EFAs, yet enough factors to protect from sun damage? Are we > currently experiencing more sun damage due to ozone depletion, or not? how > do those of us with little melanin adjust PUFA consumption and sun exposure > to maintain optimal amounts of EFAs, yet protect our skin from PUFA > oxidation...? always more questions than answers! > > Suze Fisher > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ > mailto:s.fisher22@v... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2002 Report Share Posted July 28, 2002 >>>>.Hi Suze, Not so very long ago when I was eating a lot of PUFA's, in canola and other main line recommended oils, and I noticed my pale skin getting very spotty and wierd looking when I got a little summer sun. Since I have changed to a more paleo diet, with mostly saturated fats, the spottiness has diminished dramatically. Surprise, suprise! I doubt if the ozone layer had much to do with that. It is the dietary changes and maybe the coconut oil I slather on my arms every day that must be making the difference. Sheila ---->hi sheila, even though udo misses the mark in some other areas, i think he's on the mark re this issue. he writes that sunspots are a result of oxidized unsaturated fatty acids in our skin. interestingly, and not surprisingly, he writes that animals (including humans such as the inuit) living in polar regions have higher concentrations of PUFAs in their tissue than do those living closer to the equator. nature is so damn clever if we modern types could just become more aware of her patterns, and work within them, perhaps we could improve our health even just a little bit! btw, i too use coconut oil when i sunbathe. i use it all over my body except my face. the skin on my face is the most sensitive and prone to sun damage, so i use aubrey organics spf 8 (this is the only brand i'm aware of that doesn't contain the carcinogenic chemicals typically used in other sun protection products). but now that i'm pretty dark all over, i just use the CO on the rest of my body and nothing else. Suze Fisher Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/ mailto:s.fisher22@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2002 Report Share Posted July 29, 2002 > Hi Suze, > Not so very long ago when I was eating a lot of PUFA's, in canola and > other main line recommended oils, and I noticed my pale skin getting > very spotty and wierd looking when I got a little summer sun. When your eyes get very spotty it is called cataracts and they are surgically removed because you have become legally blind. I got them at aqe 45. Had to have them out, one at age 49 the other at age 50. I've seen perhaps 6 doctors, until I decided who would do the surgery. All the doctors and many of the nurses and assitants all said you are so young to have cataracts. One even said: " We don't understand it. As recently as 10 years ago all my cataract patients where in their 70s. Now I am seeing so many young people with cataracts. " Although the low fat movement started in the late 1970s it really got going strong in the early 1990s after the surgeon general started the war on fat (as referred to in the Taubes' article the Soft Science of Dietary Fat). Remember it was in the early 1990s that Mcs had the low fat hamburger called the Mclean and Canola oil was coming onto the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.